Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Case on 'Judge Alex' - tv show

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The plaintiff sued the defendant because the defendant smashed the plaintiff's car. The defendant said his car was stolen and thats when it was crashed. The defendant admits he left his keys in his vehicle(while on his property) for a long period of time(he felt ill after grocery shopping). In the end, Judge Alex made the judgement in favor for the plaintiff because under state law it is illegal to keep your keys in your vehicle while unattended. Therefore, Judge Alex claimed the defendant was liable for the damages to the plaintiffs car.

Is this a good law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's illegal for me to keep my keys in my car? I do it all the time because I have a keypad on the outside of my driver's side door. When I go to the dog park or a baseball game, for example, I put the keys in the glove box, lock the doors and close the door behind me. This way, I don't lose my keys and I don't have to carry a purse into a situation where it's not appropriate. Why shouldn't I have the right to do that? For that matter, why shouldn't I have the right to leave the keys in the ignition and the windows rolled down? It may not be the smartest thing to do in certain areas of certain cities, but don't I have the right to be foolish as long as I'm not harming anyone?

Why didn't the plaintiff sue the driver/thief? (Probably because the thief had no money or insurance?)

I suppose that if it is illegal to keep ones keys in the car, then the judge should have punished him for that, but not for damage he did not cause.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who watches court on TV. For some reason, I am endlessly entertained by Judge Mathis. I work during the week, but when I'm home sick, I always make time for Judge Mathis. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, the keys were in the ignition and the doors were unlocked.

The reason why the plaintiff didnt sue the robber of the vehicle was because the robber ran away after he crashed the car. The plaintiff said he talked to the robber for a minute and then the robber suddenly ran away into the night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, the keys were in the ignition and the doors were unlocked.

The reason why the plaintiff didnt sue the robber of the vehicle was because the robber ran away after he crashed the car. The plaintiff said he talked to the robber for a minute and then the robber suddenly ran away into the night.

This is a very simple black and white case. No one has the right to steel or destroy another person's property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't it come down to a case of negligence. If the person that the car was loaned to did not take reasonable care of it to prevent theft then he/she could still be liable for the theft even if he didn't commit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You SHOULD be able to leave your keys in your car with the doors unlocked, but I think any reasonable person in today's society, particularly in urban areas, should know better. Even so, I don't think that should make the owner of the stolen vehicle liable for the actions of the thief. I think that's sliding down a slippery slope, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question though, is if the defendant is liable for the damages of the plaintiffs car.

The person responsible is the person who committed the act. That's the person who should pay.

There may be a question of negligence too, but you can't remove the act of negligence too far from the actor, otherwise we'd all be frozen into inaction for fear of what might go wrong. The causal link has to be very close to the person doing the acting. For instance, putting an open knife blade on a public stairway carelessly would be an act of negligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plaintiff sued the defendant because the defendant smashed the plaintiff's car. The defendant said his car was stolen and thats when it was crashed. The defendant admits he left his keys in his vehicle(while on his property) for a long period of time(he felt ill after grocery shopping). In the end, Judge Alex made the judgment in favor for the plaintiff because under state law it is illegal to keep your keys in your vehicle while unattended. Therefore, Judge Alex claimed the defendant was liable for the damages to the plaintiffs car.

If we are going to discuss issues of negligence, we must first consider the setting where the theft took place. What kind of environment did the defendant leave the car, with keys in the ignition, unattended? Was this in an urban area? Was this in a nice upper middle-class neighborhood?

Furthermore, approximately how long did the defendant leave the car unattended? What time of day was the vehicle left unattended?

The state law that makes it illegal to leave the keys in an unattended automobile sounds ineffectual and unnecessary. How many individuals are going to change their behavior on account of this law? Perhaps it was enacted for the purposes of punishment in situations such as these.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are going to discuss issues of negligence, we must first consider the setting where the theft took place. What kind of environment did the defendant leave the car, with keys in the ignition, unattended? Was this in an urban area? Was this in a nice upper middle-class neighborhood?

Furthermore, approximately how long did the defendant leave the car unattended? What time of day was the vehicle left unattended?

The car was stolen in a "nice" neighborhood, assumably not a high-crime area. He left it with the keys in the ignition, doors unlocked. He left the car unattended for several hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it stolen by a criminal who was going to steal it anyway, or was it an opportunistic crime by someone who noticed the keys in the unlocked car?

From a Law 101 class of years ago, I remember that a bailee (someone holding someone else's property) can be held liable for losses to an owner's property, even in cases of free lending (no commercial transaction) if he did not treat the other person's property with the diligence that one could expect from a "reasonable" owner. Also, the liability of the bailee does not absolve the thief. The idea is that the bailee makes the owner whole, and then tries to recover from the third party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The car was stolen in a "nice" neighborhood, assumably not a high-crime area. He left it with the keys in the ignition, doors unlocked. He left the car unattended for several hours.

This really does sound like a clear case of negligence. Even though the thief is the one who ultimately caused the accident, the defendant should have exercised the bare minimum of care on the automobile that was in his care but not his property. (I am unclear as to the prior relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant concerning the car, but it probably does not matter.) The plaintiff's expectations for the defendant to not leave the keys in plain sight, in the car unattended for over several hours is very, very reasonable. On principle, it sounds as if the plaintiff rightfully won this case.

Perhaps if he is able to locate him, the defendant can file charges against the car thief for the damages he has inflicted on the defendant.

Was it stolen by a criminal who was going to steal it anyway, or was it an opportunistic crime by someone who noticed the keys in the unlocked car?

You have raised a very important question: would the crime have happened anyway had the defendant not been so careless? Given the circumstances described, I imagine that the crime was made possible through the irresponsibility of the defendant.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without denying that the car-owner is technically held responsible in this case (under legal practice, as it exists now), I haven't seen an argument that he should be. He did not damage the plaintiff's car, and he did not give permission to the thief to take the car. He violated a law by leaving the keys in the car but that is not a proper law. It's clear that he was kinda dumb, but the question is whether this is contributory negligence in the relevant legal sense. (And, given the state of the law as it now exists, this probably ought to be phrased "as it should exist").

When you do things to inanimate objects such as flammable liquids and ignition sources, you are expected to have a certain level of awareness of how gasoline and fire interact, so that you won't put a bathtub full of gasoline next to your neighbor's house with a fire in the barbecue going a couple of feet away. You know that it is in the nature of things that a big boom could ensue -- gasoline and fire don't have free will and can't decide "we're not gonna party, because that would be wrong". The same goes with killer dogs and small children -- dogs can't decide "It would be wrong to eat that kid". When damage is forseeable, by an ordinary man acting reasonably, that because of the nature of things (pit bulls, but not samoyeds; gasoline but not water) damage to another person is likely, then I agree that the owner should be legally liable.

To hold that an innocent man should be responsible for losses caused by some other willful rights-violator either presumes that by nature, man lives by predation (NOT!), or it requires some completely separate principle, that even though the loss could and should have been avoided by the thief realizing that he had no right to the car, the rights-violator is not the person solely responsible for the damage. What is that principle? Why should one man be responsible for the knowing rights violations of another? And why just the car-owner? The car manufacturer "should" bear some responsibility for having negligently sold a stealable product. I see the potential for applying the reasoning to a situation where a person's gun is stolen from their house and used in a crime -- the owner was negligent in not guaranteeing that the gun (or knife) was secure against theft.

In this case, it sounds like the judge is using a cheap out, the law prohibiting leaving keys in a car, and no matter what, if you can identify an actual law violation, you've got your guilty party. An appeal to negligence strikes me as dangerous as the assignment of liability to gun manufacturers, and the underlying principle -- that man is by nature a predator and that you have a positive duty to presume and prevent predation -- is so wrong that I think it fatally undermines the very concept of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really does sound like a clear case of negligence. Even though the thief is the one who ultimately caused the accident, the defendant should have exercised the bare minimum of care on the automobile that was in his care but not his property.

That's ridiculous. Does the perpetrator get off scott free?

(I am unclear as to the prior relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant concerning the car, but it probably does not matter.) The plaintiff's expectations for the defendant to not leave the keys in plain sight, in the car unattended for over several hours is very, very reasonable. On principle, it sounds as if the plaintiff rightfully won this case.

You can’t leave your keys in the car? Can you leave your hatchet in your front yard? Or very sharp rocks? A vandal could use those things just as easily.

Perhaps if he is able to locate him, the defendant can file charges against the car thief for the damages he has inflicted on the defendant.

You have raised a very important question: would the crime have happened anyway had the defendant not been so careless? Given the circumstances described, I imagine that the crime was made possible through the irresponsibility of the defendant.

Let's put the onus on the actor, not the allegedly careless person. I think it's important to make actual bad guys accountable, not mildly careless people, who put no one directly in harms way.

In fact, putting someone directly in harms way may be a good test for negligence, versus putting someone tangentially in harms way.

To hold that an innocent man should be responsible for losses caused by some other willful rights-violator either presumes that by nature, man lives by predation (NOT!), or it requires some completely separate principle, that even though the loss could and should have been avoided by the thief realizing that he had no right to the car, the rights-violator is not the person solely responsible for the damage. What is that principle?

I like this point, and I agree. The underlying assumption is that bad guys should just be assumed, and accepted and not fought. If we’d actually step up to the plate and deal with bad guys squarely and uncompromisingly, and stop blaming the victim (his car was stolen), we’d be focused on the right thing, the malefactor.

Ultimately, the standard has to be individual rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To hold that an innocent man should be responsible for losses caused by some other willful rights-violator either presumes that by nature, man lives by predation (NOT!), or it requires some completely separate principle, that even though the loss could and should have been avoided by the thief realizing that he had no right to the car, the rights-violator is not the person solely responsible for the damage. What is that principle? Why should one man be responsible for the knowing rights violations of another?
In this particular case, one may say that the innocent guy did not act with gross negligence. That would let him off the hook.

However, in general, a person who borrows another's property should be expected to act with some reasonable level of care for that property. This should include taking precautions that a diligent owner would. (One may determine that there were different expectations between the two parties, and that would change things.) Since people do have different judgements about what constitutes due diligence, a borrower should be held a minimum level (rather than an average or maximum level) of diligence when the property is in his charge.

I think that the line you're drawing, David, is between care against predation and care against other things. E.g. expecting someone to protect the borrowed property against reasonably expected spoilage by the elements is one thing, but expecting them to protect it against reasonably expected criminal activity is another (i.e. criminal activity may not be deemed to be a reasonable expectation). Is that the line you're drawing, or am I reading you wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question though, is if the defendant is liable for the damages of the plaintiffs car.

Interesting set of facts.

Generally, a person's liability is cut off by the criminal act of a third party. For example, a driver of a gas tanker falls asleep at the wheel and crashes his truck; as the fuel spills out, somebody comes along and throws a Molotov cocktail at the tanker. Is the driver legally responsible for the buildings that burn down? No.

Now, let's say that the driver was traveling through a part of town where, for the pas t 6 weeks, there have been riots (like the suburbs of Paris where setting fire to cars is considered an art form). Under this set of facts, the plaintiff would have a (legally) plausible argument that the criminal act is "reasonably foreseeable".

The argument would run something like: 1. you were negligent in handling material that can be used as part of a weapon, 2. you are negligent with it in a part of town where that material is in fact used as a weapon 3. you have reason to know that it will in fact be used that way.

The question of whether the car theft was "reasonably foreseeable" (an element in proving negligence) depends on the circumstances. In Texas, there is a well known case where an apartment complex was held negligent when a girl was raped in an empty apartment. As it turns out, the management company was leaving unoccupied apartments unlocked for a year or more; the open apartments were used for drug dealing (and using) with all the attendant violence that brought. The empty apartments were used to commit robberies and muggings. The management company knew all of this but failed to take any steps to secure the un-leased apartments.

When the woman sued, it did not take much to show that a reasonable person would be aware that the empty apartments would continue to attract crime.

As the car was not in a part of town where car theft was prevalent, the (foolish) man who left his keys in the car would not be liable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the line you're drawing, David, is between care against predation and care against other things. E.g. expecting someone to protect the borrowed property against reasonably expected spoilage by the elements is one thing, but expecting them to protect it against reasonably expected criminal activity is another (i.e. criminal activity may not be deemed to be a reasonable expectation).
I actually wasn't thinking about whether a borrower has an obligation to the owner to keep the property safe from human predators, I was only addressing the case where that owner was held liable because his car was stolen, in part due to his leaving the keys in the car. Now let's suppose that Smith borrows Jones' car and leaves the key in the ignition, and the car is stolen. The principle that the borrower would protect the borrowed property would be relevant, and Smith would be liable for the loss. I think the distinction arises from the concept of "borrowing", where you would only lend on the condition that the borrower return it and behave as an owner would ordinarily behave -- be careful with it, don't use it as a hammer (unless it actually is a hammer), don't lose it or leave it in the rain. And don't let it get stolen. So if you violate those conditions, you have an obligation, as part of the (implicit) borrowing agreement, to return the object, which means if you let it get stolen, you still have to return the item (or a suitable approximation thereof) to make good on your part of the bargain. More generally, an agreement isn't nullified when one of the parties is the victim of a crime. But when there is no agreement, the added obligations arising from the agreement aren't there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's ridiculous. Does the perpetrator get off scott free?

Of course not, he has committed a crime. He should be prosecuted as a thief.

You can’t leave your keys in the car? Can you leave your hatchet in your front yard? Or very sharp rocks? A vandal could use those things just as easily.

You are missing the most important contextual element of this discussion. That is, that the defendant was borrowing the plaintiff's vehicle and was therefore partly responsible for its well being. As an individual, you can be as incautious as you want with guarding your property. However, when you are borrowing someone else's property in a non-contractual agreement, it is reasonable to assume that the borrower should take certain precautions.

In an informal sublease agreement, do you think that the subtenant should be liable if he left the apartment door open and unattended for hours, resulting in much of the tenant's property being vandalized if not stolen?

Let's put the onus on the actor, not the allegedly careless person. I think it's important to make actual bad guys accountable, not mildly careless people, who put no one directly in harms way.

The emphasis is mine. I consider leaving the ignition key of a car in plain sight with the doors unlocked for many hours more than mildy careless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I was only addressing the case where that owner was held liable because his car was stolen, in part due to his leaving the keys in the car.
Oh yes, I agree that law is strange: penalizing people for not protecting their own property is very odd! There's probably a collectivist explanation behind it like: if we force people to protect their stuff the thieves might go to another city! That law is close to saying "she asked for it".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not, he has committed a crime. He should be prosecuted as a thief.

You are missing the most important contextual element of this discussion. That is, that the defendant was borrowing the plaintiff's vehicle and was therefore partly responsible for its well being. As an individual, you can be as incautious as you want with guarding your property. However, when you are borrowing someone else's property in a non-contractual agreement, it is reasonable to assume that the borrower should take certain precautions.

Okay, I misread the first post, and I have to apologize to you for going after you so hard.

In an informal sublease agreement, do you think that the subtenant should be liable if he left the apartment door open and unattended for hours, resulting in much of the tenant's property being vandalized if not stolen? The emphasis is mine. I consider leaving the ignition key of a car in plain sight with the doors unlocked for many hours more than mildy careless.

It depends on the context, in this case the neighborhood. For instance, UPS frequently leaves packages on door steps of homes in plain sight for hours and days. If the neighborhood is a high risk crime area, then your point is a good one.

Imagine a counter case, however, where someone leaves a gun on their porch and it's stolen and used the commission of a violent crime. Should the person who left the gun on the porch be responsible for the violence? In other words, how far are you willing to take this?

The emphasis is mine. I consider leaving the ignition key of a car in plain sight with the doors unlocked for many hours more than mildy careless.

How small the link is between an act and a crime resulting from the act should determine the degree of negligence. So, in areas where it would be more than mildly careless, I agree with you. In areas where it would be highly unexpected, I would disagree with you. There should probably be a scale of culpability for all cases in between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I misread the first post, and I have to apologize to you for going after you so hard.
That is fine. Your apology is accepted and appreciated.

For instance, UPS frequently leaves packages on door steps of homes in plain sight for hours and days.
Although this is a side point, I think even UPS will not deliver packages without a signature under certain conditions, including at the sender's request. UPS allows its customers to choose a level of risk.

Imagine a counter case, however, where someone leaves a gun on their porch and it's stolen and used the commission of a violent crime. Should the person who left the gun on the porch be responsible for the violence? In other words, how far are you willing to take this?
Dealing with a gun under the aforementioned scenario is definitely nontrivial especially since it would first require agreement on the controversial issue of gun control. If we wish to pursue this, it should be done in a separate thread.

Furthermore, this involves a different form of negligence. The case on Judge Alex involved negligence with property that was entrusted in a free lending agreement. In that case, we were seeking restitution for the property's owner. The situation above concerns negligence where a crime was allegedly made possible. Here, we would be discussing justice for the victim of the crime, who is not the owner of the allegedly mishandled property. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to discuss.

To avoid a side discussion on gun control, lets discuss a scenario where an individual leaves a baseball bat unattended on his front porch, which was subsequently used by a thug to commit assault and battery. I am assuming that this essentially remains in the realm you wished to explore.

I imagine that the pertinent questions here are:

  • Was the crime made possible by the bat being left unattended?
  • Should the owner of the bat have realized that leaving it unattended would present a significant increase in danger to those rightfully in the vicinity?

Under nearly all circumstances, I imagine that the answer to these questions is no. The likelihood of an unarmed brute skulking around a neighborhood, looking to commit a crime but is unable to due to the scarcity of weapons is very rare. More likely there would be a whole assortment of blunt everyday objects such as bricks, bike chains, or home tools (kind of like in River City Ransom). The availability of the baseball bat would most likely not make a difference here.

Furthermore, I think any punishment under these general circumstances would presuppose that the surrounding society itself is nothing more than a roaming band of predatory animals, which is an unrealistic assumption in most mixed economies. I believe this was essentially David's point.

So, no, leaving a potential weapon such as a baseball bat on one's porch should not count as negligence towards the owner of the bat.

However, if you were borrowing your friend's bat that was autographed by Hank Aaron, stupidly left it unattended on your front porch for several hours and eventually discovered it to be stolen, then as the borrower, you should be liable to the owner of the memorabilia.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few quick remarks:

The thief's reckless driving is a superseding cause that breaks the causal chain. Even if it wasn't, car accidents are not within the scope of the risk of leaving your keys in your car; getting your car stolen is, but not the subsequent property damage caused by the thief. A straight negligence case will fail on proximate causation.

But...

Most states have laws that make owners statutorily liable in some cases where they otherwise wouldn't be. Mandatory automobile insurance. I suppose the thinking is that thieves don't normally carry insurance and aren't generally of sufficient means to pay their liabilities out of pocket (which is, of course, the state's justification for imposing mandatory automobile insurance on everyone in the first place). Even under such a system, I think the owner (or his insurance company) would ultimately be able to sue the thief for indemnification, but why waste time and money on winning a judgment that will probably never be satisfied (see Bankruptcy). By statute, I believe the owner is required to cover the damage out of his insurance, but I do not think he is stripped of his right to sue the true wrongdoer for subrogation. Of course, without this law, the owner would not be liable (see above).

But perhaps most importantly to this particular case is the fact that Judge Alex is not a judge. He is a TV personality. The "plaintiff" and "defendant" mutually agree to waive any and all rights they may have to actual redress in a court of law (essentially, they agree not to sue each other) in exchange for having their dispute "resolved" by Judge Alex, with no guaranty that Judge Alex will abide by the law of any particular jurisdiction, no right to due process, and no right to appeal. Legally, TV shows in the People's Court mold take the form of pre-filing settlement agreements, and are ultimately enforceable in contract. Litigants are left free to set their own settlement terms, and as long as the settlement agreement is not coerced (or otherwise subject to the various contract-invalidating doctrines), the settlement agreement will be enforced. So if the defendant in this case believed that, under applicable state law, he should have been immune from judgment, too bad. No appeal, because he probably signed away that right in the settlement agreement cum TV appearance disclaimer. So Judge Alex is not bound by state law. Although he is a lawyer, and was once a judge, his judgments on the show are probably more influenced by TV ratings than by actual state law.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen a few people misinterpret what I tried to say initially, so I'll clarify. I said: "The plaintiff sued the defendant because the defendant smashed the plaintiff's car." Some are mistaking this to mean that the defendant borrowed the plaintiff's car, but thats not the case. I should have said the defendant smashed into the plaintiff's car. These people have never met prior the this incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the defendant's stolen car smashed into the plaintiff's car. The plaintiff is suing the defendant instead of suing the thief, because the plaintiff left his keys in the car.

Wow! I completely misunderstood the facts. I now see where some of the confusing to-and-fro came from.

I agree with those who say the defendant should not have been made to pay.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...