Come home, drop the keys on the hall table and get sued if a burglar breaks in, races off with your wheels and crashes.
In the USA table saw manufacturers are successfully being sued by people who removed guards and cut off body parts.
|
|
|
Insecure to theft
- Thread starter Wingboy
- Start date
Come home, drop the keys on the hall table and get sued if a burglar breaks in, races off with your wheels and crashes.
In the USA table saw manufacturers are successfully being sued by people who removed guards and cut off body parts.
Say I leave my key in the center council of my car which is parked in the garage. Say something tripped the door sensor as it closed and I didn't notice.. Now my door is wide open and my car and keys right there. Am I now liable?
Kids stole a car after his mom got them drunk. Ludicrous.
Kids stole a car after his mom got them drunk. Ludicrous.
BigEvilDoer
Well-known member
Please explain how a mother supplying booze to her underage teenager and friend is less stupid than a garage leaving keys in a car in a fenced in lot.
Please tell me that is just in Murica! I didn't think that law was applicable here. If so, then that is complete and total bs.
How are people not accountable for their own actions? What next? I didn't have the alarm set on my car/ house therefore I am responsible for the theft?
Eff it. I'm suing McDonald's for making me fat.
Sent from my custom Purple Joe Bass mobile on Tapatalk
Last edited:
A variation on this theme has already been used in this thread. Don't be fat and old.
I wonder if some of the "troubled teens" seen on milk cartons didn't get decked by a home owner protecting his property. Considering the consequences of charges for use of excessive force some home owners might have decided that a drive and a day of shovel work was a simpler solution.
Rethinking this after going over the details. I quote the newspaper:
Rankin's Garage was easily accessible by anyone," Huscroft said. "There was no evidence of any security measures designed to keep people off the property when the business was not open. Cars were left unlocked with the keys in them. The risk of theft was clear."
Huscroft concluded garage owner James Rankin "could easily have met the standard of care" by locking the cars and protecting the keys.
On July 8, 2006, two boys — one 16, the other 15 — went out to try to steal from unlocked cars. At Rankin's Garage, they found an unlocked Toyota Camry with the key in the ashtray.
Going by what I saw on Google maps streetview I assume the car was outside and near the curb. Rankin's probably never had a problem before but that doesn't make the leaving of unsecured vehicles a wise move. Getting away with something for years doesn't make it right.
For arguments sake assume a $3M settlement. More wouldn't surprise me.
The 15 YO only gets $2.7 million due to his 10% involvement.
The drunk pot smoking 16 YO driver has to cough up $690,000.00. Where is that coming from? Can a minor be held responsible for something like this?
Bartender mom has to cough up $900,000.00. Again, where's that coming from? BTW is there a trailer park in Paisley?
Rankin's has to cough up $1,110,000.00. Depending on how the company has distanced its assets they could just close up shop if their insurance won't cover it. If Rankin's Garage is a limited company they could walk away and only lose company assets. Mr Rankin wouldn't lose his house, savings etc.
Is it possible that no serious money changes hands and the parents of the 15 year old have to struggle on with what they can scrape up?
The 15 YO's parents may be getting the fruits of their neglect or they may be decent parents and the kid had a wild side or even just a wild moment.
Note: The crash happened over 10 years ago and Rankin's was still on streetview October 2015. The brain damaged kid will be around 25 years old.
Rankin's Garage was easily accessible by anyone," Huscroft said. "There was no evidence of any security measures designed to keep people off the property when the business was not open. Cars were left unlocked with the keys in them. The risk of theft was clear."
Huscroft concluded garage owner James Rankin "could easily have met the standard of care" by locking the cars and protecting the keys.
On July 8, 2006, two boys — one 16, the other 15 — went out to try to steal from unlocked cars. At Rankin's Garage, they found an unlocked Toyota Camry with the key in the ashtray.
Going by what I saw on Google maps streetview I assume the car was outside and near the curb. Rankin's probably never had a problem before but that doesn't make the leaving of unsecured vehicles a wise move. Getting away with something for years doesn't make it right.
For arguments sake assume a $3M settlement. More wouldn't surprise me.
The 15 YO only gets $2.7 million due to his 10% involvement.
The drunk pot smoking 16 YO driver has to cough up $690,000.00. Where is that coming from? Can a minor be held responsible for something like this?
Bartender mom has to cough up $900,000.00. Again, where's that coming from? BTW is there a trailer park in Paisley?
Rankin's has to cough up $1,110,000.00. Depending on how the company has distanced its assets they could just close up shop if their insurance won't cover it. If Rankin's Garage is a limited company they could walk away and only lose company assets. Mr Rankin wouldn't lose his house, savings etc.
Is it possible that no serious money changes hands and the parents of the 15 year old have to struggle on with what they can scrape up?
The 15 YO's parents may be getting the fruits of their neglect or they may be decent parents and the kid had a wild side or even just a wild moment.
Note: The crash happened over 10 years ago and Rankin's was still on streetview October 2015. The brain damaged kid will be around 25 years old.
Last edited:
Riceburner
Well-known member
That's the difference between this incident and ppl leaving their garage door open or the keys in the front hall with the front door unlocked, etc. My understanding is that it wasn't a one off and the garage always did this, hence the responsibility. Though I still think the % is high. The mother and older teen should be more % responsible than they are.
It's not reasonable to expect that free access to bread may create a hazard for anyone.
But if a drug company delivered their articles that way and someone were harmed from using the drugs they stole, do you think the drug company should be held responsible to some degree or not?
If the stairway is for some reason a known hazard (loose treads, missing handrail...) that hasn't been addressed by the person responsible then a case could be made for civil liability, even if the injured party wasn't supposed to be there.
Well then you haven't thought thru every possible scenario. It appears you're not willing to do the heavy lifting required to participate in these threads, cogently. We'll address the drug issue when I see a commitment to pull up your socks.
I have the intellectual equivalent of ankle socks.
Riceburner
Well-known member
looks like "bare" feet to me...
In the US tablesaw manufactures are also sueing EACH OTHER for theft of intellectual property and patent infractions of the systems that would prevent the saws from cutting off body parts. Its not like here. But here will soon be like there.
That reminds me of the time a drug rep buddy of mine had several boxes with the company logo on them sitting on the backseat of his car while he went for a meal. He came out and his back window was broken and the boxes were gone. Turned out the thief had stolen several hundred condoms.
|
|
|
|
|