Canadian Judges OK with Slavery

From here: (Ottawa Citizen/National Post Monday March 13 2017 P.# MP3)

Ontario garage owner gets chance to fight liability for teen injured in stolen car crash

TORONTO — A garage owner will get a chance to argue before the Supreme Court of Canada that he should not be held responsible for the terrible injuries a teen suffered when he and a friend stole a car from his lot and crashed it.

Canada’s top court agreed last week to hear the highly unusual case in which the injured teen successfully sued the garage for leaving the car unlocked and its keys in the ashtray.

Court records show the teens had been drinking and smoking marijuana when they trespassed on Chad Rankin’s property in Paisley, Ont., late on an evening in July 2006. One of the teens, then 16, decided to steal a Toyota Camry even though he had never driven before.

The duo headed to Walkerton but never made it. The passenger, who can only be identified as J.J., was left with catastrophic brain injuries in the ensuing crash. J.J., then 15, sued his friend and his friend’s mother as well as Rankin for negligence.

Superior Court Justice Johanne Morissette determined Rankin owed J.J. a duty of care because, among other things, people entrusted with motor vehicles “must assure themselves that the youth in their community are not able to take possession of such dangerous objects.” 

WRONG, YOU LYING CRIMINAL BITCH! People aren't responsible for other people's kids! Not until/unless there's a pre-existing contractual obligation - which comes with rights, too!

The jury then found the injured teen and the defendants negligent, but laid the bulk of the blame — 37 per cent — on the garage owner. 

All this proves is that 37% of ignorant juries will go along with judges' lies because authority.

Last October, Ontario’s Court of Appeal refused to overturn the trial verdict, saying that Rankin did indeed owe J.J. a duty of care. It also found the jury’s findings reasonable.

“On the face of things, the notion that an innocent party could owe a duty of care to someone who steals from him seems extravagant, but matters are not so simple,” Appeal Court Justice Grant Huscroft wrote for the panel. “It is well established that the duty of care operates independently of the illegal or immoral conduct of an injured party.”

http://law.uwo.ca/news/2014/images/huscroft_coa.jpg

Ah, It Is Known, Kaleesi!" "Well-Established" by which gang of negligent criminals, again?!

And that's not "extravagant," you flaming moron - it's called "SLAVERY" and it's your crime!

A duty of care only operates independent of their criminal actions if you had a contract with them, retard.

In other words, you aren't allowed to be either negligent or criminally negligent in providing a contracted-for service, but when they straight-out fucking STEAL FROM YOU, no contractual responsibility exists!

The Appeal Court found that ample evidence supported the conclusion of “foreseeability” that a car might be stolen.

"SINCE a car MIGHT be stolen, it WILL be stolen, so it's all YOUR fault when they steal it!"

Hey if the courts can foresee ALL crimes happening, doesn't it make them ALL their fault?

Trial witnesses, the court noted, testified that Rankin’s Garage routinely left cars unlocked with the keys inside. In addition, evidence was that the garage took no measures to keep people off the property when it was closed; there had been a previous auto theft from the lot; and joyriding in the area was common.

So now you're responsible to the thieves because you made it too easy for them to steal your stuff, and then take it from your possession to another place where they injured them selves!

Rankin, Huscroft found, had abrogated his responsibility for securing the cars against theft by minors like J.J. and while a different jury might have parcelled out the blame differently, its conclusions were not unreasonable. The court also ordered Rankin to pay J.J. $30,000 in legal costs.

He had no fucking responsibility to PREVENT THEFT - he wasn't a cop, lawyer, or judge!

He had no contractual or social responsibility to keep the thieves who stole from him safe!

He wasn't negligent in leaving his own vehicles on his own property, you fucking fascists.

It’s not clear when the Supreme Court will hear the case.