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

[Grunt67]

Overall I think it's usually pretty stupid to leave your keys in your car. However I really don't think your liable if someone steals you car.

Just to be clear, this ruling is not saying you are responsible, it is simply allowing to case to go forward against the car owner. It is possible that no fault will be imposed in the final disposition.

Totally agree with the stupidity of leaving keys in the car. On the other hand, a thief

really doesn't need a key. Most can steal your car without a key in less time than you

could start it with one.

True, the outcome of the case hasn't been decided by the court, just allowed to

continue. Hopefully, it will fail. Same as the perp who pulls a trigger should be held

accountable, rather than the gun manufacturer.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

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.

I guess the main factor is whether you feel the criminal act should act as a pseudo-superseding intervening cause to break the liability the car owner may have from acting negligently in some manner. It appears many here feel it should while others feel it shouldnt.

[E4 No More]

I guess the main factor is whether you feel the criminal act should act as a pseudo-superseding intervening cause to break the liability the car owner may have from acting negligently in some manner. It appears many here feel it should while others feel it shouldnt.

That's usually the case with most topics.

[Krull]

Why is it negligent to leave your keys in your car??? If someone steals my car I'm a VICTIM of a damn crime. End of story,,,,if a bank has money in it and someone robs it......is it the banks fault for having money??

[Guest Jamie]

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?

Doesn't matter how far it's allowed to run, the fact is, the car is left unlocked, and usually with the keys in it, or otherwise set up so it WILL BE EASY TO STEAL and therefor a tempting target.

So, given the current ruling, it would seem most of these type operations could easily be called entrapment. No?

[E4 No More]

Doesn't matter how far it's allowed to run, the fact is, the car is left unlocked, and usually with the keys in it, or otherwise set up so it WILL BE EASY TO STEAL and therefor a tempting target.

So, given the current ruling, it would seem most of these type operations could easily be called entrapment. No?

Oh yes, it does matter how far it has to run.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding, so I'll be more thorough in my position. My position is that if you are negligent in leaving your keys in a vehicle, (or leave them in control of a child who leaves the keys in the car), that requires the coded key to operate said vehicle, a thief steals the vehicle and wrecks into someone, then you are partly liable for the damages to that someone/vehicle, for your irresponsible actions facilitated the theft and its results because the vehicle could not have been driven without the keys.

This is the liability that I am talking about.

[Fallguy]

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/general-off-topic/50119-theif-steals-your-car-causes-harm-now-you-can-held-responsible.html

Threads merged

[southernasylum]

I leave my keys in my car every time I am driving. If I get yanked out of my car at a stop sign and a thief gets into a wreck am I liable if my door was unlocked? What if the door was locked and all I had to protect the key was a small layer of glass? I know this is hyperbole but it saddens me that even here some are willing to place liability on someone other than the perpetrator of the crime. Criminals should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and law abiding citizens should be left alone.

/rant

[Fallguy]

This is not an "either or" situation...

It's not like if you say the owner has some liability the thief has none. As a lawyer said earlier, TN is a shared liability state. It can be portioned out to each party.

In this case they (jury) very well could say the thief is 99%-100% responsible and the owner is 1% to not at all, responsible.

All this ruling did, is to allow the jury to decide, by reversing the dismissal against the owner.

Again as a lawyer said, one reason it was reversed is because the owner's lawyer argued that the vehicle being stolen was not foreseeable by leaving the keys in it. For all of you that leave your keys in your car...don't you admit that it being stolen is possible? It is just a risk you are wiling to take. Had the owner's lawyer made some other argument for dismissal, it is possible the Court of Appeals may not have reversed the dismissal.

I'm still betting the the owner won't be assessed much (if any) liability in this case.

[E4 No More]

I leave my keys in my car every time I am driving. If I get yanked out of my car at a stop sign and a thief gets into a wreck am I liable if my door was unlocked? What if the door was locked and all I had to protect the key was a small layer of glass? I know this is hyperbole but it saddens me that even here some are willing to place liability on someone other than the perpetrator of the crime. Criminals should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and law abiding citizens should be left alone.

/rant

So if you leave your gun loaded and unlocked to be found by a neighborhood kid who accidentally shoots someone you aren't liable because you didn't tell the kid to play with your gun? Well, hope that I'm not on the jury of the civil case against you.

Since when does stupid acts not have consequences?

[E4 No More]

This is not an "either or" situation...

It's not like if you say the owner has some liability the thief has none. As a lawyer said earlier, TN is a shared liability state. It can be portioned out to each party.

In this case they (jury) very well could say the thief is 99%-100% responsible and the owner is 1% to not at all, responsible.

All this ruling did, is to allow the jury to decide, by reversing the dismissal against the owner.

Again as a lawyer said, one reason it was reversed is because the owner's lawyer argued that the vehicle being stolen was not foreseeable by leaving the keys in it. For all of you that leave your keys in your car...don't you admit that it being stolen is possible? It is just a risk you are wiling to take. Had the owner's lawyer made some other argument for dismissal, it is possible the Court of Appeals may not have reversed the dismissal.

I'm still betting the the owner won't be assessed much (if any) liability in this case.

Agreed!

[Guest Jamie]

Oh yes, it does matter how far it has to run.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding, so I'll be more thorough in my position. My position is that if you are negligent in leaving your keys in a vehicle, (or leave them in control of a child who leaves the keys in the car), that requires the coded key to operate said vehicle, a thief steals the vehicle and wrecks into someone, then you are partly liable for the damages to that someone/vehicle, for your irresponsible actions facilitated the theft and its results because the vehicle could not have been driven without the keys.

This is the liability that I am talking about.

Then wouldn't it stand to reason that if the police set up a situation with the intention of having someone commit a crime, that they have to assume some of the responsibility for that crime? Couldn't it be argued that because of their actions, a crime was committed where there otherwise wouldn't have been one?

It seems to me that the argument might be valid, if the law assumes that a person who leaves the keys in their car with no intention of it being stolen is responsible to any degree at all for something that happens after it is.

The point I'm getting at here is that I can see where the judge's ruling - and any ruling that stems from it - could make life more difficult for some LE agencies and prosecuting attorneys.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Jamie

[MikePapa1]

I'm sorry, guys, but I live in the real world, not necessarily the way I wish it were. Leaving your keys in the car facilitates its unauthorized use

wand may well be determined, by a jury, to be negligent. If they also conclude that such negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries, they'll then determine to what extent. I hear everyone talking about what if it was their car stolen, but I'm curious as to what their attitude would be if they were the party injured.

[Guest Jamie]

I hear everyone talking about what if it was their car stolen, but I'm curious as to what their attitude would be if they were the party injured.

If I were the person injured, I'd be going after the driver, since he/she's the one who injured me. Whether the vehicle was his/hers, borrowed, stolen, etc. is entirely irrelevant to his/her actions at the time of the injury.

Unless a person is physically locked up or otherwise restrained, if they want to drive, they will. It doesn't matter if they have a license, insurance, or own a vehicle... they will take actions to make it so, if that's what they want to do. And trying to make some other person responsible for their actions in any way, capacity, or amount is just absolutely preposterous.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Jamie

[southernasylum]

So if you leave your gun loaded and unlocked to be found by a neighborhood kid who accidentally shoots someone you aren't liable because you didn't tell the kid to play with your gun? Well, hope that I'm not on the jury of the civil case against you.

Since when does stupid acts not have consequences?

I never said I leave my gun loaded and unlocked.

[E4 No More]

Then wouldn't it stand to reason that if the police set up a situation with the intention of having someone commit a crime, that they have to assume some of the responsibility for that crime? Couldn't it be argued that because of their actions, a crime was committed where there otherwise wouldn't have been one?

It seems to me that the argument might be valid, if the law assumes that a person who leaves the keys in their car with no intention of it being stolen is responsible to any degree at all for something that happens after it is.

The point I'm getting at here is that I can see where the judge's ruling - and any ruling that stems from it - could make life more difficult for some LE agencies and prosecuting attorneys.

I am not arguing criminal culpability; I am arguing civil liability. To commit a crime is solely up to the individual who does so. In other words, if one is dumb enough to intentionally leave his keys in the car and the car is stolen then they should not be at risk of a criminal charge of accessory or anything of the sort. That is solely on the thief.

But if one is dumb enough to intentionally leave his keys in a car that cannot be driven without a coded key, the car is stolen and wrecked by the thief, then they should be civially liable for damages since the car couldn't have been driven had it not been for their negligence.

[E4 No More]

I never said I leave my gun loaded and unlocked.

It's an analogy.

[E4 No More]

If I were the person injured, I'd be going after the driver, since he/she's the one who injured me. Whether the vehicle was his/hers, borrowed, stolen, etc. is entirely irrelevant to his/her actions at the time of the injury.

Unless a person is physically locked up or otherwise restrained, if they want to drive, they will. It doesn't matter if they have a license, insurance, or own a vehicle... they will take actions to make it so, if that's what they want to do. And trying to make some other person responsible for their actions in any way, capacity, or amount is just absolutely preposterous.

As well you should, but if the vehicle were unable to be driven without the coded key then the thief/driver wouldn't have been able to cause you injury with it, would he?

[Guest Jamie]

As well you should, but if the vehicle were unable to be driven without the coded key then the thief/driver wouldn't have been able to cause you injury with it, would he?

Again, you're putting too much importance on this Coded Key. If the person wanted to steal a car, they would either find a way around the issue of not having a key ( car thieves have been doing it for years ), or find another car to steal. It's the thieving behavior that's the problem or issue here, not how easy or difficult someone has made it to steal a car.

This whole argument is a load of bull and exactly what is wrong with people/society today. Turning a victim into an accessory to a crime - even in civil court - is simply another "somebody's gonna PAY me and I don't care who"- type of situation. It's also the very sort of thing that gives lawyers and the law in general a black eye. I don't see a bit of difference in this, and the claims that guns are evil and are solely responsible for actions that PEOPLE commit.

[Fallguy]

It's the thieving behavior that's the problem or issue here, not how easy or difficult someone has made it to steal a car.

I agree thieving is a problem...and I hate a thief. Remember I'm one of the guys that wishes deadly force was an option to protect property (God bless TX), but in this case, how easy or difficult the owner made stealing the care is exactly the issue. Not as far as criminal responsibility, but civil liability.

I just hope the owner is found with any liabilty....

[Guest Jamie]

... in this case, how easy or difficult the owner made stealing the care is exactly the issue.

Again, I fully understand that. However, it also gets into the argument that if there were no cars, then people wouldn't steal them and harm other people with them.

So, why not make the manufacturer liable too? Or maybe the dealership?

Sorry, but this is exactly the sort of crap that causes Smith & Wesson to put an unneeded hole in their guns, and Ruger to write a paragraph on the side of their gun barrels.

So, my real problem here is that it should not BE a case at all... or even an issue to be discussed.

Am I clear enough with that?

Not as far as criminal responsibility, but civil liability.

Responsibility and liability are just that, and making a person answer for someone else's actions is just WRONG, plain and simple. The vehicle in this case would have simply set there and not bothered anyone, if it hadn't been for someone's actions. It could have had the engine running and the door open, and until the choice was made to take it and drive it, it's still harmless.

And no, I don't really expect a jury to assign any liability to the vehicle owner... but the very fact that an idiot judge would say they needed to decide is disturbing to say the least. It is very indicative of an overall problem in how some people think.

BTW, I think I'm done here... There's no point in arguing what seems to be already decided in some people's minds, or in trying to counter how they want to split hairs and make differences where there are none.

Oh, one last thing to add, for folks to think about:

In the 1800s, they HUNG horse thieves. And nobody had to worry about making it too easy for someone to steal their horse. If it didn't belong to you, you left it the hell alone or were prepared to die if you were caught.

And I firmly believe that's how it still ought to be.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Jamie

[Krull]

WTH is wrong with you people.....seriously??? You really think the person who's car was stolen has liability for leaving his keys in it. Unreal...I'm pretty unexciteable but this makes my blood boil. I guess if I leave my front door unlocked and I get murdered it was my fault.

[Guest drv2fst]

I left this thread in disgust many pages ago. I was concerned I'd say how I really felt about the issue and get banned. I just can't get my head wrapped around how anyone could reasonably assign any liability to the victim of car theft.

It shows how far this country is off it's moral center.

[Guest Letereat!]

I left this thread in disgust many pages ago. I was concerned I'd say how I really felt about the issue and get banned. I just can't get my head wrapped around how anyone could reasonably assign any liability to the victim of car theft.

It shows how far this country is off it's moral center.

:mad:Ill say it for ya. This is the most rediculous bunch of GD Fing BS I have seen in some time. I don't give a rats ass how much anyone can pontificate and bluster on about "civil liability" and personall responsibility, it just flies in the face of common sense and reason. It should not matter if her 4 year old kid was playing race car driver and left the keys in the ignition and the windows down. When someone steals any item from another the victim is just that a victim and they are in no way shape form or fasion responsible or liable for the actions of the thief. You can take all your legal mumbo jumbo and sitck up your poo hole. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECISIONS CHOICES AND ACTIONS OF ANOTHER ADULT. IF THEY HAD NOT STOLEN WHAT WAS NOT RIGHTFULLY THEIRS THERE WOULD BE NO ONE TO BLAME FOR ANYTHING PERIOD. WHAT A CROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest Jamie]

Yup... That - ^^^ - about sums it up.