“Owner sued in car thief’s crash”

“Two passengers riding in a stolen car that was involved in a wreck sue the car’s 91-year-old owner” The driver of the wreck was a man defendant George Hinnenkamp had sometimes hired to do odd jobs; the passengers claim he had extended permission for the man to take the car that night, but a district attorney who successfully prosecuted the case says that isn’t so, noting that Hinnenkamp had reported the car stolen well before the accident. [Eugene, Oregon, Register-Guard]


  • never let the facts get in the way.

  • Cases like this is why collateral estoppel needs to be expanded. The criminal prosecution doesn’t bar the issue from being relitigated, because none of the parties to the original action are in this one, but in the original one, a jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Hinnenkamp did not authorize the man to take the car. Should be conclusive as against anyone.

  • As one of my professors said: “There’s a reason law schools are the only ones still teaching rhetoric”.