Resch v. Canadian Tire Corporation, 2006 CanLII 11930 (ON SC), 17 BLR (4th) 301

In the case of Resch v. Canadian Tire Corporation, there are several parties involved, including Resch (the plaintiff), the stepson, Canadian Tire Corporation, Mills-Roy Enterprises Ltd. (the dealership), and Procycle Group Inc. (the manufacturer). The stepson's injury resulted from a defective bicycle fork, and the various parties may have different courses of action against each of the defendants:

1. Resch (the Plaintiff):

• Resch, as the stepson's legal guardian, could bring a personal injury claim on behalf of the stepson against Canadian Tire, Mills-Roy, and Procycle Group. The claim would likely be based on the grounds of negligence and product liability, arguing that the defective fork on the bicycle caused the injury.

2. The Stepson:

• The injured stepson could bring a personal injury claim against the same defendants, seeking compensation for his injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other damages resulting from the accident.

3. Canadian Tire Corporation:

• Canadian Tire could potentially be held liable in this case. It may be argued that they are responsible for the quality and safety of the products they sell, and they may have a duty to ensure that the bicycles they distribute are not defective. Canadian Tire could be a defendant in a product liability claim.

4. Mills-Roy Enterprises Ltd. (the Dealership):

• Mills-Roy Enterprises Ltd., as the dealership, may also be held liable. They have a duty to inspect the products they sell, ensure they are safe for use, and provide warranties or guarantees to customers. If they failed to inspect the bicycle properly or if they were aware of the defect and did not disclose it, they may be liable.

5. Procycle Group Inc. (the Manufacturer):

• Procycle Group Inc., as the manufacturer of the bicycle, could potentially be held responsible for the defective product. If it is determined that the defect originated during the manufacturing process or was a result of a design flaw, Procycle Group Inc. may be liable under product liability laws.

Arguments in Defense:

• The defendants may raise various defenses, such as:
  • Denying liability and claiming that they did not breach any duty of care.
  • Arguing that the stepson's actions or misuse of the bicycle contributed to the accident.
  • Asserting that the defect was unforeseeable or occurred after the product left their control.
  • Contesting the extent of damages claimed.

Likely Outcome:

• The likely outcome of the case would depend on the specific facts, evidence, and legal arguments presented in court. If it can be proven that the bicycle had a defect that caused the injury, and that one or more of the defendants breached their duty of care or product safety standards, they could be found liable.

Payment by the Stepson:

• Whether the stepson paid some funds toward the purchase of the bike may be relevant to the case. It could affect the stepson's standing as a party to the lawsuit and could impact the apportionment of damages. If the stepson contributed to the purchase, his degree of ownership and responsibility for the product might be considered in the case's outcome.

The ultimate resolution of the case would depend on the specific details, evidence, and legal arguments presented during the litigation process.