DarkWaters Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 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. This changes everything. I too agree that the defendant should not have been forced to pay for the damages caused by the thief's actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.