A Car Owner may be liable when Car Thief crashes stolen Vehicle

Default photo used for A Car Owner may be liable when Car Thief crashes stolen Vehicle

A 2016 civil action" arose after C.S. (a minor) stole a car, lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a wall, causing significant injury to his passenger, C. M. (also a minor). " The car was stolen from the vehicle owner's driveway. Due to the severity of their injuries, the injured plaintiff" had very little or no memory of the event.

In" C.M. v. C.S.," the plaintiff commenced a legal action to amend their Statement of Claim to have the owner of the stolen vehicle added as a defendant on the civil suit, after finding out that the vehicle owner had left his car keys in his car console and the car unlocked, on the day of the accident.

In his witness statement, the car owner, Mr. Chisholm, stated that although the keys were left in the console, the car doors and windows were both locked. However, in his Examination for Discovery, Mr. Chisholm revealed that the vehicle was actually left unlocked on the night it was stolen, and this information prompted the serving of a Motion Record for the proposed defendant to amend the claim to add Mr. Chisholm as a defendant. " The Motion Record was served almost 4 "½ years after the date of the accident.

There were three key issues to be considered in this action.

1. " " "  " Did the plaintiff show that the discovery date of the claim against Mr. Chisholm is an issue requiring trial or summary judgement and therefore, should leave be granted to add Mr. Chisholm as a defendant?

2. " " "  " Did the plaintiff show they have a reasonable cause of action against Mr. Chisholm?

3. " " "  " Has Mr. Chisholm shown prejudice not compensable by costs or will an adjournment cost him if the Court grants the plaintiff leave to amend their claim?

Regarding the first issue, the judge referenced" Wakelin v. Gourley" (2005), wherein it was noted that very little evidence is required by a plaintiff, at a pleadings amendment stage, to establish that a proposed defendant could not have been identified with due diligence within the limitation period. In other words, the threshold is not very high for the plaintiff to show that they were unable to identify Mr. Chisholm as a defendant within the two-year limitation period.

In this case, it wasn't until plaintiff's counsel received the Crown Brief, almost four years after the accident and following the defendant's Examination for Discovery, that the plaintiff became aware of Mr. Chisholm's possible negligence. Therefore, it was unlikely that the plaintiff could have identified Mr. Chisholm as a probable defendant before the two-year limitation period expired after the accident.
The Courts state that when a plaintiff's discoverability narrative is not contradicted, the matter should proceed to trial or judgement. Although Mr. Chisholm argued that the limitation period expired, he never contradicted the plaintiff's explanation of why they were unable to discover cause against him within the two-year limitation period. Accordingly, the judge ruled that the plaintiff successfully showed that, even with due diligence, they could not have uncovered the potential liability of Mr. Chisholm.
Regarding the second issue, Rule 26 states that amendments are presumptively admissible as long as they are not indefensible. Justice Flynn declared that the plaintiff's claim that Mr. Chisholm was negligent for having left his keys in an unlocked car is not a flimsy or insupportable claim under the law, and if originally pleaded, it is not clear if it would have been struck. The main issue is whether or not it should have been foreseeable to Mr. Chisholm that a young person could steal his unlocked car while the keys were inside, then lose control and injure a passenger or another person.

On" the final issue of prejudice, the judge remarked that Mr. Chisholm did not show evidence of sufficient prejudice in his materials, in response to the plaintiff's proposal to add him to the existing action. Rather, Mr. Chisholm appeared to be presenting the argument of prejudice simply because he was being named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Justice Flynn concluded that the plaintiff satisfied the Court on all three issues and as a result, granted the amendment to add Mr. Chisholm as a defendant.

Although it remains to be seen whether the car owner will be held liable or contributorily liable for the plaintiff's injuries, the judge in this case allowed for the possibility that a vehicle owner may be found negligent despite the fact that the vehicle was clearly taken without their consent. " " In a 2015 trial," Nemeth v. Yasin," a parent/owner was held vicariously liable for injuries caused to another driver, after his son took his father's car without consent and was involved in an accident. The decision in" Nemeth" was largely based on the fact that the father's car keys were still 'available' for the son to access, although father and son had submitted an Excluded Driver Form to the vehicle insurer and the son was expressly forbidden to drive until he obtained his own insurance. " However, in another recent case," Thorne v. Prets," an Ontario court ruled that the car's owner was" not" liable for a plaintiff's injuries after the defendant, a 'friend of a friend', drove the car without either the consent of the owner or consent of the plaintiff, his friend (who was borrowing the car with the owner's permission and asleep in the car at the time of the accident).

Every case is different and must be decided on its own merits. " If you or a family member were injured in a car accident, due to the likely negligence of another driver, contact a knowledgeable car accident lawyer at Rastin & Associates to discover whether you have a valid claim for damages. " Your initial consultation is free and provides an excellent opportunity to have your questions answered and learn what will be involved in winning your case.
You can call us at " 844-RASTIN1 or " email Rastinlaw.com


Subscribe to our Newsletter

Sign me up