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.

<...>

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>

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.

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>

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.

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

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

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>

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

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.