Client Update: Negligence: what is reasonably foreseeable?
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada clarifies determination of what is “reasonably foreseeable”: Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v J.J., 2018 SCC 19.
The case involved two teenagers under the influence of alcohol and marijuana who, while looking for valuables to steal from vehicles, found a vehicle unlocked with the keys in its ashtray at Rankin’s Garage & Sales. They took the vehicle and were on their way to pick up a friend when they were involved in an accident that left one of the teenagers with catastrophic brain injury. At trial and appeal, the garage was held 37% liable. The Supreme Court of Canada reversed that finding in a 7-2 decision, holding that the evidence did not establish a duty of care owed by the garage; the evidence did not establish that the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable.
The Court reiterated the general principle that “parties owe a duty of care to those whom they ought reasonably to have in contemplation as being at risk when they act”.
Reasonable foreseeability is to be determined objectively: what would have been known by someone with the defendant’s knowledge and experience? This cannot be based on hindsight (i.e. – knowing the harm that has in fact occurred), but instead must be determined at the time of the alleged wrongdoing. There must be facts in evidence to support a finding that someone in the defendant’s position reasonably should have foreseen risk of the type of harm that subsequently took place to a person in the plaintiff’s situation. The evidence in this case established that the risk of theft was foreseeable by the garage, but did not establish foreseeability of the risk of personal injury caused by the unsafe operation of a stolen vehicle:
“…I do not accept that anyone that leaves a vehicle unlocked with the keys in it should always reasonably anticipate that someone could be injured if the vehicle were stolen. This would extend tort liability too far. Physical injury is only foreseeable when there is something in the facts to suggest that there is not only a risk of theft, but that the stolen vehicle might be operated in a dangerous manner.”1
What could this mean for you?
In the context of a stolen vehicle, this decision focuses liability on those most directly involved rather than sharing liability among all potential sources of financial compensation. More broadly, the decision provides clarification for the law of negligence. An individual or business should not be liable for harm they would not reasonably have foreseen. Insurers and others seeking contribution for the losses claimed need evidence to establish knowledge of the risk of harm.
This recent decision reinforces the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27, where a man suffered extreme mental illness after seeing a dead fly in a large bottle of water. In that case, the Court was focused on remoteness, but touched on reasonable foreseeability stating that “unusual or extreme reactions to events caused by negligence are imaginable but not reasonably foreseeable”.
Possibility is not foreseeability.
1 Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v J.J., 2018 SCC 19, at para 34.
Archive
On April 21, 2015, the Nova Scotia government declared that the new Pension Benefits Act (passed in 2011) and new Pension Benefits Regulations will come into effect on June 1, 2015. The new Regulations follow the new Act and draft Regulations summarized in…
Read MoreAn uninsured driver strikes another vehicle, injuring its occupants. These injured persons obtain a settlement from their own motor vehicle insurer (pursuant to Section D of the standard policy), and they assign their action against…
Read MoreThe Editors’ Corner Michelle Black and Sean Kelly Hello! We are very pleased to be the new Atlantic Employers’ Counsel (AEC) editors. We look forward to bringing you what we hope you will find to be interesting…
Read MoreFollowing several Supreme Court of Canada decisions in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the law of constructive dismissal was well defined – or so many thought. The Court’s decision in Potter v. New Brunswick Legal…
Read MoreIn our May 20, 2014 client update, we reported on significant changes affecting automobile insurance in Prince Edward Island, including changes to no-fault benefits available under section B and changes to the damages cap for minor…
Read More2014 LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT ATLANTIC CANADA LEGISLATIVE UPDATE As we move forward in 2015, we know our region’s employers will want to be aware of new legislation that has passed or could soon pass that…
Read MoreOn January 28, 2015, the Office of the Superintendent of Insurance issued a bulletin in Nova Scotia. The 2015 minor injury cap has been set at $8,352, an increase of 1.7 per cent over 2014.…
Read MoreIn preparing for the 2015 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes that may impact disclosure to and interactions with your shareholders. This update highlights what is new in the 2015 proxy…
Read MoreDuring the Fall 2014 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Lands Protection Act. The amendments have just been proclaimed and were effective January 1, 2015.…
Read MoreThe Editor’s Corner Clarence Bennett This issue focuses on the family and the interaction between employment and family obligations. As 2014 comes to a close, I would like to extend Seasons Greetings to all of…
Read More