In July 2006, two minors at the time, J, fifteen years old, and C, sixteen years old, were at C's home, drinking and smoking marijuana, while C's mother provided alcohol. Later that night, the boys went into town intending to steal valuables from unlocked cars. While driving through town, the boys found R's lot (Rankin's Garage and Sales) unlocked and unsecured. They then went inside, searched and eventually found an unlocked car with the keys in the ashtray. C decided to steal the car and told J to "get in it" even though he didn't have a driver's license or hadn't driven on the road before. C started to pull out of the garage and then head towards the highway. While they were on the highway, C crashed into the car, causing J to suffer fatal head trauma. Rankin's Garage and Sales, C and C's mother were sued for negligence. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayThe jury found Rankin's Garage and Sales 37% responsible, C 23% responsible, C's mother 30% responsible, and J 10% of his injuries. . The presiding judge then found R (Rankin's Garage and Sales) guilty because R should have known that leaving his garage unlocked and unsecured could have resulted in someone being injured and therefore owed a duty of care to J (at law in tort, a duty of care is a legal duty imposed on an individual requiring compliance with a reasonable standard of care when performing any act that may harm another). In determining whether or not R owed a duty of care to J, the majority of the Supreme Court considered whether the garage owner would have known that leaving a car unlocked with the keys inside would therefore cause harm to someone since J. there is evidence that leaving the keys inside an unlocked car would likely result in the car being stolen, there was no evidence to prove that R would have known that anyone would have been injured after the car was stolen. The Supreme Court then emphasized that just because such a scenario is possible does not mean it is reasonably foreseeable under the law. Accordingly, Rankin's Garage did not owe a duty of care to J. I disagree with the court's decision. In the allocation of liability, R (Rankin's Garage and Sales) was assigned 37% responsibility for J's injuries when they should have been assigned 10%. C 30%, the mother of C 20% and J 40%. R had no way of knowing that two juveniles were deliberately going to steal valuables from unlocked cars. C's mother should have received 20% as she is just as responsible as R as she knew the boys were drinking and smoking and also supplied them with alcohol. Finally, J is 40% responsible, even though he was a minor at the time, he is still an individual with his own moral compass. He agreed to drink and smoke, then go into town to steal valuables from unlocked cars. He then resolutely entered the stolen vehicle knowing that C did not have his driving license or any previous driving experience. Therefore, I consider that the verdict is inaccurate and that the distribution of responsibilities is unfair..