Question
On an evening in July, James and his friend Chao. (then 16 years old) were at the house of Chao’s mother. The boys drank alcohol (some of which was provided by the mother) and smoked marijuana. Sometime after midnight, the boys left the house to walk around the small town where Chao lived with the intention of stealing valuables from unlocked cars. The boys walked on a side-street towards a main road, all the while checking to see if vehicles parked on the street were unlocked. Eventually the boys made their way to Robinson’s Garage & Sales, a car garage located near the main intersection in the town that was owned by Doug Robison. The garage property was not secured, and the boys began walking around the lot checking for unlocked cars. Chao found an unlocked Toyota Camry parked behind the garage. He opened the Camry and found its keys in the ashtray. Though he did not have a driver’s licence and had never driven a car on the road before, Chao decided to steal the car so that he could go and pick up another friend who lived 15 minutes away. Chao told James to “get in”, which he did. The 16-year-old Chao drove the car out of the garage and around the town before driving on a highway. While driving on the highway, Chao was careless, and the car crashed. As a result of the accident James has suffered a catastrophic brain injury.
Ignore the potential liability of Chao. Would Robison’s Garage be directly liable for the injuries suffered by James. Explain and apply the negligence test to determine Robinson’s liability.
What defence might be raised to say that James should be partly liable for his own injuries. Explain the defence and its potential impact on the case.
Answer
Question
Julia An had been meticulously caring for and growing her hair for 15 years. After moving from the Lower Mainland she had to find a new hairstylist to help keep up with her strict hair regime, which entailed trims and foil highlights. Ms. An discovered Best Hair Salon and went for a consult and spoke with a stylist. She was comfortable within this meeting and arranged for an appointment but, upon arrival she was directed to a different stylist, Ms. Hawkins. Ms. An was not informed that Ms. Hawkins was a junior stylist and it was her first day at the salon (she had worked as a stylist for 2 years before). Ms. Hawkins did not appear to be secure in what she was doing and provided the foil service in a messy and much slower manner than Ms. An was used to. It was will known by stylists that leaving in colouring agents can cause hair damage. Ms. An became nervous about the amount of time the colouring agent was in and requested that Ms. Hawkins ask for help (which she did). Due to the prolonged application time, Ms. An’s hair had been damaged. Ms. An then sought out a new hairdresser to repair the damages inflicted by Ms. Hawkins, which resulted in having a foot of hair cut off as well as other maintenance to try to get her hair back to its prior condition. Unfortunately, it will take Ms. An approximately 5 years to grow her hair back and recover from the chemical damage from Ms. Hawkins’ misapplication.
Answer — Hangasmaa v. Hawes. 2002 BCPC 540