Review of Rankin V J.j. (torts) Case

In July 2006, two minors at the time, fifteen-year-old J and sixteen-year-old C were at C's home, drinking and smoking marijuana where C's mother then provided some alcohol. Later that night, the boys went into town with the intention of stealing valuables from unlocked cars. While roaming the town, the boys found R (Rankin's Garage and Sales)'s lot unlocked and unsecured. They then proceeded to enter, search and finally found an unlocked car with the keys in the ashtray. C decided to steal the car and told J to "get in" even though he did not have a driver's license or driven on the road before. C began driving out of the garage and then began driving towards the highway. While they were on the highway, C crashed the car which caused J to suffered a fatal brain injury. Rankin's Garage and Sales, C, and C's mother were sued for negligence.

The jury found Rankin's Garage and Sales 37% responsible, C 23% responsible, C's mother 30% responsible and J 10% responsible for his injuries. The presiding judge then found R (Rankin's Garage and Sales) culpable because R should have known that leaving his garage unlocked and unsecured could have led to someone being injured and therefore owed J a duty of care (In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others). In determining whether or not R owed a duty of care to J, the majority of the Supreme Court looked at whether the garage owner would have known that leaving an unlocked car with the keys inside would, therefore, cause harm to someone like J. Though it is proven that leaving the keys inside an unlocked car would likely result from it being stolen, there was no evidence proving that R would have known that someone would have gotten injured after the car being stolen. The Supreme Court then noted that just because it is possible for such scenario, it does not mean it is reasonably foreseeable under the law. Rankin's Garage, as a result, did not owe J a duty of care.

I disagree with the decision of the court. In the division of responsibility, R (Rankin's Garage and Sales) was given 37% responsibility for the injuries of J when they should've been given 10%. C 30%, C's mother 20%, and J 40%. R had no way of knowing that two minor were purposely going to steal valuables of unlocked cars. C's mother should've been given 20% because she is just as much responsible as R as she knew the boys were drinking and smoking as she also provided them with alcohol. Lastly, J is 40 % responsible, even though he was a minor at the time, he is still an individual with his own moral compass. He agreed on drinking and smoking and then going into town to steal valuables from unlocked cars. He then decidedly entered the stolen vehicle knowing C did not have his driver's license or no previous driving experience. Therefore, I believe the verdict to be inaccurate and the distribution of responsibility unfair.