Niece took my car w/o permission, damaged, liability?

[kate554]

What is the name of your state? Missouri

My niece was watching my dogs while I was out of town. She is 16 but does not have a license. She took my car and wrecked it, which her mom is paying for.

She will not tell the truth about what happened. If she damaged someone's property, ie, another car, mailbox, etc., what is my liability? She did NOT have permission to use my car at all.

 

[fairisfair]

did she damage someone else's property? Has she ever used the car with your permission? why did she have the keys to the car?

 

[kate554]

I don't know if she damaged someone's property - she will not tell the truth. She has never, ever been allowed to touch my car. She was watching my dogs, and my keys were in the house.

 

[Zigner]

I don't know if she damaged someone's property - she will not tell the truth. She has never, ever been allowed to touch my car. She was watching my dogs, and my keys were in the house.

Just make sure to hold on to a copy of the police report...you did file a police report, right?

 

[CALIF-LAWPRO62]

I don't know if she damaged someone's property - she will not tell the truth. She has never, ever been allowed to touch my car. She was watching my dogs, and my keys were in the house.

My response:

You see, here's the problem. You left the keys available. You should have taken them, or hidden them. Therefore, and due to your own negligence, you are legally responsible for a portion of any damages she caused, including the damages to your car. So, if this matter goes to court for any reason, you're likely to be "tagged" for a percentage of the cost of the damages.

It's called "implied" permission, and "vicarious liability."

IAAL

 

[Zigner]

My response:

You see, here's the problem. You left the keys available. You should have taken them, or hidden them. Therefore, and due to your own negligence, you are legally responsible for a portion of any damages she caused, including the damages to your car. So, if this matter goes to court for any reason, you're likely to be "tagged" for a percentage of the cost of the damages.

It's called "implied" permission, and "vicarious liability."

IAAL

Sorry, IAAL, merely leaving keys at your house does not, in and of itself, imply that the niece had permission. Of course, I'm sure the further actions taken by the aunt (or lack thereof) will tend to point in that direction though.

 

[kate554]

I have not yet filed a report. Isn't this a felony?

I can't believe that it's 'implied consent' !

 

[xylene]

My response:

You see, here's the problem. You left the keys available. You should have taken them, or hidden them. Therefore, and due to your own negligence, you are legally responsible for a portion of any damages she caused, including the damages to your car. So, if this matter goes to court for any reason, you're likely to be "tagged" for a percentage of the cost of the damages.

It's called "implied" permission, and "vicarious liability."

IAAL

I agree she should have hidden the keys. That's what a strong box or locked drawer is for.

That said, I thought it was implied consent...

And doesn't the fact that she had no drivers license throw that idea out ?

And vicarious liability, maybe if the driving were somehow conected to her dog watching duties?

 

[CALIF-LAWPRO62]

Sorry, IAAL, merely leaving keys at your house does not, in and of itself, imply that the niece had permission. Of course, I'm sure the further actions taken by the aunt (or lack thereof) will tend to point in that direction though.

My response:

Really? And from what law school did you graduate?

IAAL

 

[seniorjudge]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mo&vol=/appeals/042001/&invol=19041001_2001

 

[CALIF-LAWPRO62]

I agree she should have hidden the keys. That's what a strong box or locked drawer is for.

That said, I thought it was implied consent...

And doesn't the fact that she had no drivers license throw that idea out ?

And vicarious liability, maybe if the driving were somehow conected to her dog watching duties?

My response:

As to Question #1: No. People give their keys to unlicensed drivers each and every day.

As to Question #2: Sure it was "connected". Her defense will be, "My aunt gave me the keys, and she gave them to me so I could buy animal food, and food for myself, while she was away."

Now, like I said, these do not "excuse" the young lady from her own negligence and Vehicle Code violations; however, the young lady's actions also cause our writer to share in the liability and the damages.

IAAL

 

[CALIF-LAWPRO62]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mo&vol=/appeals/042001/&invol=19041001_2001

My response:

This case in NOT "on point." That case has to do with a "permissive user," and a permissive user that was a licensed adult. We're not merely talking about a "permissive" user as discussed in that case. We're talking about an underage, unlicensed driver, who, ostensibly, had (at least) implied consent to use the writer's vehicle.

IAAL

 

[Zigner]

who, ostensibly, had (at least) implied consent to use the writer's vehicle.

My point was that, per the facts as given in the original post, it is not "implied consent". However, I agree that, since the niece already shows a disposition to lie, she'd probably lie about getting permission to use the car. Also, since no police report was filed, that also would point towards permission being given.

 

[CALIF-LAWPRO62]

My point was that, per the facts as given in the original post, it is not "implied consent". However, I agree that, since the niece already shows a disposition to lie, she'd probably lie about getting permission to use the car. Also, since no police report was filed, that also would point towards permission being given.

My response:

Do you even understand "implied consent"?

The writer said, "She was watching my dogs [while I was away], and my keys were in the house." If keys are available, along with a car, under these circumstance, then it's "implied" that our writer gave her "consent" for the young girl to use the car to obtain supplies.

IAAL

 

[Zigner]

My response:

Do you even understand "implied consent"?

IAAL

The OP did not "imply consent" for the niece to use the car. Now, had she left the keys on the table with a note saying "thanks for taking care of my dogs", then it could be believed that she was giving some sort of consent for the use of the vehicle, even though the matter wasn't directly addressed between the two parties. However, a 16 year old, unlicensed driver can reasonably be expected to know that she is NOT allowed to drive that vehicle since she is not legally allowed to drive ANY vehicle. What the niece did was a criminal act.