Overview Of Rankin’S Garage Case

Facts

In 2006, two young boys J and C, both minors, were at C’s mother's house where they participated in underage drinking (alcohol provided by the mother) and smoking marijuana. After midnight, the two boys went walking around town seeking unlocked vehicles with the intent to steal from them. The boys walked to Rankin’s commercial car garage, which was not secured, so the boys went looking for unlocked cars. They noticed an unlocked Toyota Camry with they keys still in it and C decided to take it for a drive to pick up another friend and convinced J to go for the drive with him. Neither boy had their drivers license. On the highway, the car crashed and J suffered a serious brain injury. Rankin’s Garage, C, and C’s mother were all sued by J for negligence.

Procedural History

At the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the judge held that Rankin’s Garage owed a duty of care to J. The judge went further to say that Rankin knew he had an obligation to secure his vehicles on his property. Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judges holding of Rankin’s Garage to owe a duty of care to J. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.Issues:Did the commercial garage owe a duty to guard the garage from minors? Was there a risk of foreseeable personal injury? Did the garage owe a duty of care to J?

Decision

Rankin’s Garage appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal because the garage owner was found to owe a duty of care to J. It was also found that all parties involved in this case including J himself had been negligent. Rankin’s garage being most liable. The garage was easily accessible by anyone and the Court of Appeal found that there was “ample evidence to support the conclusion of foreseeability in this case” for theft in general.

Rule

Section 4(2) of the Occupier’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, states that “a person who is on premises with the intention of committing or in the commission of a criminal act” is deemed to have “willingly assumed all risks.” In these circumstances the duty of care for the occupier are lessened. This incident happened on a public road, not on the premises of Rankin’s Garage.

Reasons

Rankin had to have known theft was a risk. Theft was deemed foreseeable in this case whether it was a minor or an adult. But was injury to a minor foreseeable? Being a car garage, it would be the ideal place for someone, no matter what age, to break into a car and steal it. Especially a car garage with no security. Although the foreseeability was unclear to specifically a minor stealing the car and becoming injured off property, Rankin is held liable for negligence for leaving the keys inside an unlocked vehicle. Between foreseeability and negligence, those are the reasons why Rankin is found owing a duty of care to J by the Ontario Court of Appeal.