If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Car stolen? You're on the hook for the damage the thief does.
from fark... where else? http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/a...n-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. <...> |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Car stolen? You're on the hook for the damage the thief does.
In article >,
Brent P > wrote: > from fark... where else? > > http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/a...surance-claim- > 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. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Car stolen? You're on the hook for the damage the thief does.
On 2008-07-14, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article >, > Brent P > wrote: > >> from fark... where else? >> >> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/a...surance-claim- >> 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Car stolen? You're on the hook for the damage the thief does.
In article >,
Brent P > wrote: > On 2008-07-14, Alan Baker > wrote: > > In article >, > > Brent P > wrote: > > > >> from fark... where else? > >> > >> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/a...-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. 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. It's called *duty of care* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care> -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Car stolen? You're on the hook for the damage the thief does.
On 2008-07-14, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article >, > Brent P > wrote: > >> On 2008-07-14, Alan Baker > wrote: >> > In article >, >> > Brent P > wrote: >> > >> >> from fark... where else? >> >> >> >> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/a...-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. > 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. 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. 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? > It's called *duty of care* Lawsuit happy society where those truely responsible aren't held responsible is more like it. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Car stolen? You're on the hook for the damage the thief does.
On Jul 14, 3:58 pm, Brent P >
wrote: > > Ladders are potentially dangerous > > A glass of water is potentially dangerous > > I could go on displaying other examples, "Truly, you have a dazzling intellect". > 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. You don't say...?! > 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? Your idiotic comparison is arguably "unforseeable". If you left a handgun on your barbecue, that would be foreseeable, not to mention a damn sight more easily traced. > 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? Only you, Bullis and a few other idiots would come up with any of your references as equitable to leaving the keys in a car. > > It's called *duty of care* > > Lawsuit happy society where those truely responsible aren't held > responsible is more like it. So... if I left my keys in the car and it was stolen and driven over you... "not my fault"? A person has a reasonable expectation of leaving their keys in their car and always finding it where they left it? ----- - gpsman |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Car stolen? You're on the hook for the damage the thief does.
On Jul 14, 4:36*pm, gpsman > wrote:
> So... if I left my keys in the car and it was stolen and driven over > you... "not my fault"? *A person has a reasonable expectation of > leaving their keys in their car and always finding it where they left > it? I know you'll find this hard to believe, but there still exist places with civilized residents where that is, in fact, the case. nate |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Car stolen? You're on the hook for the damage the thief does.
In article >,
Brent P > wrote: > On 2008-07-14, Alan Baker > wrote: > > In article >, > > Brent P > wrote: > > > >> On 2008-07-14, Alan Baker > wrote: > >> > In article >, > >> > Brent P > wrote: > >> > > >> >> from fark... where else? > >> >> > >> >> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/a...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> |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Car stolen? You're on the hook for the damage the thief does.
On Jul 14, 4:49 pm, N8N > wrote:
> On Jul 14, 4:36 pm, gpsman > wrote: > > > So... if I left my keys in the car and it was stolen and driven over > > you... "not my fault"? A person has a reasonable expectation of > > leaving their keys in their car and always finding it where they left > > it? > > I know you'll find this hard to believe, but there still exist places > with civilized residents where that is, in fact, the case. If you knew I would find it hard to believe why didn't you name one? Occam's Razor suggests you are fascinated by clicking sounds. ----- - gpsman |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Car stolen? You're on the hook for the damage the thief does.
On 2008-07-14, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article >, > Brent P > wrote: > >> On 2008-07-14, Alan Baker > wrote: >> > In article >, >> > Brent P > wrote: >> > >> >> On 2008-07-14, Alan Baker > wrote: >> >> > In article >, >> >> > Brent P > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> from fark... where else? >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/a...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*. As well? no. fully. Otherwise you assign partial blame to sexy-dressed woman who was raped. >> > 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. I see... you're a responsibility shifter. Is the car manufacturer responsible if you drive too fast too? >> 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 No it's not the fact of the matter. It's a rather recent idea and a bad one at that. Replace the car with a horse and carriage. It's pretty difficult to secure such thing when you're at your destination. sure you can tie up the horses but that doesn't stop a thief from untying them. He could do great harm with those horses and maybe the carriage. But back when horses were used in mass for transportation nobody blamed the horse owner, they blamed the thief. >> 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... Once upon a time in this society, here in the USA, it was reasonable to leave your keys in your car. Now it isn't. Next week a leaving a knife out near your outdoor grill may go from reasonable to creating a dangerous situation just like leaving one's keys in a car. > 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. And maybe you'll be too lazy to put that knife away or bring it inside with you on every trip so somebody didn't come by and take it. >> > 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. Not to the extreme circumstances of where one is held responsible for the actions of another, especially a thief because his property was stolen. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Should the Car thief be charged in copter deaths? | ¥ UltraMan ¥ | Driving | 0 | August 3rd 07 07:14 AM |
crs and anit thief radio code | peter | Mazda | 1 | November 9th 06 02:55 PM |
Balsy ass VW radio thief. | none2u | VW water cooled | 2 | July 3rd 06 11:36 PM |
You can beat a car thief to death if you want to. | Bernard farquart | Driving | 35 | June 7th 05 02:22 AM |