Cars Don’t Kill People, People Kill People

…unless it’s your car, you leave the keys in it and you’re from Tennessee. Then you and the criminal are in cahoots whether you like it or not.

A suit was brought against a man who left his keys in his car, which was promptly stolen and then collided with another vehicle causing injuries to three passengers. Initially, the lawsuit was filed against the city of Murfreesboro and its police department– however, that suit was dismissed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals. But the court is allowing the suit against the owners of the vehicle to continue.

It’s a dumb idea to leave your keys in your car. It’s a dumb idea to leave a loaded gun out in the open. If a criminal uses either to commit a crime, are you liable? Some would say in the latter, yes; but in the former?

So if I leave a pile of bricks in my front yard for a landscape project and someone comes by and uses one to smash someone’s head in am I liable for that too? Where does the law draw the line?

Discuss.

19 thoughts on “Cars Don’t Kill People, People Kill People

  1. The Tenessee case is interesting. If I’m on the jury, I probably would absolve the car owner. I coined a phrase: “the bigger the host, the bigger and more numerous the parasites.” (OK, a bit wordy but it makes a good point) The parasites in my phrase refer primarily to the plaintiff’s bar.

    In auto cases we learned of “proximate cause.” You had such a doctrine because otherwise the liability could extend to the mother who gave birth to the wrongdoer, the teacher who failed to do a proper job teaching the wrongdoer etc. (Wrongdoer or tortfeasor is the word used in the business).

    The state of Tenessee gets out of this because of “sovereign immunity.” “The King can do no wrong.”

    The Toyota brake failure cases also relate to the principle of suing those who have money while absolving those who don’t. That’s why you sue Toyota and not the driver who couldn’t get the car to stop. These cases arise when the damages are very high (the injuries plus other damages). Plaintiff’s attornies get 1/3 of the settlement plus costs and they don’t waste their time on cases with no payoff–they’ll try to create novel theories of liability if the payoff has high potential.

    The bricks in the front yard is an interesting potential case–to try to be safe, lock up all your property, bricks included, and hope for the best.

  2. Proximate cause:

    For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;
    For want of a shoe, the horse was lost;
    For want of a horse, a knight was lost;
    For want of a knight, the battle was lost;
    For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost.

    (That was th highlight of 1st year torts, other than the time when the half the class went to Billy’s and got schnockered before the class in which we discussed joint and several liability. Good times.)

  3. In Minneapolis, you’ll get a ticket if you leave your car running with the keys in it, unattended. Even locked. Apparently Minneapolis car thieves will smash the window to get inside. If they are just using it to smash into a convenience store to get at the ATM, the window isn’t a big deal to them anyway.

  4. I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to leave your keys in your car and the car unattended. If that’s the case, your crime enabled another to be committed. I will defer to our attorney friends as to whether that makes you somehow complicit in the second act.

  5. I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve heard of the term “attractive nuisance” which means that if you leave a ladder leaning against your house and some kid trespasses and falls, you can be held liable. I recall an infamous liability case involving kids and some barrels of solvent on a loading dock (I think it was at a school). The kids started a fire, the barrels blew up, killing or injuring the kids and the school was found to be negligent. And of course there is the dramshop law, which holds bartenders responsible for somehow establishing the blood alcohol of patrons in case they drive drunk and kill somebody.
    What do you call 100 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean? (See “Philadelphia” for the answer if you don’t know or can’t guess)

  6. In America, you can find a lawyer to sue a ham sandwich for lack of cheese.

    Common sense and responsibility will go a long way to protect you, but as long as there is money to be had risk free, and as long as there are lawyers willing to help get it, we are all born with our asses flapping in the breeze, and we live with that exposure until someone covers us with dirt.

    Oh, hiya Foot! How the hell are ya?

  7. “So if I leave a pile of bricks in my front yard for a landscape project and someone comes by and uses one to smash…….”

    “Apparently Minneapolis car thieves will smash the window to get inside.”

    Damn Mitch, you can’t leave those bricks laying about !!!!!!!!!!!

  8. “What do you call 100 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean?”

    An intentional tort.

  9. “What do you call 100 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean?”

    An intentional tort.

    Or product liability suit?

  10. Hertz Rent a Car lost a case in NY state where some young adults (<25 years of age) rented a car and violated laws with it leading to an accident with fatalities. The victims attorney was able to convince a jury that Hertz had "Vicarious Liability" – ie. Hertz had the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It's one of the reasons why those of you under 25 can't rent a car without paying usurious fees for the priviledge.
    On another note – half the state of TN leaves their keys in the ignition as it is difficult to hood slide like Bo Duke if you have your keys in your pocket.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.