Re: Car stolen? You're on the hook for the damage the thief does.

In article <k8CdnbF5uIpgMubVnZ2dnUVZ_szinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2008-07-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <YqudnRoVkdZqNObVnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2008-07-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <-qidnU3luKTtCubVnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

from fark... where else?

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1034997/Driver-hit-insurance-
cla
im-
police--car-dented-chasing-stolen-vehicle.html

<...>

ason West.s vehicle was recovered by officers following a 30-minute
pursuit, but at the end of it their unmarked car had received £1,000
worth of damage.

They finally sent him the bill five months later.

<...>

Because he left the keys in the ignition.

i.e. he was negligent.

Conceptually that's the same as the 'well look at how she was dressed'
excuse for a rapist.

No, it's not.

Yes it is. It's excusing the actions of person A because person B or his
property was a target for one reason or another.

No. Person B is to blame *as well*.


Cars are potentially dangerous and it is up to the owner of a vehicle to
take reasonable steps to ensure that his car doesn't cause harm. Leaving
the keys in the car could have resulted in a child stepping into the car
and hurting someone.

Ladders are potentially dangerous and it is up to the owner of a ladder
to take reasonable steps to ensure that his ladder doesn't cause harm.

Yup. But "reasonable steps" vary with the situation.


A glass of water is potentially dangerous and it is up to the owner of a
glass of water to take reasonable steps to ensure that his glass of
doesn't cause harm.

I could go on displaying other examples, but the major flaw is that you
say the object, in this case a car, can cause harm. The car isn't
causing harm, the person driving it is.

The person leaving it running is abetting in that harm.

Sneer all you want, but the fact of the matter is that


Let's say you leave a kitchen knife out on your BBQ and someone steals
it and uses it to kill another person. Does that make you responsible?
How about if they take a rock or brick from your landscaping and then
uses that to damage property or harm/kill a person? What then?

The standard is what it was always been: what steps could a "reasonable
person" (another -- gasp! -- actual legal concept for you) be expected
to take.

A reasonable person wouldn't be expected not to leave a kitchen knife on
his BBQ, but if he left a loaded weapon out, it would be different,
wouldn't it? A rock or brick is *reasonable* to leave in one's yard, but
if he left his chainsaw out where a kid could get hurt...

The simple fact is that the driver helped to create the situation
because he was too *lazy* to turn off his car and take out the keys.


It's called *duty of care*

Lawsuit happy society where those truely responsible aren't held
responsible is more like it.

Sorry, but the duty of care concept long predates our lawsuit happy
society.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
.

Relevant Pages