If you practice plaintiff personal injury or insurance defence, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Rankin (Rankin’s garage) v. J.J. will be of interest. In particular, you may want to hear why Professor Allan Hutchinson believes the SCC got it wrong.
This video includes a review of the opinion of the dissenters, Gaston and Brown, who stated that it was the duty of the trial judge to make a finding of fact regarding reasonable foreseeability.
The majority decided that it was reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiffs’ stole a car at the garage (the keys were left inside). However, it was not reasonably foreseeable that one of the plaintiffs would get into an accident and suffer a brain injury. Therefore, Rankin’s garage was not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.
Having watched the video and considered the case, what do you think? Feel free to contact me and let me know your opinion.
At CPDonline we serve your learning needs. Is there a topic you would like to learn more about? Please contact me and if we have your topic in our library, I will send you a direct link. If not, we’ll add it to our training wishlist.
*see individual programs and jurisidictional allowances for accredited hours/requirements for Canadian law societies.