Lawyers for the family of Robert Ogle say it was negligent for David Jaber to leave his running car unattended outside a Queens, N.Y. deli. The Kia Spectra was then stolen by Kenneth Guyear who proceeded to run down Ogle. [New York Daily News via Miller]
64 Comments
Years ago I read a book by a traveler to a mideast country who wrote that he was told that if his taxicab driver there should get into an accident, he should immediately abandon the taxi and run away as fast as he could. He said he was told this because their laws held the customer of a taxi responsible for the acts of the taxicab driver and he could end up in jail for an accident by his driver as well as responsible for payment to an accident victim. The book pointed out how primitive and stupid their laws were in this regard. Hmmmm!
I know of missionaries in south america that did happen to. She was driving and hit someone. She was arrested and held in jail for several weeks before being released to only house arrest. It was finally resolved, but it did not matter that the pedestrian was negligent in walking in front of her car.
That lawsuit sounds great. Let’s become MORE like a third world country.
Suing the owner of the stolen car where the thief killed the victim like this also reminded me of the fact that New York State has a vicarious liability law where a rental car company is held responsible for the injuries caused by accidents by the car renters. The car rental companies have fought to change this for years to no avail (as far as I know), saying that it causes car rental prices in New York State to be higher than they otherwise would be.
Not that I don’t enjoy myopia as well as the next guy, but whose volitional conduct contributed more to this situation, the owner who left his car running on the street unattended, or the fellow who was run down by a car thief?
Until someone devises an effective way to either eliminate all potential for crime, or make certain that all car thieves maintain adequate insurance coverage, this strikes me a particularly appropriate division of liability. That plus only a moron leaves a car running unattended, ripe for being stolen and causing harm. Given the simple solution of turning off the car and removing the keys, I am unpersuaded that the owner is being unfairly sued.
but whose volitional conduct contributed more to this situation, the owner who left his car running on the street unattended, or the fellow who was run down by a car thief?
You left someone out in this question.
The car thief himself.
The thief was impared via alcohol and drugs, had been previously arrested 8 times and spent time in Rikers for robbery and car theft. At the age of 27, this guy has ended the lives of two kids, one of whom was impared from (illegally) drinking at a party.
The owner of the car went into a deli to pick up something to eat. His car is stolen by a habitual criminal who hits the impared kids on the street, backs up over one of them, and then speeds off.
Somehow I am having trouble saying the legal actions of the car owner rise to any level of liabilty when compared to the illegal actions of the victims and the thief.
PhilG, you’ll be happy to know that Congress passed a law in 2005 that preempts such laws that are on the books in New York, DC, Florida and maybe a few more. Basically, it exempts rental car companies from liability for the torts of their renters. It’s commonly called the “Graves Amendment.”
There have been a couple of attempts to get it held as unconstitutional, but last I heard, the 11th Circuit affirmed that it is constitutional.
In several Islamic countries, any accident is seen as the result of mutual actions on the parts of all involved. Your parked car gets hit? You have some fault for having parked just when and where you did. A car in the wrong lane hits you head on? Same problem.
Culpability is not split 50/50, though. One party is usually found more culpable than the other, but no one gets off Scot free.
Depending on the country, other factors–such as the race, nationality, or the religion of those involved–might come into play.
As bad as US law is–and I accept that it is abused mightily–it’s still preferable to some of the alternatives.
So E-Bell, since you have told us that the “Graves Amendment” protects car rental companies from being held responsible for the torts of their renters, would it also protect the owner of the car in this case from being held responsible for the tort of the car thief? Or is this different?
So, according to the plaintiffs case an unlocked door is an invitation to theft.
John’s Comment: “Your parked car gets hit? You have some fault for having parked just when and where you did.”
I think you would find that 99.999% of the people disagree with this. Believe me, I appreciate the effort to see gray. But every now and again, a cigar is just a cigar.
Actually I will support this, with a caveat.
The owner was an idiot to leave his car running. I consider it negligent entrustment. I mean if you give a monkey a gun and he shoots someone, well whose fault is that? And if you make it that easy to steal your car, and someone who is not fit to drive does steal it and hurts somebody with it, then whose fault is that? I believe in responsibility, so yeah, if you are that stupid you should have to pay for the consequences of your stupidity.
And that is not pretending that the thief isn’t culpable, too. In fact in this case, he was found liable, too. Its just here’s the reality: in most cases, it will be almost impossible to get any money out of the thief. Probably won’t have insurance, it might not cover him under these circumstances, and he probably doesn’t have very much money. So imagine you have been run down by a car thief, you have thousands of dollars of medical bills, you are missing work, indeed you might not have a job when you recover, and you know that but for the stupidity of the car owner you might have made it home safely. I see nothing at all outrageous about holding the owner liable on those facts.
And I want to be clear on that. I only mean on these facts. I don’t want an expansive duty to check out the people you loan your car out to, only a duty not to give it to a fall down drunk, or create a situation where literally anyone can take it, easily. I mean, sheesh, the thief didn’t even have to turn the ignition.
My only objection is that all of this is over a dead son. Not to be cold, but bluntly this kind of suit is more about punishing people than true compensation. Yeah there is a financial loss, but does anyone really think this is really about money for the family? In fact, I think we would think less of them if it were about money. I think it is one thing when you are dealing with people who could be suffering real financial hardship—i.e. my hypothetical victim in a hospital, or the death of an important family breadwinner. But unless this kid was expected to pay his parent’s bills, that isn’t our situation and in that case I think maybe the suit should not be allowed as a matter of policy because of that.
Ron, John was talking about other countries to make the point “it could be worse.” And that is true. our legal system is not the worst, but we could do alot better.
I mean if you give a monkey a gun and he shoots someone, well whose fault is that?
The owner of the car didn’t give the thief his car.
And if you make it that easy to steal your car, and someone who is not fit to drive does steal it and hurts somebody with it, then whose fault is that?
The guy who illegally stole the car.
Cynical viewpoint, leaving aside New York’s PIP/no-fault rules: The owner of the car was sued solely because he has auto liability insurance. The thief has none.
Of course someone can come in to discuss the negligence (it does seem stupid) of leaving one’s car running while doing a quick errand, but if the thief was rich, the owner wouldn’t have been sued.
Ah. I see Scott Greenfield made the point beforehand. I probably disagree with Scott on liability, but he knows what time it is.
gitar
> The owner of the car didn’t give the thief his car.
He all but did. He made it so easy its ridiculous.
i wouldn’t just leave an unlocked, loaded gun in the middle of a sidewalk unattended and i wouldn’t leave my car with key in the ingition and running. wouldn’t do it ever and never have. I’m a big pro-gun kind of guy, and i believe in a pretty unfettered right to drive, but with that right comes responsibility and respect for the fact that both are capable of seriously maiming or killing someone. that is why a wise gun owner knows that you always asume a gun is loaded however certain you are that it is not, and why you never point a gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot; and likewise, you never leave your car when its running. Those people who do are thoughtless fools who think that the tiny degree of convenience they gain (and the mythical value of “warming the car up”) outweighs the risk that someone will take that deadly weapon from you and harm someone else with it. Literally anyone could have taken that car, and in that case, the worst possible person did.
And to say to a person in a hospital bed because of that car owner’s stupidity “gee, tough break. i guess you gotta pay the bills yourself” is wrong; and since most theives are judgement proof, if you say only the theif is liable, that is what you are saying. I am not big on expansive liability. i am corporate counsel for a health care company so i am usually on the defending side of personal injury suits. but right is right and if you are that stupid, and someone gets hurt because you are that stupid, then you should pay. and then maybe that will serve as a warning to the rest of the people not to be so damned irresponsible.
Don’t give a monkey a gun, or leave it where the monkey can get it. and if you do, and someone gets hurt, you should have to pay for it. Its a no brainer to me.
Patrick
I don’t know. i find that most lawyers err on the side of suing too many people. the only exception is when you suspect that bringing that additional person in might actually harm your other claims. Like if one defendant regularly used a particularly skilled attorney, for instance. otherwise sue everyone and let the courts sort it out.
We should have some expectations of being able to live a reasonable and normal life too without the need to constantly look behind our back and/or lock everything up. I agree, the car owner wasn’t real smart, but you do get tired of loss of freedom and the inconvenience from always being on guard to protect yourself, your family, and your property. Just because something’s sitting there, doesn’t mean you can take it.
Yeah, we’ve had our car robbed, a house robbery, etc., etc. Locks don’t stop people. We’ve had two minor house fires and I refuse to be trapped inside and not be able to get out. By the way, the burglars they did catch didn’t need, sell, or even use the items they took. They just wanted them.
A.W.,
How do you propose to deal with very cold climates in which, in winter, people leave their vehicles running during short stops because of the difficulty of restarting? This is routine in parts of Alaska.
Poser
Well, i have lived as far north as connecticut and not had that problem but then… connecticut is not alaska. i guess if you are ever in a situation where it is so cold that a well-maintained car would have trouble restarting, i would give you a pass.
I honestly can’t say because i don’t live up there, but i will readily admit i didn’t think of alaska.
But in the lower 48? i don’t see any possibility of an excuse for it.
He all but did. He made it so easy its ridiculous.
But once again, he didn’t give the car to the thief.
You seem to be saying that if someone steals a hammer from Lowes and then uses that hammer to commit a crime (beat someone up or break a window to rob a store) it must be the fault of Lowes. I don’t buy that at all.
And to say to a person in a hospital bed because of that car owner’s stupidity “gee, tough break. i guess you gotta pay the bills yourself” is wrong; and since most theives are judgement proof, if you say only the theif is liable, that is what you are saying.
The guy isn’t in the hospital because of the car owner. The guy is in the hospital because an impaired person with a history of crime stole a car and ran into them. I don’t care whether the thief is judgement proof. I do care that the car owner is the victim of a crime and that you want him to pay for someone elses actions and crimes.
By the way, your monkey analogy fails to a large extent as the thief, unlike the monkey, was not given the object used in commiting another crime. Secondly, a monkey might consider the gun something to play with. The thief in this case knew the law (after all, he had broken it before) and made a choice to steal something that was not his.
I agree with you that this is a no brainer. Holding the owner of something liable for the actions of a thief and a killer is simply ridiculous.
A.W. said:
There is another part of your analogy that is flawed. A monkey doesn’t know what he is doing. A human being does. Even if the guy “gave” his car to the thief (which he didn’t), the thief still knew that he could kill someone by hitting him with the car, and that killing is wrong.
I agree with the vast majority of the comments here. The car owner is a victim. AW’s point seems to be that we need to make it hard for criminals to be criminals. I agree with that, but the answer is not to hold innocent people liable for criminal acts. The answer is to hold criminals liable for criminal acts. To find the people most responsible for making it easy for criminals to be criminals, look no farther than Washington D.C. or your own state capital.
I see a new industry for thieves (eliminating the need to steal the old-fashioned way): Breaking into the houses of people who look well-insured, slipping on the floor, lying there until the ambulance comes and suing for millions.
Mamas, Teach Your Daughters To Wear Panties On Picture Day…
A girl decides to go panties-free in order to avoid having pantylines in school photos, then whoops, sits like a farmer when her picture is taken, either revealing her vagina or a big vagina-like shadow……
[…] life. I have no proof of this — it’s just my intuition — but I think I smell a case for Overlawyered in the […]
A.W.,
As someone who grew up in Vermont and lives in northern British Columbia, I had to laugh at the idea of Connecticut ever being really cold. Here in BC people don’t leave vehicles running unless they’re having trouble with their electrical system or it is very cold and they are only making a short stop. In very cold weather it is a bad idea to make a bunch of short stops and turn the engine off because the battery charges very slowly when it is very cold. However, in Alaska, people really do leave vehicles running for longer periods in the winter not only because it may be hard to start the vehicle but because it will take a long time for it to warm up.
This is actually a standard fact pattern in 1L torts classes: this scenario was one of the first where courts, decades ago, began to ignore the concepts of intervening causation and proximate cause and to instead treat deep pockets as insurers for society at large.
I am amused by the similar anecdote on this PI firm’s page: Our attorneys recently had a similar type of auto accident with State Farm. A group of friends were leaving a meeting and one gentleman got his car, drove in front of the building were the meeting occurred, and ran in the building to get a soft drink. His friend, playing a practical joke, jumped into the car to hide it from his friend so that he would think it was stolen. Of course, he did it quickly and ran over our client who suffered a herniated disc in her neck. Like the personal injury lawyer in that case, we brought a claim against both the driver and the man who left his keys in the car. Although foreseeability was arguable, after we filed suit, State Farm settled the case anyway for the policy limits.
Why go through the rigamarole of requiring someone to actually be injured? Surely the basic logic here is that people who own property are fiscally responsible for all the injuries in the world. Therefore, clearly, it is ownership of property that is the basic crime, since absent property — in this case, a car — the injured individual would have no recourse.
I had a discusion with a friend of mine who is a trial lawyer and he spoke about ‘due care’. He told me, as Mr. Frank states above, that the courts hold that an unattended car left running leaves the owner culpable, whereas a car with an open window is an iffy proposition. However, logically, if an open window is an iffy proposition, then surely a window that can be opened — with, say, a wire hanger or a hammer — also renders the owner liable. And if an owner of an unattended car with a motor running is clearly culpable, then an owner of an unattended car which can be broken into, hotwired and used to commit injury is also culpable. And the attending owner of a car can be forced to yield his car which may then be used to commit a crime. Clearly this all falls under the ‘attractive nuisance’ doctrine, and the only way out of it is to outlaw property.
This may have its downside, of course, but at least lawyers will leave you alone. They’ll be too busy suing each other to bother with the likes of you.
Bob
PhilG: Sorry to take so long to get back to you, but the Graves Amendment would NOT protect the defendant in this suit. It’s specific to car rental companies. You can find the law at 49 USC s. 30106
Basically, several states have laws that make the owner of a vehicle vicariously liable for the torts of anyone who drives it. There is usually a defense available if the driver did not have the owner’s permission to operate the vehicle .
It became a problem for car rental companies, because obviously a renter has the permission of the rental car company to drive the vehicle. But a car rental company has no way to control the actions of the renter, and really no way to determine if a renter is a “good driver” other than the presentation of a valid driver’s license. So why should they be held liable for the torts of someone over which they have no control?
Thus, the Graves Amendment was introduced and passed.
Gitar
I think we just can’t see eye to eye on this. I believe in responsibility and this behavior was grossly irresponsible. And I see that you want to say that the ONLY person blameless here should have to foot the bill, at least as a practical matter.
You stress that the car owner didn’t intentionally give the car to the thief. I think you seem to be conceding that if he gave the car to him this suit would have more merit.
I say this. At what point can you be so utterly irresponsible with the security of your car that it is no different than giving it to him? I say leaving the keys in the car and the car running is that point. And you want to say that only actually giving it to the thief counts.
Suppose the owner went into a very high crime neighborhood and shouted as loud as he could, “I don’t want this car anymore. I am leaving the keys in the ignition. Anyone can have the car.” And after he leaves, a drunk gets in, and runs someone down? Do you hold the owner liable, then?
The only difference between that and what happened there is that the driver, however stupidly, was surprised when someone took it—that is, he didn’t intend to entrust his car to an unqualified driver, even though he made it so easy he might as well have. But frankly as a rule of thumb, I don’t believe our legal system should coddle the stupid. If you are stupid and someone is harmed because you are stupid, you should get the bill.
And this seems a bit obtuse (discussing my hypothetical):
> The guy isn’t in the hospital because of the car owner.
Well, given that _but_for_the_actions_of_the_driver,_ he might not have been there in the hospital, I don’t see how you can say that. Literally if the car owner had only taken the keys, then maybe the thief wouldn’t have had the skills or sobriety to hotwire the car, and maybe no one would be hurt. Its one thing to say that you don’t want to hold the car owner liable, but clearly from a moral point of view, its his fault, too.
You keep complaining that we are forgetting that the owner is a victim. But the fact is that the owner is not innocent. He took a needless, reckless, risk with a dangerous weapon. He didn’t _accidentally_ make it easy for his car to be stolen, but instead decided that avoiding the minor inconvenience of turning off the engine and taking the keys with him was so important, that he instead risked the value of his car and the safety of everyone around him. Having decided to risk everyone’s safety that way, I don’t see how you can call him innocent; just “less culpable.”
And I am not, for the fifth time, saying that the thief isn’t a bad guy either, or shouldn’t be liable. If it turned out the thief had money then the majority of the duty to pay should come out of his hide. But we can and should hold both guilty parties liable.
Amy
Its not a new industry. Thus we have this site.
Ted
Well, like I said, I wouldn’t want to take it much further than these facts. You should never, ever leave a car running (with the possible exception of Alaska), and if you do, and its stolen and a third party is harmed, you should pay.
E-Bell
Just out of curiosity, under that law, what if the guy comes to the rental stand obviously drunk and they give him the car, he drives off and kills someone. No liability?
I say this. At what point can you be so utterly irresponsible with the security of your car that it is no different than giving it to him?
I’m sorry, but I can’t believe that you think that any object that is not secured is available to all for the taking.
The only difference between that and what happened there is that the driver, however stupidly, was surprised when someone took it—that is, he didn’t intend to entrust his car to an unqualified driver, even though he made it so easy he might as well have.
No, the difference is that the owner of the vehicle never gave the car away. He never entrusted it to anyone. He never said he anyone could borrow it.
The care was stolen.
But frankly as a rule of thumb, I don’t believe our legal system should coddle the stupid. If you are stupid and someone is harmed because you are stupid, you should get the bill.
Being “stupid” is not a crime. As a rule of thumb, I believe that the legal system should not coddle those who break the law, and then try to blame the victim of a crime.
Your thought process seems to be that a theft of item places the owner of the item in jeopardy for whatever further crimes may be commited with the stolen object.
Well, given that _but_for_the_actions_of_the_driver,_ he might not have been there in the hospital, I don’t see how you can say that.
Its very easy to say that. The guy stole a car. He was impaired when he stole the car. He drove the stolen car while impaired. He drove onto the sidewalk in a stolen car and impaired and ran over two impaired kids.
Literally if the car owner had only taken the keys, then maybe the thief wouldn’t have had the skills or sobriety to hotwire the car, and maybe no one would be hurt.
“Literally…… maybe?” That is the problem here. You keep saying “what if” and I keep saying “the guy stole the car.” There is no excuse for what the thief and killer did, yet you are trying to make excuses for him.
Its one thing to say that you don’t want to hold the car owner liable, but clearly from a moral point of view, its his fault, too.
From a moral point of view the owner of the car is even LESS cupable. The car was HIS property. It was stolen. How is that his “moral” fault? Or are you back to the position that everything that is out in the open belongs to everyone that wants it?
By the way, since the two victims were intoxicated at the time, according to your way of thinking, shouldn’t they be held accountable as well? After all, they were underaged drinkers and if they hadn’t been drinking and had their reflexes slowed, they could have jumped out of the way when the car came down the road. Right? The kids intentionally drank and helped cause this too, right? You want to hold them responsible as well?
But the fact is that the owner is not innocent.
Do you have any information that the car owner was charged with, much less convicted, of a crime?
If it turned out the thief had money then the majority of the duty to pay should come out of his hide.
Welcome to the site. It seems that you have just agreed with a major basis of this site. It isn’t about anything other than the money. The parents saw a deeper pocket and are going after the money contained within.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
How about another version of what happened. We have to go back 150 or so years, but stay with me on this. Joe stops at the saloon for a drink and leaves his horse at the hitching rail. Bob is broke, is a thief, and looking for some money. So, Bob grabs Joe’s horse, rides down the street, shoots Stan and steals his money. Do you really believe Joe is responsible for not padlocking his horse?
A.W., if the renter was drunk when he rented the car, then you have a textbook case of negligent entrustment and the rental car company could be held liable. The Graves Amendment does not shield rental car owners whose own conduct is negligent.
And to say to a person in a hospital bed because of that car owner’s stupidity “gee, tough break. i guess you gotta pay the bills yourself” is wrong; and since most theives are judgement proof, if you say only the theif is liable, that is what you are saying.
Life’s not fair. If he had been the victim of a hit and run or an uninsured motorist, he’d be in the same situation. Just because there’s a connection to a blameless deep-pocketed car owner is not nearly good enough reason to loot him.
If I sat on this jury, there would not be a nickel of damages, and the judge would get a note requesting the plaintiff pay the fees for the defendant, and that disbarment procedures be commenced against the plaintiff’s attorney.
John (#33) I agree with you until you get silly after “not be a nickel of damages.”
Gitar
Let me boil it down. Would you admit that from a purely moral point of view, that you should secure your car precisely because a thief might steal it and hurt someone with it? Forget liability, just from a moral point of view, do you recognize any moral guilt in the driver?
Yes or no.
And if you do, why shouldn’t that translate into legal liability, too?
And for the 400th time, I am not excusing the thief or saying he shouldn’t be held liable.
And stop pretending I am talking about just any object. A car is like a gun. It is uniquely dangerous and thus you the ownership and use of a car carries with it some moral and legal responsibilities that don’t apply to most other things.
My bad, i said that last one poorly. the question should be:
” Forget liability, just from a moral point of view, do you recognize any moral guilt in the CAR OWNER?”
Sorry.
Freudian slip.
Yes, A.W., the car owner is guilty because he owns property. As I pointed out above, it is clear that property is the sourc of all evil. Remove all property from individuals, lest they fail in their duty to give it all to lawyers.
Bob
Bob
That’s exactly my argument. No property for anyone. *rolls eyes*
Because we should have the same responsibility when we own a car v. a DVD player. never mind that only one weights around half a ton and can fly down the street at over 100 mph. they are exactly the same. *rolls eyes*
And what an onerous burden i am proposing. I am saying that when you get out of the car, turn off your engine, and take your keys with you. don’t you know it is SO HARD to turn a car off, and keys are SO HEAVY to carry with you? Oh, and then you actually have to turn your car on again. will this oppression never end? *rolls eyes* How can those greedy evil lawyers expect you to do so much?
Sorry, it was lazy and irresponsible to leave the car running and if he hadn’t been lazy and irresponsible, that kid might have been alive today. But keep dodging that basic reality.
again, are you going to pretend that the owner was not even MORALLY responsible? Really? Didn’t do anything wrong? Should have no regrets?
Sorry, but to let the owner off the hook is to coddle the stupid and irresponsible, and to insulate them from the consequences of their own stupidity and irresponsibility.
A.W., I sure hope you are being somewhat sarcastic. But on the assumption that you are not . . .
That sounds like another version of a deep-pockets case; here, instead of suing the person who STOLE THE CAR(!)–and likely has not much $$$–sue the owner of the STOLEN car–who likely has a lot more money or insurance. Why not sue the police/sherriff’s department for failing in their duty to prevent this in the first place; there are the deeper pockets (taxpayers!), or the car maker for not having a device installed that senses when a person isn’t sitting in the driver’s seat and turns off the car . . . the deepest pockets???
And for all of you who think the owner of the stolen car is liable, answer this:
What is the difference between a car owner who leaves his car out at night, has it broken into and stolen, and later said car runs over some people; and an owner who leaves his keys in the car, running, has someone he doesn’t know get in and drive off–stealing the car–and later said car runs over some people?
None. This sounds like some anti-gun types who, whether or not a gun was stolen from a house or taken off a holster, want to hold the gun owner liable. To paraphrase a past world leader: “NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!”
That’s right, A.W. The car owner did not turn off the car. And he did not lock it up in a garage which he then had set in concrete and then had sunk to the bottom of the ocean. Because unless you do that, how can you be sure that the car won’t be stolen?
Now, I anticipate you will say that this is not ‘reasonable’ action. But given that a car might be broken into, hot-wired and used to kill innocent drunks staggering down the middle of the highway, should not any reasonable person anticipate that situation and have the car destroyed every time he gets out? Or even before. Some people have guns and may shoot me, steal the car and leave my heirs to pay the bill.
Every law and court decision in which the word ‘reasonable’ is used is ubject to endless interpretation. Once you have the attractive nuisance’ doctrine in place, then the mere existence of a car is an attraction to drunken thieves. Your only safety is to put it at the bottom of the ocean.
Bob
E-Bell:A] car rental company has no way to control the actions of the renter, and really no way to determine if a renter is a “good driver” other than the presentation of a valid driver’s license. So why should they be held liable for the torts of someone over which they have no control?
And how is it different for anyone else that loans a car?
A.W.
Forget liability, just from a moral point of view, do you recognize any moral guilt in the driver?
For the 400th time, no.
I suppose that you think that a woman who dresses a certain way “deserves it” if she is raped. It is the same reasoning that you are trying to put forth here. You are holdiing the victim accountable for the actions of a criminal.
And stop pretending I am talking about just any object. A car is like a gun.
A car is no more a unique object than any other object. You can kill with a hammer stolen from Lowes. Are you willing to say that Lowes is “morally accountable” when a stolen hammer is used to harm someone? You can kill or injure with a baseball bat, a knife, a saw, a ring, a brick, a piece of wood, a screwdriver, a needle and a million other things.
Sorry, but to let the owner off the hook is to coddle the stupid and irresponsible, and to insulate them from the consequences of their own stupidity and irresponsibility.
The responsibility lies soley with the thief. Basically you are trying to sell the notion that the owner of the car is responsible for the theft of the car. He isn’t. The only person responsible for the theft of the car is the guy who stole the car.
i won’t debate it anymore because apparently you guys have no sense of personal responsibility.
The owner was reckless and shares (not to the exclusion of the theif) some of the blame. The fact that you pretend i am saying something i am not only demonstrates how weak your arguments. For instance:
I have never said the theif shouldn’t be held liable too.
i have never said that you had to lock up your car like gold at Ft. Knox.
i have never said that you have this duty with every object you might posses, just guns and cars. they are both uniquely dangerous in their own respects.
The fact that you keep pretending i am saying what i am not, is the clearest confession i could ask for that you know your position is weak.
I refuse to accept that idea that the law should coddle the stupid and irresponsible, when their stupid irresponsibility leads to the pain, suffering and even death of others. All the jerk had to do was take the keys out of his car, and maybe the Ogles wouldn’t have had to bury their own son. is that so much to ask?
i won’t debate it anymore because apparently you guys have no sense of personal responsibility.
We do have a sense of personal responsibility. We just know that the thief had a personnal responsibility not to steal the car.
The fact that you pretend i am saying something i am not only demonstrates how weak your arguments.
Sory,AW, but what you have experienced is a total dismantling of any and all arguments you have put forth here. People have addressed the issues you raised and you have either not addressed them or say that you never said what was being argued.
I have never said the theif shouldn’t be held liable too.
The issue is that you say that the car owner should be held liable for the illegal actions of the thief. That is something that you have continually failed to address. Your basic premise is that the the owner of the car “allowed” the car to be stolen. Taken to its logical conclusion, your point has to be that the “allowing” started when the car was purchased.
i have never said that you had to lock up your car like gold at Ft. Knox.
Yet that is the logical conclusion of your arguments. At what level has the owner of the car secured the car to where it cannot be stolen? Should the car just be locked? You do realize that locked cars are broken into and stolen every day don’t you? Should the car be equiped with an alarm system even though cars with alarms are stolen every day?
i have never said that you have this duty with every object you might posses, just guns and cars. they are both uniquely dangerous in their own respects.
Yet as it has been shown, guns and cars are not unique in their ability to cause harm – great harm or death – to others.
I refuse to accept that idea that the law should coddle the stupid and irresponsible, when their stupid irresponsibility leads to the pain, suffering and even death of others.
The only irresponsibility here was the thief. He illegally stole something that was not his simply because his moral compass was pointed south instead of north.
All the jerk had to do was take the keys out of his car, and maybe the Ogles wouldn’t have had to bury their own son.
There ya go. “Maybe.” You don’t know what would have happened had the car been locked or whatever. The thief has a history of car thefts, so you don’t know if he would have stolen the car or not. Basically you want to hold the car owner accountable for a “what if.”
is that so much to ask?
And if the thief had not broken the law, they would not have had to bury their son. If the son wasn’t intoxicated, they may not have to bury him either. Yet I don’t see you blaming him for his reckless and illegal activities. The guy you want to add to this mess and say is culpable is the owner of the car.
The ironic thing about that is that the owner of the car is the only person in this tragedy that wasn’t doing anything illegal.
Gitar
i promised myself i would walk away from this, but seriously, how can i not address this:
> [me] i have never said that you had to lock up your car like gold at Ft. Knox.
> [you] Yet that is the logical conclusion of your arguments.
No, it is not. we draw lines in levels of culpability all the time. You want to say that only if he intentionally loaned out his car can we even talk about liability. But that’s not our only option. Besides intentional actions, you have reckless actions, negligent actions, and then cases where no matter how careful you are, you are liable (strict liability). so why not say, “if you are reckless in preventing theft of your car you are liable.” Reckless in my book is LEAVING THE KEYS IN THE CAR. Or perhaps it is removing all locks including on the ignition itself (if that’s even possible), and having your car start with a pushbutton. And leaving the car while it is running is the pinnacle of recklessness in this context.
A state could even make a very specific statute that says “if you leave your keys in your car and someone steals it and harms someone else with it, you pay.”
there is a reason why it is said that the slippery slope argument is fallacious, and i have demonstrated why in this particular case. You can limit liability to the reckless and stupid.
So it is a complete fallacy to pretend that you can’t carve out a narrow rule that says if you are stupid and reckless, and someone gets hurt, you pay.
And no, you have not shown that cars are not uniquely dangerous. you have claimed it. and i will leave it to everyone else to decide whether a vehicle that can fly down the road at over 100 mph and weighs around half a ton, is the same as a DVD player.
and we do make those kinds of differentiations all the time. if you own a pet dog and he bites someone generally you are not liable the first time. but if they do it twice, you are usually on the hook if you are negligent in your efforts to protect others. on the other hand, if you own a tiger, in most states it doesn’t matter how careful you were with it, if it gets out and hurts someone you are liable.
And as for the complaint that we don’t know with 100% certainty what else might have happened if the owner wasn’t a recklessly stupid man… well, that is true all the time in the law. The standard in most civil cases is the preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
A.W.
There are numerous vehicles curerently on the road that start via push button or the like, some which do not require electronic transponders to act as “keys”. Many, while perhaps not capable of travel at 100 mph (surely an unnecessary embelishment) are considerably more massive – including numerous peices of construction equipment, some buses (think school buses) and other products developed on similar chassis. Surely you do not intend to suggest that the manufacturer is liable in negligence for making a product which might be stolen and misused? That seems suspiciously similar to blaming a homeowner for burglary losses whose open windows are protected only by screens. It also sounds similar, to me at least, to attempts to blame firearms manufacturers for misuse of their otherwise legal products…
In this case, the car owner was also harmed by the theft – albeit to lesser degree than those who lost life or limb. The theif is responsible for both their losses. If they are concerned by his ability to pay their damages, I suggest that such is the purpose of insurance – a concept as old as the Code of Hammurabi.