Supreme Court Ruling: Car Garage Not Liable for Injuries in Stolen Car, Says SCC

In this document we will discuss about Supreme Court Ruling and below are the summary points of this document:- The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a car garage is not liable for injuries to a teenager in a stolen car. The majority decision was written by Justice Andromache Karakatsanis, while a dissenting judgment was written by Justice Brown with Justice Gascon. The court found that there was no causation between the garage's negligence and the teenager's injury, and contributory negligence was present.

“CAR GARAGE DOES NOT OWE DUTY TO
TEENAGER INJURED IN STOLEN CAR, SAYS
SCC”,

Table of Contents
Answer 1....................................................................................................................................3
Answer 2....................................................................................................................................3
Answer 3....................................................................................................................................3
Answer 4....................................................................................................................................3
References..................................................................................................................................5

Answer 1
Supreme Court of Canada disagreed with the decision of the lower court. The reason
provided behind the same was that the risk which was related to the negligence of Rankin
was the risk of theft (Wilbur, 2018). Further, there was an absence of causation between
damage and the risk of injury. Thus there was a situation of contributory negligence, as one
should not leave cars with keys unattended. Further, in the concerned case, the claim relating
to injury would include tort liability as well. Thus, the claim was not valid.
Answer 2
The majority of the decision was written by Justice Andromache Karakatsanis. Further, the
dissenting judgement was written by Justice Brown with Justice Gascon (Wilbur, 2018).
Answer 3
The decision of the court is justifiable. The four elements which are essential in order to file a
successful tort case are a breach of duty, duty, injury and causation (Cornford, 2016). In order
to make a tort claim, it is necessary that breach of duty should be made by the defendant
against the plaintiff. Negligence tort can be specified as failure to a specific code of conduct
which is necessary for every individual to comply and legal duty of the public to act in a
specified manner in order to reduce the risk of harms to others (Goldberg, Sebok and
Zipursky, 2016 ). In the present case as Rankin was obliged to take certain security measure
relating to motor vehicles available in the garage. If he had not behaved in a negligible
manner, the theft might not have been conducted. But there is no relation between his
negligent behaviour regarding safety measure of vehicles in garage and the accident.

Answer 4
The main insights from the concerned case are that a decision cannot be based merely on
rumour or additional evidence. In order to prove the views specified by the claimant
availability of first-hand evidence is necessary (Fullbrook, 2017). Further, explanation has
been provided regarding the long-standing principle of care that it needs risk of harm to be
foreseeable in a reasonable manner and not on the basis of mere possibility.

References
Cornford, T. (2016). Towards a public law of tort. Routledge.
Fulbrook, J. (2017). Outdoor activities, negligence and the law. Routledge.
Goldberg, J. C., Sebok, A. J., & Zipursky, B. C. (2016). Tort Law: Responsibilities and
Redress. Aspen Publishers.
Wilbur T. (2018). Car garage does not owe duty to teenager injured in stolen car, says SCC.
Retrieved from <https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/author/tim-wilbur/car-
garage-does-not-owe-duty-to-teenager-injured-in-stolen-car-says-scc-15737/>.