Business Law BLAW 150: Analyzing Rankin's Garage Liability Case

This case study analyzes the legal implications of the Rankin's Garage case, where a teen suffered catastrophic brain injury after stealing a car from the garage. The court found Rankin's Garage partially liable due to negligence in securing vehicles, contributing 37% to the damages. The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal, emphasizing the duty of care for vehicle owners to prevent unauthorized access. The driver and his mother were also held liable for 23% and 30% of the damages respectively, while the passenger was assigned 10% of the liability. This case highlights the legal responsibilities of property owners in preventing foreseeable harm.

“GARAGE LIABLE IN PART OF TEEN’S
‘CATASTROPHIC BRAIN INJURY”

Summary
On July 8, 2006, two boys went out to steal unlocked car from Rankin’s Garage. Further, car
was easily accessible by any individual to steal or to drive from the garage as Rankin leave it
unlocked along with keys. One of the thief sat behind the steering, despite the fact that he had
not driven the car before and was intoxicated by consumption of beer and vodka and
marijuana. The other one sat as a passenger. As the thief was having no earlier experience of
car driving, he crashed the car on the way to Walkerton.
The trial judge specified that people who are having possession of motor vehicle should
assure that any non-competent person is not in a position to take possession. Thus, in the
present case, as no appropriate security measures were taken by Rankin and no duty of care
has been conducted by him, thus the liability of damage to the extent of 37% has been applied
in him by the court. Further, the driver’s mother was liable to pay for 30% of damages and
driver for 23% of the liability for negligence. The remaining liability of 10% was attributed to
the passenger.
Details of decision
Court of appeal is principal intermediate appellate court. The judge who wrote the decision
was Justice Grant Huscroft.
Whether the Court agreed or disagreed with the decision of the lower court
The court agreed on the decision of the lower court and dismissed the appeal present by
Rankin against the jury’s ruling (Paul 2016). The reason behind the same was the availability
of evidence which proved the negligence of the owner of Rankin’s Garage because the same
theft incident of another vehicle had happened a few years earlier from the garage due to the

same reason. Therefore, the judge stated that the garage owner was legally bound to take
diligent care and apply security measures relating to vehicles an owned by him. The same
responsibility is not accomplished by Rankin. Thus his appeal has not been accepted by the
court.

References
Paul G. (2016). Garage liable in part for teen's "catastrophic brain injury". Retrieved from <
https://www.thespec.com/news-story/6906477-garage-liable-in-part-for-teen-s-
catastrophic-brain-injury-/>