Case Summary: Rankin (Rankin's Garage & Sales) v. J.J.

LIABILITY ISSUES

A garage was found not liable for injuries caused by the thief of one of its vehicles because the fact that it was reasonably foreseeable that vehicles might be stolen from its premises does not make it reasonably foreseeable that the stolen vehicle would be operated unsafely so as to injure the plaintiff.

Rankin (Rankin's Garage & Sales) v. J.J., 2018 SCC 19

FACTS AND ISSUES:

In July 2006 in the village of Paisley Ontario, the 15-year-old Plaintiff J and his 16-year-old friend C became intoxicated at C's home when they drank alcohol (some provided by C's mother) and smoked cannabis. After midnight, they went out walking around town, looking to steal valuables from unlocked cars. They found the Defendant Rankin's Garage property not secured. The boys walked around the lot until they found an unlocked vehicle with its keys in the ashtray. The Defendant C (who did not have a driver's license and had never driven a car on the road before) decided to steal the car and instructed his friend J to "get in". While driving the vehicle, C became involved in an accident in which J suffered catastrophic brain injury.

The Garage's personnel testified that before closing the business each day, they would physically check to make sure that all vehicles on the premises were locked and that the keys were stored in a locked safe. However, there was evidence from several witnesses that Rankins had a practice of leaving cars unlocked with keys in them. There was also evidence that a few years previously a vehicle had been stolen from Rankin's Garage after midnight and taken on a joyride. Furthermore, police testified that vehicle theft or mischief was commonplace in the area, such that police would routinely advertise to warn drivers to lock their vehicles.

J sued Rankin's Garage, his friend C and C's mother in negligence.

At trial, the trial judge held that Rankin's Garage owed a duty of care to J, based on previous cases that the trial judge felt had established the necessary duty of care. She concluded that the risk of harm to J was reasonably foreseeable to the garage owner because the garage knew that he had an obligation to secure vehicles on his property and that it "ought to be foreseeable that injury could occur if a vehicle were used by inebriated teenagers". The trial judge found that there were no policy reasons to negate that duty of care.

The jury found all parties (including J) negligent and apportioned damages 37% to the Garage, 23% to C, 30% to C's mother and 10% to J. The jury relied on the following particulars of negligence: the vehicle was left unlocked with the keys in it where the Garage knew or ought to have known of the potential risk of theft, the Garage had provided very little security and there were testimonial inconsistencies on the part of the Garage personnel as to their policies and practices.

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision but concluded that the trial judge had erred in concluding that the duty of care had already been recognized in law. Thus, the Ontario Court of Appeal treated this as a novel theory of negligence and applied the two-part test set out in Anns v. Merton London Borough Counsel [1978] AC 728, and Cooper v. Hobart, 2001 SCC 79. The Court of Appeal held that there were sufficient foreseeability of harm and proximity between J and the Garage to support a duty of care. The Court of Appeal reasoned that since the business commercially stored many vehicles, it had a responsibility to secure them against theft by minors, in whose hands they would be dangerous. The Court of Appeal concluded that a general risk of theft includes a risk of theft by minors.

Rankin's Garage appealed.

HELD: For Rankin's Garage; appeal allowed and case dismissed as against the Garage.

This was a split decision with the Majority decision written by Karakatsanis, J. (concurred in by McLachlin C. J. and Abella, Moldaver, Wagner, Cote and Rowe, JJ) and the Dissent written to by Brown, J (Gascon, J. concurring).

The Majority summarized the law with respect to the two-part Anns/Cooper analysis.

The Majority summarized the overall principal as follows: 18 It is not necessary to conduct a full Anns/Cooper analysis if a previous case has already established that the duty of care in question (or an analogous duty) exists: Cooper, at para. 36; Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 114 (S.C.C.), at paras. 5-6; Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc. (Receiver of), 2017 SCC 63, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 855 (S.C.C.), at para. 26. If it is necessary to determine whether a novel duty exists, the first stage of the Anns/Cooper test asks whether there is a relationship of proximity in which the failure to take reasonable care might foreseeably cause loss or harm to the plaintiff: Knight v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 45 (S.C.C.), at para. 39; see also Childs v. Desormeaux, 2006 SCC 18, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 643 (S.C.C.), at para. 12; Cooper, at para. 30. Once foreseeability and proximity are made out, a prima facie duty of care is established.

19 Whether or not a duty of care exists is a question of law and I proceed on that basis: Galaske v...