In July 2006, two minors at the time, 15-year-old J and 16-year-old C were at C's house, drinking and smoking marijuana where C's then mother provided some ' of alcohol. Later that night, the boys went into town with the intention of stealing valuables from unlocked cars. While wandering around town, the boys found the R (Rankin's Garage and Sales) lot open and unsecured. They then proceeded to enter, search and finally found an unlocked car with the keys in the ashtray. C decided to steal the car and told J to "get in" even though he didn't have a license or hadn't driven before. C began to exit the garage and then began heading toward the highway. While they were on the highway, C crashed his car causing J to suffer a fatal brain injury. Rankin's Garage and Sales, C, and C's mother were sued for negligence. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The jury found Rankin's Garage and Sales 37% liable, C 23% liable, C's mother 30% liable, and J 10% liable for his injuries. The presiding judge then found R (Rankin's Garage and Sales) guilty because R should have known that leaving his garage open and unsecured could cause injury to someone and therefore owed J a duty of care (In the Civil Liability Act , a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual that requires compliance with a standard of reasonable care while performing acts that could foreseeably harm others). In determining whether or not Row owed a duty of care to J, the Supreme Court majority looked at whether the garage owner would have known that leaving a car unlocked with the keys inside would therefore cause harm to someone like J . It is demonstrated that leaving the keys inside an unlocked car would probably result in the car being stolen, there was no evidence to show that R would have known that anyone would be injured after the car was stolen. The Supreme Court then noted that just because such a scenario is possible does not mean that it is reasonably foreseeable under the law. Rankin's Garage, therefore, owed no duty of care to J. I disagree with the court's decision. In the division of responsibility, R (Rankin's Garage and Sales) was assigned 37% responsibility for J's injuries when they should have received 10%. C 30%, mother of C 20% and J 40%. R had no way of knowing that two minors would purposely steal valuables from unlocked cars. C's mother should have been given 20% because she is just as responsible as R as she knew the boys were drinking and smoking as she also supplied them with alcohol. Lastly, 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 and then go into town to steal valuables from unlocked cars. He then forcefully entered the stolen vehicle knowing that C had no driving license or any previous driving experience. I therefore believe that the verdict is incorrect and that the distribution of responsibility is unfair.