Negligence is inadvertent or careless conduct causing harm, loss or injury to another. Distinct from intentional, negligent actions cause damage due to failure to act or failure to act in a reasonable manner leaving the plaintiff the burden of proof. Elements that need to be proven to be classified as ‘negligence’ are a balance of probabilities of duty, breach and damage. A few defenses to negligence are voluntary assumption of risk, illegality or voluntary participation, contributory negligence and accident. 

Strict liability is responsibility imposed on a person who caused injury regardless of whether or not there was fault. Underneath liability is vicarious liability, meaning when one party is at fault of another’s actions. In cases of liability, there is damage, and classified as two types. The first being, compensatory damages and the second being punitive damages. In tort law, cases may only be brought before a judge if it is within the limitation period. In Ontario, the plaintiff has 2 years from the time of injury or the discovery of the injury to commence tort action. After 2 years has passed, the court will refuse to hear the matter. 

In July 2006, J and his friend C (15 and 16 years old) were drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana at C’s mothers house. They later than left to look for valuable in unlocked cars which lead them to R, a commercial car garage. C found a car, entered it and got R inside then drove them to the highway that they crashed on. J suffered a catastrophic brain injury. J’s guardian sued R, C and C’s mother for negligence. In court it was held that R owed a duty of care to J, but the injury found that all parties had been negligent to a certain extent. R’s garage, 37%, C, 23%, C’s mother, 30% and J. 10%/. The Ontario court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s finding the R owed a duty of care to J and dismissed the appeal. “In order to establish a duty of care, however, J was not required to show that the characteristics of the particular thief who stole the vehicle or the way in which the injury occurred were foreseeable. Imposition of a duty of care was conditioned in this case only upon J showing that physical injury to him was reasonably foreseeable under any circumstances flowing from R’s negligence. It was open to the trial judge to conclude that R’s negligence in leaving unattended vehicles unlocked with keys inside overnight could have led to reasonably foreseeable physical injury.” There was nothing else to connect the risk of theft of the car to the risk of someone being physically injured. In the end the garage was not responsible for the injuries sustained by J.

This case relates to my topic as it covers negligence as one of the levels of a guilty mind and duty of care owed. Negligence was taking place in everyone’s role, but the duty of care was mostly owed from R to J and C. Also, the fact their minors shifts the level of duty of care as well.