Question

Jake was stopped in his car at a red light. A pair of teenagers unexpectly ran up to the vehicle and smashed the windshield with a baseball bat and stole Jacks one of a kind very valuable baseball card on the front seat of his car. Jake quickly pulled his car over to the side, put his car into park and leaped out to chase the teenagers. Unfortunately he did not catch them. Worse yet upon returning to scene, he found that his car had been stolen. A few minutes later several blocks away the thief rammed Jake's vehicle into Mysty's truck. The teenagers and the thief have never been identified. Mysty has therefore sued Jake. Should Jake be held liable?
answer this question with proper explanation including facts and analysis.

Answer 1

Jake should be held liable because he leaped out to chase teenagers and left the car unlocked. If jake had locked the car and left with the keys, it would be difficult for the thief to steal it. The fact that Jake leaped out to chase the teenagers means he did not lock the car

Explanation:

Under the common law rule, the owner of a stolen vehicle will not be held liable for damages when the car is stolen and then involved in an accident that causes property damage or injury provided the risk was not foreseeable. Under the permissive use doctrine, the owner would only be held liable for property damage or injuries resulting from the negligent operation of the car under the permission of the owner

In this case, the risk of causing property damage or injury to others was foreseeable because Jake did not lock the car. Not locking the car means someone else can drive it including minors. In C.M. v. C.S., 2016 ONSC 315 11-28447 the court held the defendant liable for the injuries caused to the plaintiff because he had left his keys in his unlocked car. Very little evidence would be needed to hold Jake liable. Jake had a duty to ensure that he locks his car. Jake breached his duty to ensure that the car door is closed and locked. Following the breach of his duty, a thief stole the car and drove it. The thief would not have driven the car without the keys. A few minutes later several blocks away the thief rammed Jake's vehicle into Mysty's truck. In Wakelin v. Gourley (2005), a court held that little evidence is needed to hold a person liable for negligence. Consistent with the ruling in C.M. v. C.S., 2016 ONSC 315 11-28447, Jake would be held liable for leaving his car unlocked making it easier for a thief to steal it and drive it