I find much to think
about in the analysis in JJ v CC, 2016 ONCA 718, available
at http://canlii.ca/t/gtxj7, released last week. It's had me
somewhat stuck much of this morning.
The facts:
A jury found the appellant, James Chadwick Rankin (“Chad Rankin”),
carrying on business as Rankin’s Garage & Sales (“Rankin’s
Garage”), partly liable for injuries suffered by the respondent,
J.J. who, along with his friend C.C., stole a Toyota Camry from
Rankin’s Garage and took it for a joyride. The car had been left
unlocked on an unsecured lot, with the keys in the ashtray. J.J.
was a passenger in the car, driven by C.C., when it crashed. He
suffered a catastrophic brain injury.
The Court of Appeal held that Rankin’s Garage owed J.J. a duty of
care.
Issues:
The court uses the traditional Caparo/Cooper test
for new duty of care situations, so it relies heavily on
foreseeability, proximity and lack of policy reasons to negate a
duty. I wonder if more should have been made of the garage's
voluntary creation of a situation of potential risk or peril,
which might then make both foreseeability and proximity less
crucial.
The court, in passing, says the law on whether a third party (so
someone injured by the thief's use of the car) is unclear in
Canada, with cases going both ways depending largely on how
foreseeable the subsequent injury to the third party is at the
time of the theft. I wonder what this case, with its stress on
proximity, tells us about the result in the future in third party
cases.
Much is made of the fact that the thieves are minors. I wonder
how much the analysis would have differed if they were over 18
years old.
The court does not spend much time on the intertwined issue of an
intervening act and a separate remoteness analysis (rather than as
part of the duty of care analysis). That may be because the case
on appeal was argued just on the duty issue, but for discussion
purposes the issue nonetheless arises.
JJ was found 10% contributorily negligent. I wonder if that's too
low, though I understand the real-world considerations the jury
was processing. The garage was found 37% responsible.
Stephen
--
Professor Stephen G.A. Pitel
Faculty of Law, Western University
(519) 661-2111 ext 88433
Vice President, University of Western Ontario Faculty Association
Treasurer and Corporate Secretary, Canadian Association for Legal
Ethics