Oh, point well made. Thanks for the clarification. I'll make sure my kids
pay attention to the little things...
Michael Sorbera
Webmaster
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Webmaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Claussen, Ken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Zachary Uram'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Young, Beth A.'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: 3rd party liability Was RE: This is a must read document
> Your example is a standard law example showing negligent liability.
>
> from http://lawschool.lexis.com/emanuel/web/torts/torts06.htm
>
> C. Foreseeable intervening causes: Often the risk of a particular kind of
> intervening cause is the very risk (or one of the risks) which made D's
conduct
> negligent in the first place. Where this is the case, the intervening
cause will
> almost never relieve D of liability. [148 - 151]
>
>
> Example: D leaves his car keys in the ignition, and the car unlocked,
while
> going into a store to do an errand. X comes along, steals the car,
and
> while driving fast to get out of the neighborhood, runs over P. If
the
> court believes that the risk of theft is one of the things that makes
> leaving one's keys in the ignition negligent, the court will almost
> certainly conclude that X's intervening act was not superseding.
>
>
> 1. Foreseeable negligence: The negligence of third persons may
> similarly be an intervening force that is sufficiently
foreseeable
> that it will not relieve D of liability. [149 - 151] (Example: D
is a
> tavern owner, who serves too much liquor to X, knowing that X
arrived
> alone by car. D also does not object when X gets out his car
keys and
> leaves. If X drunkenly runs over P, a court will probably hold
that
> X's conduct in negligently (drunkenly) driving, although
intervening,
> was sufficiently foreseeable that it should not absolve D of
> liability.)
>
>
> 2. Criminally or intentionally tortious conduct: A third
person's
> criminal conduct, or intentionally tortious acts, may also be so
> foreseeable that they will not be superseding. But in general,
the
> court is more likely to find the act superseding if it is
criminal or
> intentionally tortious than where it is merely negligent. [151]
>
>
>
>
> "Webmaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 06/11/2001 02:01:38 PM
>
>
>
> To: "Claussen, Ken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "'Zachary Uram'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "'Young, Beth A.'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED](bcc: Bill
> Royds/HullOttawa/PCH/CA)
>
>
>
> Subject Re: 3rd party liability Was RE: This is a must
> : read document
>
>
>
>
> Ken,
> To clarify, you say that if I leave my keys in the car and the door
unlocked
> and someone steals the car and kills someone with it, I'm partially
liable?
> That's stretching it a bit...I think the burden should fall squarely on
the
> shoulders of the person that stole the car. Please don't think that this
> means that *every* situation like this is the same. But I don't think we
> need to start putting the folks that can't remember to tie their shoes in
> jail...
> Michael Sorbera
> Webmaster
> Randolph-Brooks Federal Credit Union
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Claussen, Ken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'Zachary Uram'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Young, Beth A.'"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:30 AM
> Subject: RE: 3rd party liability Was RE: This is a must read document
>
>
> > ***Disclaimer I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV****
> > First I agree with the author's perspective, people should be held
> > accountable for their actions, or inaction. My understanding of the
> article
> > was if you had the club on the car then you upheld the "reasonable
> > expectation" of personal protection and therefore would not be "Held
> > liable"(read negligent) in this case should a crime be committed. A
better
> > analogy would be to say if you left the keys in the ignition and the
door
> > unlocked and someone then used your vehicle to commit a "Hit and Run"
that
> > there is a far greater likelihood your actions would be found negligent
> and
> > you could be held accountable. In other words if you provided easy
access
> > to the "Weapon" for a third party, then you are as much as fault as the
> > person who committed the crime. Hence the potential to be charged as an
> > "accomplice" to a murder. Same applies to computers, if you enable "File
> and
> > Print sharing" and do not take measures to protect yourself, IE a Virus
> > scanner and/or (IMO both should be required) personal firewall then
> > essentially you have left the keys in the ignition and the doors
unlocked.
> > Anyone for a joyride?
> >
> > Ken Claussen MCSE CCNA CCA
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "The Mind is a Terrible thing to Waste!"
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Zachary Uram
> > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:59 AM
> > To: Young, Beth A.
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: 3rd party liability Was RE: This is a must read document
> >
> >
> > this is silly position but understandable considering we live in
> > most litigitous country in the world.
> > this is analogous to saying if you don't have "The Club" on your
> > car you are liable if someone steals it and commits a crime.
> >
> >
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have faith." - John 20:29
> >
> > -
> > [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
> > -
> > [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
>
> -
> [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
>
>
>
>
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
