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

[shortround]

Kinda like you went to the mall and forgetting you took your wife with you. One of those things you just don't do.

What? Am I the only one who does this?

[LagerHead]

"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.

There is a huge chasm between leaving your keys in your car and putting a sign in it saying to steal it. Not in the same ball park. Not even the same sport. Either way the person who crashes it is responsible.

Let me put it another way. Many of us on this site leave their guns in their home unlocked so that if it is needed it is available and ready to use immediately. If a thief breaks into your home, which is easily foreseeable, and steals your unlocked gun, which he will most certainly do, and kills someone, are you responsible or is the thief? If we allow the insane example above to proceed how can you possibly argue that the owner of a stolen gun is not responsible for whatever nefarious deeds it is used?

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.

It really doesn't matter who left what where. Is it illegal to leave your keys in your car? As far as I know it is not. And even it it were how can you justify removing personal responsibility and liability from the thief? As gun owners we constantly preach that each person is responsible for their own actions but now we're going to make an exception? Not me. I don't care if I leave my keys in the car, engine running, doors open. It is NOT an invitation for anyone to steal it and if they do they are responsible for what they do with it, not me.

[Fallguy]

There is a huge chasm between leaving your keys in your car and putting a sign in it saying to steal it. Not in the same ball park. Not even the same sport. Either way the person who crashes it is responsible.

Let me put it another way. Many of us on this site leave their guns in their home unlocked so that if it is needed it is available and ready to use immediately. If a thief breaks into your home, which is easily foreseeable, and steals your unlocked gun, which he will most certainly do, and kills someone, are you responsible or is the thief? If we allow the insane example above to proceed how can you possibly argue that the owner of a stolen gun is not responsible for whatever nefarious deeds it is used?

If your gun is inside your locked house and it stolen I would say you made a reasonable effort to keep it from being stolen. However if you purposely left it sitting on top of the mailbox, I would say it was reasonable to expect it to be stolen. Either way it was stolen and shouldn't have been, but in one of the scenarios you have made it a bit more easy to be stolen. Does that make you liable? Maybe not, but the CoA says a jury gets to decide that.

Again, all that has been done at this point is to let it go to trial. I truly hope the owner isn't held responsible at all...

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

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.

I understand the premise behind the argument I still just think it gets kinda silly. At the end of the day the criminal is the one at fault. However since criminals usual have little in the way of assets victims to try spread the blame as wide as they can to reach as many pockets as they can. I understand why they do it I just cant say that I personally agree with it.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

If your gun is inside your locked house and it stolen I would say you made a reasonable effort to keep it from being stolen. However if you purposely left it sitting on top of the mailbox, I would say it was reasonable to expect it to be stolen. Either way it was stolen and shouldn't have been, but in one of the scenarios you have made it a bit more easy to be stolen. Does that make you liable? Maybe not, but the CoA says a jury gets to decide that.

Again, all that has been done at this point is to let it go to trial. I truly hope the owner isn't held responsible at all...

I agree with you on if the house had been locked you have a stronger argument. I still havent been able to determine precisely in this case whether the doors were locked and the key was in the ignition? Or if they car was just left unlocked with the keys in the ignition? It would seem like if you could be held liable for leaving the keys in the ignition and the car unlocked then you could be held liable if you left your gun in your house where they normally reside unlocked and accidentally forgot to lock the house on your way out that if that gun was stolen and used in a murder that you could be held liable in a wrongful death claim.

[MikePapa1]

I understand the premise behind the argument I still just think it gets kinda silly. At the end of the day the criminal is the one at fault. However since criminals usual have little in the way of assets victims to try spread the blame as wide as they can to reach as many pockets as they can. I understand why they do it I just cant say that I personally agree with it.

Well, I don't know that it's simply that. If, for example, the police are involved in a high speed chase, it endangers innocent citizens. If they are chasing an armed robber who's fired his weapon then the felon may well be more dangerous to the public than the chase. If, on the other hand, they are chasing a guy for an altered tag, also a felony, it makes far less sense. As with many things it's a question of reasonableness.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

I understand what you are saying. And there is always a difference between what one personally believes and what the law actually provides for. That is a tough line that practicing lawyers have to walk and I will hopefully soon have to tread myself.

[Fallguy]

I understand what you are saying. And there is always a difference between what one personally believes and what the law actually provides for.

Ain't it the truth!!

[MikePapa1]

If you want justice go to divinity school. That's what I was told in law school.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Haha I havent heard that one yet. Though I have one semester left so who knows it may come up

[JC57]

Hmmm... My home was recently burglarized. The burglar(s) pried off a locked metal security door, damaging both the door itself, bending the bolt, and the exterior metal frame. They then kicked in the locked interior door, breaking the door frame. Once inside the house, he/she/they found a loaded pistol in a closed but unlocked drawer and stole it, along with some other valuables from other parts of the house.

Am I in some way liable if later that gun is used in a crime? The gun would not have been in the house at all but would have been carried on my person (I have a HCP), but for the fact that my employer prohibits weapons on their premises. Does that make them liable too? I wonder at what point the line gets drawn.

[MikePapa1]

In my opinion, no, neither you nor your employer is liable. Law, however, is all about drawing lines. Reasonableness is a continuum. In the original case, I'm not sure where I'd come down as a citizen in apportioning liability. My gut would be that Mr. Ash would have some responsibility. Of course the criminal has the largest share, but the Plaintiff would have none.

[JC57]

Thanks for the response, Mike. I didn't really think I would be liable but we do live in an increasingly lawsuit-happy world, so who knows. In my case, I hope that eventually the police recover the pistol without incident and it eventually is returned to me (or to the insurance company, who I assume now owns it since they've paid the claim).

[Ghooge2008]

thinking the same way, your saying, if I left my backdoor unlocked, and someone broke into...err, entered my house but didnt "break" in, and I have my loaded shotgun in the house. He steals it, and 2.) commits a crime, I should be responsible and sue-able, because 1.) he just entered it was my fault for not locking the door, and if those bullets hadnt been in the gun this possibly wouldn't have happened?

Edited December 11, 2010 by Ghooge2008

[E4 No More]

There is a huge chasm between leaving your keys in your car and putting a sign in it saying to steal it. Not in the same ball park. Not even the same sport. Either way the person who crashes it is responsible.

Let me put it another way. Many of us on this site leave their guns in their home unlocked so that if it is needed it is available and ready to use immediately. If a thief breaks into your home, which is easily foreseeable, and steals your unlocked gun, which he will most certainly do, and kills someone, are you responsible or is the thief? If we allow the insane example above to proceed how can you possibly argue that the owner of a stolen gun is not responsible for whatever nefarious deeds it is used?

It really doesn't matter who left what where. Is it illegal to leave your keys in your car? As far as I know it is not. And even it it were how can you justify removing personal responsibility and liability from the thief? As gun owners we constantly preach that each person is responsible for their own actions but now we're going to make an exception? Not me. I don't care if I leave my keys in the car, engine running, doors open. It is NOT an invitation for anyone to steal it and if they do they are responsible for what they do with it, not me.

At no time did I ever say to remove responsibility from the thief, but there is such a thing as shared liability. I'm not talking about criminal responsibility for the thief's actions so the argument of "It ain't illegal to leave your keys in the car" doesn't matter. I'm talking about one having liability for being stupid enough to leave their keys in a car so that it can be driven off. You have facilitated the thief's actions so you share liability for the results. Bar tenders and bars don't make a drunk drink and drive, but they sure as heck can be sued for getting the drunk plastered and he goes out and kills someone.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

While I see some validity to the bar comparison that still really doesnt quite match up to me with if you accidentally left your keys in the car and they are not hidden they you are liable. With the bar you are actively providing the alcohol to the party to make a profit whereas with the keys you forgot in your car you are passively creating a situation for the party to commit a crime.

[MikePapa1]

While I see some validity to the bar comparison that still really doesnt quite match up to me with if you accidentally left your keys in the car and they are not hidden they you are liable.

Not you ARE liable, but you may be liable to sum degree. All the case said is there there may be some set of facts under which such behavior may be considered negligent by a jury.

[LagerHead]

"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.

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.

At no time did I ever say to remove responsibility from the thief, but there is such a thing as shared liability. I'm not talking about criminal responsibility for the thief's actions so the argument of "It ain't illegal to leave your keys in the car" doesn't matter. I'm talking about one having liability for being stupid enough to leave their keys in a car so that it can be driven off. You have facilitated the thief's actions so you share liability for the results. Bar tenders and bars don't make a drunk drink and drive, but they sure as heck can be sued for getting the drunk plastered and he goes out and kills someone.

That is also a BS byproduct of our broken legal system. You know when you walk through the doors or a bar how you are going to get home and it's nobody's responsibility but yours to make sure you do it safely. The alternative is that a bartender, who is not an officer of the law, is required to administer a breathalizer test to everyone as they walk out the door violating their 4th Amendment protections.

BTW, my apologies to you and Clownsdd. I completely disagree with your position but I shouldn't have made it seem like I was attacking you personally. That was not my intent.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

While I see some validity to the bar comparison that still really doesnt quite match up to me with if you accidentally left your keys in the car and they are not hidden they you are liable.

Not you ARE liable, but you may be liable to sum degree. All the case said is there there may be some set of facts under which such behavior may be considered negligent by a jury.

Mike I understand that in this case that have not said their is liability yet only that there may be liability. However I am under the impression that this isnt the first time a case of this basic nature has came up and under some circumstances liability has been found.

And it seemed like Jewell was saying if a bartender or bar owner can be found liable for allowing a customer to get drunk which led to a crash then the car owner should also face liability.

However I will try to be more precise from now on to avoid further confusion

[southernasylum]

Eff this. The criminal is responsible. I've got Christmas lights outside of my house unsecured. If some idiot steals them and accidentently hangs himself, electrocutes himself, ingests, or in any other way does harm to himself or others it's his fault. NOT MINE. This crap makes me mad.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

What? Am I the only one who does this?

No you are not alone in this...... but mine always finds a ride home anyway:shrug:

If I leave her and she drives someone else crazy, can I be held responsible?

[Raoul]

Stupid

[Krull]

No chit.....if I leave the keys in my car and someone steals my car, some of you are saying I should be liable for what happens??? That is NUTZ. This is what is wrong with this country.......everyone wants to blame and sue everyone else. This just adds to the wussification of America. Blame someone else....not who is responsible.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Krull

[Guest Jamie]

With this kind of crap going on, it's no wonder guns get blamed for all kinds of things they can't do... It's because NO BODY wants to take responsibility for their own actions anymore.

You take my car without my permission, that's YOUR doing. It has nothing to do with how easy I did or did not make it.

( I can't help but wonder what effect this is going to have on police, and their whole "bait car" type operations... )

[E4 No More]

With this kind of crap going on, it's no wonder guns get blamed for all kinds of things they can't do... It's because NO BODY wants to take responsibility for their own actions anymore.

You take my car without my permission, that's YOUR doing. It has nothing to do with how easy I did or did not make it.

( I can't help but wonder what effect this is going to have on police, and their whole "bait car" type operations... )

Good point with the bait car: however, aren't they set-up to not run more than a few yards, shut down, and lock the criminals inside?

Ironic that someone would decry people who do not take responsibility for their actions in one sentence and then in the next sentence claim that they aren't responsible for their own actions, i.e. leaving the keys in the vehicle to facilitate its theft. I guess for the liability issue we'll have to agree to disagree.