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

[Spud]

Originally Posted by JD159

Put up a fence around your business.

So, now I have a fence, with a locked gate, the crim cuts off the lock and steals my car. Of course the crim will claim the gate was not locked

Do you not see how, by trying so hard to blame the wrong person, you can never satisfy this equation? As soon as you can place the blame where it rightfully belongs, on the criminal, then we can stop with the ridiculous what if's.

[JD159]

Originally Posted by Spud

So, now I have a fence, with a locked gate, the crim cuts off the lock and steals my car. Of course the crim will claim the gate was not locked

Do you not see how, by trying so hard to blame the wrong person, you can never satisfy this equation? As soon as you can place the blame where it rightfully belongs, on the criminal, then we can stop with the ridiculous what if's.

I'm fairly certain that if the business had a fence and locked the car this wouldn't be on the news.

[DanielDudley]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

The only victim is the guy that left his car at this garage. (Although it's not clear who owned the car).

Everyone else is a dumbass. Fortunately they didn't hit another car.

If you leave your keys in a car, and it gets stolen, and the insurance company that insures my car pays you for it, I am the victim.

[JD159]

Isn't the business owner only 30% responsible???

[Spud]

Originally Posted by JD159

I'm fairly certain that if the business had a fence and locked the car this wouldn't be on the news.

Why? Are you counting on the criminal kid to tell the truth about the fence being locked and the car being locked in our hypothetical scenario? See, all those arguments go away as soon as the criminal is held responsible for their actions. We don't have to worry about the shop owner did this, or the shop owner did that.

[JD159]

Originally Posted by Spud

Why? Are you counting on the criminal kid to tell the truth about the fence being locked and the car being locked in our hypothetical scenario? See, all those arguments go away as soon as the criminal is held responsible for their actions. We don't have to worry about the shop owner did this, or the shop owner did that.

Nope. I'm counting on reasonable and visible efforts made to secure the property.

In addition, evidence was that the garage took no measures to keep people off the property when it was closed; there had been a previous auto theft from the lot; and joyriding in the area was common

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by JD159

Isn't the business owner only 30% responsible???

What difference does it make? If it is more than 0%, he is on the hook. As the only one with a job or any assets, he is the one who pays. That is why they sued him, not because of any culpability or negligence on his part. Dumbass car thief who turned his buddy into a vegetable has nothing.

If they are claiming that he should have taken more care to secure the car that was stolen because they are deadly weapons, or something, does that mean the kid driving was charged with attempted murder of his friend, the rutabaga?

[JD159]

Until this ever changes..."“It is well established that the duty of care operates independently of the illegal or immoral conduct of an injured party.”...The decision makes complete sense within those parameters.

So the real argument is over that particular piece of legislation.

[Spud]

Originally Posted by JD159

In addition, evidence was that the garage took no measures to keep people off the property when it was closed; there had been a previous auto theft from the lot; and joyriding in the area was common

Do you not have car dealers up there? Because down here in sunny CA we have lots of car dealers, with thousands of cars on their lots, and typically no FENCES.. Really, you are struggling to blame this on anyone but the idiot kids, I just don't get that.

[JD159]

Originally Posted by Spud

Do you not have car dealers up there? Because down here in sunny CA we have lots of car dealers, with thousands of cars on their lots, and typically no FENCES.. Really, you are struggling to blame this on anyone but the idiot kids, I just don't get that.

Because it isn't quite so simple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care

I worked at a dealership. At night, we locked the cars, closed the gate, and put the keys in the back room on the peg board. If you owned a dealership, where you have had cars stolen, would you really leave the keys in the cars unlocked with no gates??

[Spud]

From your wiki link:

..Similarly, in the 1968 landmark case of Rowland v. Christian,[20] the Supreme Court of California replaced the old classifications with a general duty of care to all persons on one's land, regardless of their status. After several highly publicized and controversial cases, the California Legislature enacted a statute in 1985 that partially restored immunity to landowners from some types of lawsuits from trespassers.

Clearly there are differences between states, and between the US and Canada in this regard. Too bad for our northern friends.

Again, your latest argument, so I as a car dealer have 1000 cars on my lot, and one of them gets left unlocked with the keys in it, and I should lose my business for this?

[JD159]

Originally Posted by Spud

From your wiki link:



Clearly there are differences between states, and between the US and Canada in this regard. Too bad for our northern friends.

Again, your latest argument, so I as a car dealer have 1000 cars on my lot, and one of them gets left unlocked with the keys in it, and I should lose my business for this?

I don't think so. But the law apparently does.

[Mark Henry]

If you live in a high crime area, leave your car unlocked, phone, GPS and laptop sitting on the seat, and it's gone the next day.... it's not at all your fault?

In my book you're guilty of being a total dumb *ss.

YMMV

[JD159]

I wonder if this guy has something fishy going on with insurance and keeping his cars unlocked...

Why would he even do that??

[JD159]

I also don't understand the difference between trespassing and getting hurt, and trespassing, stealing and getting hurt - from a legal standpoint.

Just because you add theft shouldn't take liability away from the negligent property owner, if that owner was negligent.

[Nordwest]

Some of you guys are making me feel bad. I leave my DD outside with the key on the floor.
I never misplace my key that way. 30 plus years now.

Dave

[RKDinOKC]

Several years ago my nephew and his wife were living in some apartments. My nephew was washing and cleaning his car with the car's radio on. His wife called him to dinner. He went in to have diner.

Before they had finished eating, he got a phone call. It was the police. It seemed his car was involved in a fatal accident. He thought it was a prank call, but it wasn't.

He had left the keys in the car with the radio on when he went in to eat. The thief took his car. By the receipt found in the car he had driven to a convenience store and bought some girly magazines, cigarettes, and a six pack of beer. They noted that two of the beers were empty. The car had gone off the road on a curve and over an embankment rolling several times killing the driver.

They did not hold my nephew in any way responsible for the thief's actions, accident, and fatal injury. His insurance even replaced the car even though he had left it in an apartment parking lot with the windows down, keys in it, and radio blaring.

If you are liable because someone steals your vehicle, what keeps you from being liable if a crime is committed with ANY property you may own? What if someone ran into your yard, grabbed a decorative rock throwing it and fatally wounds another individual?

[Jeff Higgins]

Yeah, this whole thing is ludicrous. It may very well be the law in Canada, but it is a very, very bad law. Talk about a slippery slope - if a court can decide what level of "duty of care" is required of a private citizen to avoid liability in the event of theft, all is truly lost.

How about the state's liability? Don't they also assume a "duty of care" to prevent theft of property that leads to "unpleasant outcomes"? The state "allowed" the theft by not fulfilling its "duty of care" to its law-abiding citizens.

[intakexhaust]

It used to be so nice in the days at our old residence on a quiet lake. ALWAYS left the keys in a boats ignition. Done for any potential rescue emergency or drowning.

We've long moved from there and everything has changed, population, next generation bozo parents who don't teach respect, claim and uses neighbors land because the landowners might only be there for two months a year, etc.. To leave a key in a boat and if stolen would clearly put the owner in prison for life and estate taken over by some slick back city lawyer.

[look 171]

Originally Posted by intakexhaust

It used to be so nice in the days at our old residence on a quiet lake. ALWAYS left the keys in a boats ignition. Done for any potential rescue emergency or drowning.

We've long moved from there and everything has changed, population, next generation bozo parents who don't teach respect, claim and uses neighbors land because the landowners might only be there for two months a year, etc.. To leave a key in a boat and if stolen would clearly put the owner in prison for life and estate taken over by some slick back city lawyer.

I think this is just the beginning and its going to get a lot worst. I have seen a little bit of the good old days, but I am afraid that's in our rear view mirrors now. Really sad