# data[].attributes.body
This is an informative video about the basics of torts and specifically negligence torts. This video tells the viewer the basic things one needs to know to understand a tort of negligence and how they are to be carried out. The creator of this video covers things like defining what a tort is, how a negligence tort is conducted and its criteria, as well as how a negligence lawsuit can be defended. This video is a basic introduction to the topic of torts in regards to negligence and gives the viewer basic knowledge to understand the information being given about negligence torts. After watching this video all other information on this padlet will be understandable.

# data[].attributes.body
This is an image of a flow chart that shows how torts are sorted and the different subsections within the sections of tort law. Not only does this chart show how the lawsuits themselves are sorted, but it also shows other components of tort law such as how the defendant can be found guilty and what the types of damages are. Damages are what is paid out to the plaintiff as compensation for being wronged. The point of a tort is for the wronged party to get what they deserve as a result of what took place, this is done through tort law because it is a civil matter, not a criminal one.

# data[].attributes.body
This video talks about a case very important to negligence tort, the case of Donoghue v Steveson was the case that established “Duty of Care”, which is the care owed by the responsible person to those impacted by their actions. The case discussed in this video is about how a woman was sold a ginger beer which was intended for her friend and after consuming the beer it was found that a snail was inside. Mrs. Donoghue became ill and was able to charge the company producing the beer with negligence because they had a duty to make sure their products were safe and would not cause harm. The acts that led to Mrs. Donoghue becoming ill were the fault of negligent acts of the beer company and they did not have a good enough defence.

# data[].attributes.body
In this photo, we see a person who is about to slip and fall because they are walking on a wet floor. As well, in this photo we see a defence to negligence because the owner of the business has put up a wet floor sign letting citizens know that they should proceed with caution. So with putting out this wet floor sign the owner is not satisfying all three criteria for an act to be considered negligent. There may be damage caused to the person because of the wet floor and the owner does have a duty to keep the place safe for citizens to move about, but there is no breach of duty because he or she has warned those in the area of the danger with a sign right where the danger is. The relevance of this photo is tort negligence is that it is a perfect example of how to avoid it.

# data[].attributes.body
In this news article, the writer is talking about how there is another form of negligence in torts called negligence of entrustment. We do not have negligence of entrustment in Ontario but many other provinces in Canada do, and this article is discussing the impact incorporating this subsection into torts dealing with negligence and how it would impact Ontario citizens, as well as using a case for reference. What negligence of entrustment is, is when someone trusts an item with someone they know is at risk of misusing that item, such as someone lending someone with multiple accidents a car. If added in Ontario is adds another level to negligence torts that must be taken into consideration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ontario's Court of Appeal has rejected an insurer's appeal that might have helped to establish a tort of "negligent entrustment" in the province.

In Ligaj v. Ismail, a decision released on Mar. 20, CUMIS General Insurance Company tried to make the case for the tort of negligent entrustment, which exists in other provinces, but not necessarily in Ontario.

Essentially, negligent entrustment is when someone is held liable for their negligence in entrusting something - a car, for example - to someone who is a known risk for using that object to cause harm or injury to someone else.

The lower court decision turned on whether the car's owner, the father Sherif Ismail, chalked the tires of his Honda because he was suspicious of his son, Nihad Ismail. His son ultimately took his father's car and got into an accident. (The details of the accident are not specified in the court documents.)

The lower court ruled that Nihad took his father's car without Sherif's consent, either express or implied. The lower court therefore rejected CUMIS's claim that Sherif negligently entrusted his vehicle to his son.

In upholding the lower court's decision, the Court of Appeal questioned whether the tort of negligent entrustment even exists in Ontario, as it does in other jurisdictions.

"Even assuming this tort exists in Ontario in relation to motor vehicles, we fail to see how it could be established in the face of the trial judge's findings concerning no implied consent," the Appeal Court ruled.

CUMIS's appeal turned on the father chalking the tires of his Honda, suggesting that his son was not trustworthy, an element of negligent entrustment. But the Appeal Court found the trial judge did not make an error in rejecting the tire-chalking evidence put forward by the father.

"The inference urged by CUMIS - that the appellant's discovery evidence amounted to an acknowledgement that he began chalking the Honda's tires four or five years prior to the accident and continued doing so up to the date of the accident - is not a necessary inference arising from the record," the Appeal Court ruled. "The trial judge did not find Sherif Ismail to be a credible witness."

The court also found against the insurer's claim that the trial judge erred in concluding that there was no evidence that Sherif Ismail was chalking the tires on his Honda because he suspected that his son, Nihad (or another unlicensed driver in his household) would take the vehicle. In this instance, the Appeal Court ruled, the insurer misstated the judge's findings.

"The trial judge found there was no evidence to explain why Sherif Ismail was chalking his tires and that she was unable to conclude that he did it because of Nihad Ismail," the Appeal Court wrote. "There is no palpable and overriding error in this finding. The trial judge noted there was no evidence of a course of poor behaviour or troublemaking on Nihad's part before the accident. Nor was there evidence concerning why Sherif Ismail was chalking his tires."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tire-chalking case ends insurer's bid to establish tort of negligent entrustment in Ontario

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ontario's Court of Appeal has rejected an insurer's appeal that might have helped to establish a tort of "negligent entrustment" in the province. In Ligaj v. Ismail, a decision released on Mar. 20, CUMIS General Insurance Company tried to make...

# data[].attributes.body
In this picture, the author is depicting a number of tort lawsuits that one can be filed and has done so in a way that is fun for the reader. In this comic Humpty Dumpty files a malpractice, defective designing, and negligence lawsuit we he believed all contributed to his fall. As well we see the presence of punitive damages because the wall has been changed so no one else we get hurt on it as well. Torts are put in place make sure those who are wronged get what they deserve and those who do wrong see their actions must be changed, and through this comic one can learn that in a creative way.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses a case were underage boys who were intoxicated stole a car from one of the boy's fathers garage and took the car for a ride, this ended with both boys being severely injured along with committing a number of crimes that night. The part of this case that has to do with a tort of negligence is that the garage which the cars were kept in was not properly secured by the father and this action made it possible for the boys to gain access to the cars. One of the defences to the negligence tort is illegality, as in the negligence occurred when an illegal action took place, which in this case it did. This is another case were a negligent act was committed but because of the many defences to negligence, it should not pass.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Does an owner of a garage owe a duty of care to teenagers who steal and drive the garage's serviced cars? On October 5, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") heard submissions on this unusual question in the case of James Chadwick Rankin cob Rankin's Garage & Sales v JJ by his Litigation Guardian, JAJ et al, Docket 37323 [ Rankin].

While reasons have yet to be released, Rankin grapples with a significant issue: whether the respondent's illegal behavior, namely, stealing and crashing a car taken from the garage, negates Mr. Rankin's duty of care as the garage owner. It is expected that the SCC's decision will impact the defense of illegality (also known as ex turpi causa) and what role illegality should play in the duty of care analysis for future tort cases.
Facts
On July 8, 2006, the respondent, J.J., and his friends, C.C. and T.T., were spending time together at a dam in Paisley, Ontario. At the time, all three friends were between 15-16 years of age. At around 8:30 PM, the friends returned to C.C.'s house to drink beer that C.C.'s mother had bought for them. After C.C.'s mother went to bed, the friends drank vodka with orange juice and smoked a marijuana cigarette.

What happened next was a tragic set of circumstances. J.J. and C.C. decided to leave the house. They went to Rankin's Garage, the dealership and garage owned by the appellant, James "Chad" Rankin. In the garage's storage lot, J.J. and C.C. found an unlocked Toyota Camry with the keys in the ashtray. The two teenagers decided to go for a joyride. C.C. was the driver, though it was his first time driving and he did not have a driver's licence, while J.J. was in the passenger seat. While driving to a neighboring town, C.C. got into a serious car accident. J.J. suffered catastrophic brain injuries as a result. C.C. was charged with several offences, including theft and driving with over 0.08% blood alcohol concentration, and pled guilty to some of them. J.J. was not charged.
Judicial History Superior Court of Justice
J.J., through his litigation guardian, sued Rankin's Garage, claiming that Mr. Rankin owed a duty of care to J.J. to secure his garage's vehicles when they came to his garage to be serviced. The trial was held on September 25, 2014, before a jury.

At trial, the jury heard testimony about the security of Rankin's Garage from other witnesses, including Mr. Rankin himself. Several witnesses testified that when they brought their cars in to Rankin's Garage to be serviced, Mr. Rankin instructed the customers to leave the keys in unsecured places, including under mats or in the car. Mr. Rankin denied this, stating he asked customers to leave their keys in a locked drop box, and would ensure that the cars were locked every single night after closing.

The jury was not strongly swayed by Mr. Rankin's testimony. Nor was J.J.'s engagement of criminal activity by participating in the stealing of the vehicle prior to the accident particularly persuasive to the jury. At the end of the trial, the jury found that Mr. Rankin indeed owed a duty of care, and bore largest portion of liability at 37%. C.C.'s mother, C.C., and J.J. bore 30%, 23%, and 10% of the liability, respectively.
Ontario Court of Appeal
Mr. Rankin appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal ("ONCA") upheld the trial judge's decision that a duty of care existed, but came to that conclusion after a full analysis under the tests laid out in the British case Anns v Merton London Borough Council, as used in the Canadian context by the SCC in Cooper v Hobart, 2001 SCC 79 [ Anns-Cooper test].

Huscroft JA, writing for a unanimous bench, rejected Mr. Rankin's argument that the defence of illegality applied here, as J.J. had been a willing participant in taking the Camry and was trying to claim damages from the resulting accident ( JJ v CC, 2016 ONCA 718 [ JJ v CC]). Citing from British Columbia v Zastowny, 2008 SCC 4 [ Zastowny], Huscroft JA stated that J.J.'s civil suit was not "profit[ing] from illegal or wrong conduct or would permit evasion or rebate of a penalty prescribed by the criminal law" ( JJ v CC, para 71).

Huscroft also rejected the appellant's argument that J.J.'s behavior was enough to negate the duty of care under public policy considerations in the second part of the Anns-Cooper test, stating: "Recognition of a duty of care regardless of the conduct of the injured party means only that wrongdoers may seek compensation for damages caused by a defendant's negligence, not their own" ( JJ v CC, para 72). In other words, the duty of care analysis should not consider the plaintiff's criminal activity, but merely goes towards assigning liability amongst relevant parties.
Commentary: Considerations of Illegal Behavior
Will the SCC uphold the ONCA's decision to reject the defence of illegality? It is very likely. It is not an issue discussed at length in either the ONCA decision, nor in Rankin's factum to the SCC. Indeed, the defence of illegality has been narrowly construed by the SCC in the leading case of Hall v Hebert, [1993] 2 SCR 159 [ Hebert]. McLachlin J (as she was at the time) states the defence only applies when recovery under tort law would "allow for recovery for what is illegal" ( Hebert, 176). The defence is to prevent inconsistency in the judicial system, where the "law is giving with one hand what it takes away with the other" ( Hebert, 178). For example, in Zastowny, the SCC refused to grant wage compensation for the plaintiff, Mr. Zastowny, for time lost serving a prison sentence. Since Mr. Zastowny was responsible for criminal acts that resulted in a prison sentence, recovering lost wages would be compensating him for those acts. The defence of illegality applied.

Given the rigidity of the defence of illegality, it is not surprising that Mr. Rankin has taken a different route in his appeal to the SCC. Starting at paragraph 108 of his factum to the SCC (found here), Mr. Rankin argues that J.J.'s criminal activity should negate the duty of care under public policy considerations of the Anns-Cooper test.

As mentioned earlier, the Anns-Cooper test is a two-part test that determines whether a duty of care exists from the defendant. The second part of the test looks at public policy considerations, where courts consider potentially unacceptable negative impacts if they were to find a duty of care exists in that particular relationship. Therefore, arguing that illegal conduct should be recognized under public policy considerations when grounding a duty of care is more flexible than trying to meet the higher threshold of the defence of illegality.

The current case presents persuasive public policy arguments against finding a duty of care in situations where those who are victims of criminal activity could be held liable for future civil suits. It is not a stretch to wonder whether holding Rankin liable could incentivize criminal acts by taking advantage of an individual's lapse in keeping their property secured.

With that being said, the SCC has considered, and rejected, the idea that illegal activity negates the duty of care. In Hebert, McLachlin J separately considered the plaintiff's illegal behavior in the duty of care analysis:

"The relationship between plaintiff and defendant which gives rise to their respective entitlement and liability arises from a duty predicated on foreseeable consequences of harm.... the legality or morality of the plaintiff's conduct is an extrinsic consideration." ( Hebert, 161).

Should the SCC find Mr. Rankin's arguments persuasive, it would go against their reasoning in Hebert, and subsequently broaden public policy considerations under the Anns-Cooper test. Weighing the plaintiff's criminal behavior will not only impact the defences of contributory negligence and illegality, but be considered as a factor in determining the existence of a duty of care.

Mr. Rankin presents another public policy consideration related to criminal behavior. In the ONCA decision, Huscroft JA uses testimonial evidence that a duty of care exists given that there had been a history of vehicle theft with the garage ( JJ v CC, para 48). Should the SCC find a duty of care, Mr. Rankin argues that the duty of care would be influenced by perceptions of crime rate, which can be inaccurate. As a result, there would be varying standards across different areas, leading to unacceptable inconsistency in future duty of care analyses. It would be interesting to see whether the SCC will weigh this public policy consideration. Considering that the Anns-Cooper test relies heavily on the facts of the case, it may be that the SCC could narrow the scope of their analysis, considering the garage's history of theft as a factor relevant only to the current case.
Conclusion
While Rankin will determine whether garage owners owe a duty of care to people who steal their cars, the SCC will also provide guidance in considering criminal activity in the duty of care analysis. While the appellant provides interesting and persuasive public policy considerations, it depends whether the SCC will distinguish the current case from their previous leading cases in Hebert and Zastowny.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Criminal Activity & the Duty of Care Analysis | TheCourt.ca.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Does an owner of a garage owe a duty of care to teenagers who steal and drive the garage's serviced cars? On October 5, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") heard submissions on this unusual question in the case of James Chadwick Rankin cob Rankin's Garage & Sales v JJ by his Litigation Guardian, JAJ et al, Docket 37323 [ Rankin].

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about a negligence tort filed against a ski resort due to the unsafe conditions at their skiing area. The problem with the lawsuit that was filed is that when the plaintiffs purchased their tickets and or memberships they signed a waiver or agreed to a release of liability agreement on an online purchasing site. In the first case where the ticket was purchased more formally and the waiver was signed the plaintiff did not have a case. In the second instance were the ticket was purchased online and the agreement was taken the plaintiff did not necessarily have a case but this promoted some thought into the legality of those release agreements. This means that even though the defendant could use the defence of consent, there is more to this lawsuit. Often a lawsuit can be looked at from many eyes and this is why a jury is involved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Consumer law cannot be used to strike down valid waivers under Occupiers' Liability Act, court rules - The Lawyer's Daily

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that sections of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) undermined sections of the Occupiers’ Liability Act (OLA) in relation to waivers in a decision counsel say will have an impact on the sports and recreation industry.

# data[].attributes.body
This video talks about how to protect yourself against medical negligence and how to know if your rights are being trespassed upon. We all have rights to safe and equal healthcare that is practiced professionally, and to make sure that we are receiving that we have to know our rights. Medical negligence can cause serious life-impacting consequences such as in the case of a mother pregnant with twins that was not treated with the urgency she needed. That case resulted in one of her sons being born with severe brain injuries. It to know the basics so you will not fall victim to medical malpractice which is a tort of medical neglect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Know your legal rights in case of medical negligence

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/negligence-duty-cases.php

http://ethics.wikia.com/wiki/Tort_Law

https://siftingreality.com/2012/09/23/even-a-cartoon-rat-can-recognize-the-problem-is-government/

http://tampa-law.net/suing-the-government-for-negligence-the-federal-tort-claims-act/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgEYzgrNvy0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0ZycIk6_-U

https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/tire-chalking-case-ends-insurers-bid-establish-tort-negligent-entrustment-ontario-1004129103/

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/6224/consumer-law-cannot-be-used-to-strike-down-valid-waivers-under-occupiers-liability-act-court-rules

http://www.thecourt.ca/james-chadwick-rankin-v-jj-considering-the-plaintiffs-criminal-activity-in-determining-breach-of-duty-of-care/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlSvPQ3X-4g&t=25s