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

[Guest Jamie]

Let's see, what would be easier to do?

D. Invent and manufacture a device that can mimic any coded key regardless of any intellectual challenges for such things that you face

No need, it seems:

Manufacturer Factory Installed Systems - Vehicle Immobilizers

GM-PASSlock II; Ford-SecuriLock; Chrysler-SentryKey; Toyota-Engine Immobilizer

These transponder based anti theft systems consist of a miniature transponder imbedded in the ignition key head. When the key is inserted into the ignition a radio frequency is transmitted to the key. This energizes the transponder which replies with an ID number. If the ID is recognized by the on-board computer, the ignition and starting system is enabled. If access is attempted without the correct code, critical systems (ignition, starter) remain inoperable. These systems are factory installed on almost all new GM, Ford, Chrysler and Toyota vehicles at no charge, but they are very easy to bypass. A product called the "No Key Required Bypass Kit" can be used to bypass the transponder key system in any vehicle made. Without this product, all a thief has to do is cut the black wire in the three wire ribbon cable located under the dash, measure the resistance between the black wire and the yellow starter wire with a volt meter, then touch the two wires with the matching resistor and the vehicle will start. This sounds complicated, but it only takes about 20 seconds. Recently, a national automotive magazine actually published information on how to bypass these systems. Despite what salespeople may say, a factory-installed system is not enough to secure your vehicle. RAVELCO provides better protection.

Guide - Anti-Theft Devices, Car Alarms & Vehicle Tracking Recovery

[Guest Jamie]

The test in the law isn't "but for" but rather proximate cause.

Again, I no longer give a crap about the judge's decision or any law that might support it... I'm just digging around in the brains that seem to want to justify it in order to try and understand WHY they operate the way they seem to.

Money and ego seem to be the most prevalent factors, at the moment. :-\

[E4 No More]

By changing the child to an adult you remove the requirement that someone else is supposed to be responsible for them, so they can stand fully accountable for their own actions. That makes the analogy a poor one, since it's not an equal exchange. And yes, these days people all but drawn and quartered for letting ANY unauthorized person have access to their firearms. So again, not really an equal exchange. Had the thief in the article that started this conversation not hurt anyone, there'd be no one trying to hold the car's owner accountable for much of anything. The same probably wouldn't be true if willful negligence with a gun were what we were discussing.

A car isn't intended to be a weapon, neither is it small enough for a child to carry off... though children do on occasion steal cars. Usually from a relative, and usually by stealing the keys first. And you can ask me how I know, if you're so inclined.

Anyway, leaving your car in your driveway with it locked and the keys secured could hardly be compared to leaving a Smith & Wesson out on the front porch with no ammo in it and the trigger lock engaged. That being the case, neither is leaving a loaded gun accessible to a child a valid comparison to the story under discussion.

So you think that because you think that it's a poor analogy that makes it so? Got'cha! LOL!

The keys aren't exactly secure now are they, and it wouldn't measure up to due diligence would it?

Your argument is that you are not responsible for the reasonable security of any potentially dangerous item, and that the person who acts on your lack of due diligence is solely responsible for what happens to a third party. The analogy is the same with the gun. It doesn't matter if it's a kid, adult, or ET. Your stance is ridiculous.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Let's see, what would be easier to do?

A. Steal a tow truck to steal newer cars

B. Work as a tow truck driver and steal on the side while you are driving around town looking for legitimate tows

C. Find the VIN for a target car and bribe a dealership to provide a key from the manufacturer while not worrying about the fact that those are traceable

D. Invent and manufacture a device that can mimic any coded key regardless of any intellectual challenges for such things that you face

EDIT: Having several vehicles that require a coded key, at the time of purchase of each I was given coded tags to present to the dealership along with proof of who I am and ownership of the car in the event that I lost a key. Then there's a hefty price to pay for the replacement key also.

AKA The new Gone In 60 Seconds lol

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

So you think that because you think that it's a poor analogy that makes it so? Got'cha! LOL!

The keys aren't exactly secure now are they, and it wouldn't measure up to due diligence would it?

Your argument is that you are not responsible for the reasonable security of any potentially dangerous item, and that the person who acts on your lack of due diligence is solely responsible for what happens to a third party. The analogy is the same with the gun. It doesn't matter if it's a kid, adult, or ET. Your stance is ridiculous.

I find it interesting that you attack his rebuttal as lacking in substance because it is based of his opinion and then sum it up with a personal opinion that he is being ridiculous lol.

[Guest Jamie]

So you think that because you think that it's a poor analogy that makes it so? Got'cha! LOL!

Hardly. No more so than you thinking it's a good one makes it so, as a matter of fact.

The keys aren't exactly secure now are they, and it wouldn't measure up to due diligence would it?

Swap out or change enough conditions or facts and anything can be compared to anything else. The person who owned the car in this story may have very well believed that the keys were secured up until the car was stolen. It was, after all, a 3rd party that moved them. And given that the person is a juvenile... well, it'll be hard to pass the culpability on to anyone if it was reasonably believed that both the keys and the child were "secured" at the time.

Your argument is that you are not responsible for the reasonable security of any potentially dangerous item, and that the person who acts on your lack of due diligence is solely responsible for what happens to a third party. The analogy is the same with the gun. It doesn't matter if it's a kid, adult, or ET. Your stance is ridiculous.

No, my argument is that the negligence that allowed the car to be stolen, and the act that caused injury are two separate and unrelated events. The car thief could have been a cautious and careful driver, after all, and not injured anyone. The owner would still have to deal with their car being stolen, and probably the "punishment" of having their insurance rates go up due to that.

The point being that if the person was going to steal a vehicle, then one was probably going to be stolen, keys in it or not. It could even have been a tow truck instead of a car, for that matter.... As it turns out, the one that got taken just proved to be a little less work.

As for acting on someone else's lack of due diligence... there are laws against that, aren't there? Concerning fraud and such? Or are the con men usually just cut loose when it turns up that the people they scammed didn't do the checking that they should have, or bought into a story that didn't seem quite right?

The simple fact is there's a definite double standard concerning responsibility, where the courts are concerned.

[Guest Letereat!]

Ok Keyboard Commando, by this moronic reasoning then it shouldn't matter leaving a loaded gun on the front porch for a kid to find. You should be able to leave your gun anywhere, right? You didn't tell that kid to play with the gun and shoot himself or another, did you? You aren't responsible at all, right?

Try it and see how successful you are at defending the lawsuit, genius. SWJewellTN

Let's be careful on direct personal comments......

Its cool, my skin is not that thin. Every Man is entilted to his opinion. I yield the floor to all who want to continue to debate this spectacle of the degradation of reason and personal responsibility.

Back in my Navy days, when two Men disagreed with one another with such fervor it was time for a boxing match. Just good clean raw emotion and full on attempt to pound the other into submission. Then everyone went and had a beer and blew off the rest of the steam. In most cases, sore loosing was frowned upon.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Letereat!

[Guest Jamie]

Back in my Navy days, when two Men disagreed with one another with such fervor it was time for a boxing match. Just good clean raw emotion and full on attempt to pound the other into submission.

These days, I prefer either pistols at 20 paces, or swords, if I'm in a particularly cantankerous mood.

Then again, since I'm dealing with lawyers here, I'm rather inclined to just go with baseball bats for this one...

[Guest Jamie]

I yield the floor to all who want to continue to debate this spectacle of the degradation of reason and personal responsibility.

Hey now!!! I'm trying to keep reason and logic in the fight here.

The problem is, you can't reason with the unreasonable, or rationalize with the irrational... :-\

[vontar]

Holy I just read though this thread catching up.

I went back to the News story, probably the main reason for this suit against the owner is

unknown motorist who had stolen the vehicle.

. Appears they never determined who the thief was. I know over the years I have heard of times where it was suspected a person wrecked a car, then got it reported stolen before it was found etc. Never knew anyone first hand that did this. Perhaps they are suing the owner as they suspect that, using the keys as proof of no forced entry type of thing.

Moving on.

In a case like this, if it is allowable to sue the owner and win, even if the thief is caught, next would the thief suing the owner as well.

Something like car probably had a poor crash rating he was not property informed about and he will probably get a suit to see for personal injury against the owner. Kinda like when they break in a home, get hurt and sue.

[southernasylum]

An analogy is just one letter away from anal orgy, which is what happens when the victim of auto theft is held responsible for a wreck he didn't have anything to do with when some @$$hat should have just left his s#!t alone. I see how the lawyers are connecting the dots, but I think it's crap. =)

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

I am just glad to see Jamie and I agree on something lol...Who would have thought that could happen

[MikePapa1]

Well, I usually get paid to argue, though I'll occasionally do it just for fun, but I rarely argue in this venue just to see myself type. Have fun, Gentlemen.

[Guest Jamie]

No money in it huh? Well at least you're honest about your motivation. :)

[Guest Jamie]

I am just glad to see Jamie and I agree on something lol...Who would have thought that could happen

I wouldn't let it go to my head if I were you. :D

[Guest Letereat!]

No money in it huh? Well at least you're honest about your motivation.

LMAFO!!

Just got back from a friends house, we watched Judge Judy and laughed our asses off.

I could not help but think how She would tear the plantiff in this case a new poo hole and send them off with a dismissed case and a bruised ego.

And oh...by the way SWJewelTN, I have three guns in my house that stay loaded all the time and are easily accessible......What damd use is a Gun(for self and family defense) if it is not loaded. So any time you wana come take one and shoot someone and try to blame it on me give it your best shot.

(And yes, of course they are secured when we are not home.)

Edited December 15, 2010 by Letereat!

[Guest Letereat!]

oops

[clarky07]

Too bad i got to this thread late, it could have been fun :-).

FWIW i think it is ridiculous to call the car owner liable in any way. As has been stated, there are plenty of ways to steal a car. If the guy wanted to steal a car he can and will do so. How hard it is is of no relevance at all. The only reason this is being done is because the thief has no money to take or can't be caught, and some jack@ss lawyer told the victim he might be able to get money out of someone else, i.e. police or car owner.

My dad owns a construction company. One of his workers fell off of a roof and broke a lot of bones. Lawyers hounded him for months to sue the company so he finally did. The company provided the worker with safety equipment but he for whatever reason didn't use it. They sued because the company didn't force him to use the safety equipment. WTF?!? seriously. they settled with him because if he happened to win the ridiculous case they would have gone out of business.

This is the type of BS that makes me sick. Take some personal responsibility, and stop trying to spread blame where it isn't deserved. the gun didn't kill someone, the person pulling the trigger did. the car, and the car owner didn't hurt anyone, the person driving the car did. it is as simple as that.

[vontar]

Clarky07, that helps me understand a policy at a factory I worked out. They provided safety equipment and if they caught you not using it or not using it correctly it was grounds for a write up. X number could lead to any form of action including termination. 2.5 years there, I never had a write up, although I did have to minor injuries, which they covered.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

I wouldn't let it go to my head if I were you.

Oh I wont

[E4 No More]

LMAFO!!

Just got back from a friends house, we watched Judge Judy and laughed our asses off.

I could not help but think how She would tear the plantiff in this case a new poo hole and send them off with a dismissed case and a bruised ego.

And oh...by the way SWJewelTN, I have three guns in my house that stay loaded all the time and are easily accessible......What damd use is a Gun(for self and family defense) if it is not loaded. So any time you wana come take one and shoot someone and try to blame it on me give it your best shot.

(And yes, of course they are secured when we are not home.)

Another classless comment. At least you don't disappoint.

[Guest Jamie]

I wouldn't be throwing too many rocks concerning comments or character if I were you, Jewell...

Besides, some of us take having our character, honesty, or intelligence questioned by an attorney as a sort of badge of honor.

[Guest Letereat!]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::usa::usa:

I will refrain from responding.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

So is Jewell actually an attorney?

[LagerHead]

I think this dead horse has been beyond beaten. Most everyone involved, present company included, has let their emotions get the better of them on this subject. And I don't think a single heart or mind has been won by either side. I'm going to lock this one up for now and we'll continue this on the next controversial issue.