If I get drunk and stoned, steal your car, and almost kill someone..it's YOUR fault!!

[JD159]

Originally Posted by Nickshu

LOL I'm sorta glad to see this is not uniquely a USA phenomenon.

It is unique to any society that isn't overly litigious and doesn't lack personal accountability.

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by JD159

If your property is properly fenced, it wouldn't be on you. Goes back to the issue of not having a gate but having a pool. It isn't your fault someone slipped and fell into your pool and died, but it is yours for not having a fence.

So you are saying that if I have anything that can be dangerous, even a step they could trip on, I have to have a secured fence to keep everyone out so they don't hurt themselves? What if they try to jump the fence and break their neck, am I liable because I have not fenced the fence?

[JD159]

Originally Posted by flipper35

So you are saying that if I have anything that can be dangerous, even a step they could trip on, I have to have a secured fence to keep everyone out so they don't hurt themselves? What if they try to jump the fence and break their neck, am I liable because I have not fenced the fence?

I'd say no because the fence displays reasonable effort to deter people from entering your property.

Do you think people with a pool should have a fence?

[JD159]

And ya I would. All it takes is some kid running from your neighbors lawn to yours and into the bear trap you were fixing.

[flipper35]

I think it is a good idea to have a fence or some other obstacle to keep people out of the pool, yes. But there are many "dangerous objects" that people can get hurt or killed on in peoples yards. Why should I have to fence the whole yard to prevent other people from being stupid on it.

[look 171]

Originally Posted by JD159

Complex issue. Those who think this is a black or white issue are grossly oversimplifying legal frameworks.

The situation sounds crazy, but there is logic behind the arguments.

What if the two idiots stumbled onto his property (a property in which he took no measures to enforce) and fell through a 10ft pit he was digging. Yes, they were trespassing, but the guy did not secure his work area.

Maybe if they got on top of the roof of your house drunk, fell and killed themselves, then you are liable too because you failed to build a 50 tall fence on the edge of your roof to keep people off your property?

[JD159]

Originally Posted by look 171

Maybe if they got on top of the roof of your house drunk, fell and killed themselves, then you are liable too because you failed to build a 50 tall fence on the edge of your roof to keep people off your property?

Perhaps if you left a ladder leaning up against your roof. What if the person was mentally disabled? A kid?

I'd say if it was an adult and drunk, their fault.

[JD159]

Remember, the two ppl in this crash are teens. 16 and 15. Not sure how this would play out of they were adults.

[look 171]

Originally Posted by JD159

Perhaps if you left a ladder leaning up against your roof. What if the person was mentally disabled? A kid?

I'd say if it was an adult and drunk, their fault.

what if they put my ladder themselves there from the shed then claim it was there because the were too drunk?

I think you are on this one alone, pal.

[look 171]

Originally Posted by JD159

Remember, the two ppl in this crash are teens. 16 and 15. Not sure how this would play out of they were adults.

Where are we going to stop making excuses for young people and hold them responsible for the wrong doing? The way we are going, it may just get worst.

[1990C4S]

You can generalize all you like, the judges reasoning was quite specific:

people entrusted with motor vehicles “must assure themselves that the youth in their community are not able to take possession of such dangerous objects.”

And furthermore:

ample evidence supported the conclusion of “foreseeability” that a car might be stolen.

The foreseeability of several of the examples people have proposed is questionable.

Like it or not, the law of the land is this:

“It is well established that the duty of care operates independently of the illegal or immoral conduct of an injured party.”

and that is not about to change. Lock your car, don't leave dangerous construction sites unfenced and unmarked, and don't leave loaded weapons unattended on your porch and you will be fine.

[JD159]

Originally Posted by look 171

what if they put my ladder themselves there from the shed then claim it was there because the were too drunk?

I think you are on this one alone, pal.

Would still be different. The law will typically punish a business instead of holding a person accountable for being an idiot.

But like I said, if someone who is mentally disabled climbs a ladder that you left leaning up against your house, they would probably try and sue you. And if it was a kid, I'd be leaning towards holding you responsible as ****ty as that sounds. Especially if the kid requires further care.

I'm not saying I agree with it in every case, just that there are so many different scenarios.

[Tobra]

Teens, eh, so you imply that would change the legal responsibility. If the kids are not fully responsible for their actions, their parents are, not the guy they stole a car from.

Originally Posted by -Levi-

the only victim here is the garage and whoever those kids ran into

This

I wonder if the victims can appeal the ridiculous judgement.

Reasonable precautions. Reasonable person is not a thief, so that goes right out the window I guess.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by look 171

Maybe if they got on top of the roof of your house drunk, fell and killed themselves, then you are liable too because you failed to build a 50 tall fence on the edge of your roof to keep people off your property?

You guys laugh, but something similar happened in Jax a while back.
Some kids climbed on a roof of a local school, broke a skylight and fell. They sued the school
Mind you, they fell while BREAKING INTO THE SCHOOL.

[JD159]

but did they win?

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by JD159

but did they win?

Sadly, the city paid them

[JD159]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

Sadly, the city paid them

Ugh. That's a fail...

[1990C4S]

Originally Posted by Tobra

I wonder if the victims can appeal the ridiculous judgement.

Appeal?

There is no mention of any 'victims', it appears the thief had a one car accident. If there were 'victims' they would also be suing the garage and the decision would help them, not hurt them. The garage's insurance company will be funding the appeal.

[ficke]

Sad new world.
I used to visit my grandmother in a small town in SD every body left the keys in their cars, they would leave them idling when it was cold to keep the heaters running. Never locked their car doors or houses.
I know the trash of the earth can live freely in big cities but this encouraging them and making efforts to protect them from injury while they conduct their thieving ways???

I am suppose to have compassion for people getting injured while stealing and find blame with some one who trust society? Not going to happen.

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by JD159

Remember, the two ppl in this crash are teens. 16 and 15. Not sure how this would play out of they were adults.

That is an age where they know better.