Theif Steals Your Car and Causes Harm - Now You Can Be Held Responsible

[MikePapa1]

"If you leave your front door unlocked and someone walks in and shoots your wife, should you be charged with murder? Using the same logic you are defending how can you possibly say no?"

Let me help you, Lagerhead. The Defendant, Mr. Ash, isn't being charged criminally, he's being sued by someone totally innocent, you know without any fault, for damages that occurred to them, to determine what, if any responsibility, he bears for their damages. Are you seriously arguing that having your car stolen and misused isn't reasonably foreseeable if you leave your keys in the ignition? How about this? If he left a big sign on the windshield saying "Steal the Car." Would that be enough conduct that you might think he owes a duty? I'm not saying that I'd find him reasonable for the damages here, what I'm saying is that there are sets of facts under which he MAY share some of the responsibility.

[Bubbatn]

If you leave your front door unlocked and someone walks in and shoots your wife, should you be charged with murder? Using the same logic you are defending how can you possibly say no?

EXACTLY! Leaving keys in your car may be stupid now adays(although in this case, according to the article....the grandson left the keys in the car), but still doesn't make you responsible when some d-bag steals it(again...if he wanted to steal it...he was going to steal it anyway) and gets in a wreck.

[Bubbatn]

"If you leave your front door unlocked and someone walks in and shoots your wife, should you be charged with murder? Using the same logic you are defending how can you possibly say no?"

Let me help you, Lagerhead. The Defendant, Mr. Ash, isn't being charged criminally, he's being sued by someone totally innocent, you know without any fault, for damages that occurred to them, to determine what, if any responsibility, he bears for their damages. Are you seriously arguing that having your car stolen and misused isn't reasonably foreseeable if you leave your keys in the ignition? How about this? If he left a big sign on the windshield saying "Steal the Car." Would that be enough conduct that you might think he owes a duty? I'm not saying that I'd find him reasonable for the damages here, what I'm saying is that there are sets of facts under which he MAY share some of the responsibility.

But the way I see it it, The victim of the car crash is the one sueing, correct? The owner of the car had NO responsibility involving that car crash. The theif could've just as easily hit them in his own vehicle.

[E4 No More]

I am speechless at how insane those statements are. Nobody but the grade A Dbag that stole the care is responsible. Let me give you another hypothetical.

If you leave your front door unlocked and someone walks in and shoots your wife, should you be charged with murder? Using the same logic you are defending how can you possibly say no?

Give me a break. That's the dumbest crap I have ever heard.

Thanks for the insult, but the stupid thing is to leave your keys in the car expecting that it wouldn't be stolen - especially considering that late model cars have security coded keys. Kind of hard to drive them without the keys. Probably a good reason why most cars that are stolen my driving away had the keys left in them.

It would be a different story if the car could be hotwired.

BTW: Ask insurance adjusters if this economy has seen an increase in stolen cars caused by the keys being left in them.

[Kenstaroni]

I guess I am from a different planet. Sometimes there are good reasons to leave keys in a car.

1) it's cold and the car needs to be warmed up before driving

2) it's parked where someone (family or friend) may need to move it

3) it's a free country and you just feel like it

What ever happened to a person being responsible for their own actions? A thief should be responsible for any results from commission of the crime. The victim should not be victimized by the courts as well as the thief.

Let me know next time you leave the keys in the Defender....I'd love to take it for a spin

[Guest drv2fst]

Are you seriously arguing that having your car stolen and misused isn't reasonably foreseeable if you leave your keys in the ignition?

A stolen car is reasonably foreseeable. However, injuries resulting from the theft are the clear moral responsibility of the thief not the victim of the theft.

Only someone who makes a living making irrational arguments for irresponsible clients would think otherwise. Oops, you are a lawyer, my bad.

No offense meant, just having a little fun at the expense of your profession.

Edited December 10, 2010 by drv2fst

[Bubbatn]

I think the key thing here is the guy STOLE the car....doesn't matter if the keys were in it or not. He took what didn't belong to him, therefore he stole it. He got in a wreck while he was driving said stolen vehicle, therefore the responsibility lies with him and him alone.

[Guest drv2fst]

Let me know next time you leave the keys in the Defender....I'd love to take it for a spin

Just don't crash it.

[MikePapa1]

A stolen car is reasonably foreseeable. However, injuries resulting from the theft are the clear moral responsibility of the thief not the victim of the theft.

Only someone who makes a living making irrational arguments for irresponsible clients would think otherwise. Oops, you are a lawyer, my bad.

No offense meant, just having a little fun at the expense of your profession.

Not a problem, I laughed.

[Guest drv2fst]

Not a problem, I laughed.

I'm relieved. Generally, I find lawyers have a great sense of humor about their profession.

[MikePapa1]

I think the key thing here is the guy STOLE the car....doesn't matter if the keys were in it or not. He took what didn't belong to him, therefore he stole it. He got in a wreck while he was driving said stolen vehicle, therefore the responsibility lies with him and him alone.

Then if you are called for jury duty, rather than looking at the evidence, you can make your decision.

Let me ask you a question. If you owned a retail business, and you left a loaded firearm on the counter and went to the back, is it foreseeable that the gun might be stolen? If it were, in fact, stolen, is it foreseeable that the person who stole your gun might use it to injury someone? Would you share any responsibility for those injuries? Not even a little? A car is a dangerous instrumentality, just like a gun, in fact arguably even more dangerous. Why not let citizens drawn from the community decide who is responsible for injuries?

[MikePapa1]

I'm relieved. Generally, I find lawyers have a great sense of humor about their profession.

If they don't, they don't last long.

[Kenstaroni]

Just don't crash it.

We'll according to this post it would be your fault if I did....lol That thing is awesome btw.

[Guest clownsdd]

I am speechless at how insane those statements are. Nobody but the grade A Dbag that stole the care is responsible. Let me give you another hypothetical.

If you leave your front door unlocked and someone walks in and shoots your wife, should you be charged with murder? Using the same logic you are defending how can you possibly say no?

Give me a break. That's the dumbest crap I have ever heard.

And for a "super moderator" to make that statement is uncalled for. I am not dumb. I brought up a point. Bad comparison stupid (sic) moderator. Doors are left unlocked while someone is at home, that is reasonable. Leaving your keys in the car is irresponsible.

[DWARREN123]

So he left the keys in the car, he did not make the other person steal it or crash it, so the thief should be held completely responsible in my opinion!

[Fallguy]

As Mike said...the owner of the car is not facing and criminal liability, only civil. Also as he said the Court of Appeals is not saying the owner is liable, only that a jury should get the chance to determine if they are if so to what degree.

It sounds that if the jury was picked from this group the owner probably wouldn't be found with any responsibitly...and that could happen in this case. Also even if the owner is found partially responsible, it may only be 2% or something like that.

I have to admit, the car being stolen could reasonably be seen as a foreseeable act if you leave the keys in the ignition. How responsible that makes the owner will be be determined at trial.

[Chief07]

Hmmmm.

The way I was brought up if it ain't yours you got no business touching it.

Keys or no keys.

It is so typical today, common sense with the law is out the window. If

someone takes your truck, keys or no keys, they are wrong. Period!

[Guest clownsdd]

As Mike said...the owner of the car is not facing and criminal liability, only civil. Also as he said the Court of Appeals is not saying the owner is liable, only that a jury should get the chance to determine if they are if so to what degree.

It sounds that if the jury was picked from this group the owner probably wouldn't be found with any responsibitly...and that could happen in this case. Also even if the owner is found partially responsible, it may only be 2% or something like that.

I have to admit, the car being stolen could reasonably be seen as a foreseeable act if you leave the keys in the ignition. How responsible that makes the owner will be be determined at trial.

Well put. +100

[Bubbatn]

Then if you are called for jury duty, rather than looking at the evidence, you can make your decision.

Let me ask you a question. If you owned a retail business, and you left a loaded firearm on the counter and went to the back, is it foreseeable that the gun might be stolen? If it were, in fact, stolen, is it foreseeable that the person who stole your gun might use it to injury someone? Would you share any responsibility for those injuries? Not even a little? A car is a dangerous instrumentality, just like a gun, in fact arguably even more dangerous. Why not let citizens drawn from the community decide who is responsible for injuries?

Again, Your not comparing apples to apples....A retail business owner has responsibilities for the safety of their customers(or anyone in that store for that matter), thus there should not be a gun laying on the counter in plain sight in the first place. Average Joe(or Joette in this case) can't be responsible for what some idiot does and has no safety responsibilities towards the general public outside of following stardard laws(there is no law against leaving your keys in your car). And like the article stated, her grandson was the one who left the keys in the car in the first place, so it was likely an accident anyway.

Hmmmm.

The way I was brought up if it ain't yours you got no business touching it.

Keys or no keys.

It is so typical today, common sense with the law is out the window. If

someone takes your truck, keys or no keys, they are wrong. Period!

Exactly, End of story.

[Guest clownsdd]

No law against it, but irresponsible and stupid AND partially at fault.

[vontar]

If I was on that Jury, with the information found here I would not hold the owner of the vehicle at fault. Even if I was the only juror that felt that way.

No one told that person to steal it, no one make that person steal it. As someone else said, the owners responsibility ends when their crime begins.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

You just got to love negligent entrustment aka a way to get at deeper pockets and more of them lol

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

And exactly how was the Murfreesboro PD's fault? I know the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment in their favor but it still cracks me up that they sued the police for causing the accident.

[MikePapa1]

And exactly how was the Murfreesboro PD's fault? I know the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment in their favor but it still cracks me up that they sued the police for causing the accident.

This goes back to the issue of police high speed chases and whether chasing a thief or other felon is more dangerous than letting them go. The core question is whether the public is more endangered by the felon or the chase itself.

[Fallguy]

If I was on that Jury, with the information found here I would not hold the owner of the vehicle at fault. Even if I was the only juror that felt that way.

No one told that person to steal it, no one make that person steal it. As someone else said, the owners responsibility ends when their crime begins.

I don't think I'd hold the owner at fault either.

...and as of know all the court of appeals has done is to let a jury decide it. The simply reversed a summary dismissal against the owner.