Small Claims Court-property Damage

[PCTHEO]

What is the name of your state? az
BACKGROUND:

I live in Phoenix, AZ . Here is my case. A person who lives 1/2 mile from our home left her expensive car (Land Rover) in her driveway overnight unlocked AND forgot the keys in the ignition. Two teenagers stole her car that same night (4 am) and were driving the car very fast around the neighborhood. Suddenly they lost control of the car and drove it through our garage door causing $1300 of property damages. They left the car imbedded in the garage and fled the scene. A neighbor saw the whole thing and called the police. I have a police report describing the whole incident, including Mrs. “X”’s negligence — leaving the keys in the ignition. I sent the police report to both Mrs. “X” and her insurance company, plus receipts for repairing the damage and asked them to reimburse me for the property damage. They refused, claiming the “car was driven by an unauthorized driver”, completely ignoring my claim that Mrs. “X”’s negligence caused this incident.

QUESTION:

I plan to take her to Small Claims Court and submit my case to a judge. Is there a precedent (court case number) I can include in my brief summation to the judge to convince him/her that NEGLIGENCE was the cause of my property damage, rather than a simple case of a STOLEN VEHICLE?

 

[Florid-aise]

You know who has money and cause to institute a legal battle on these type of incidents?

Car rental companies thats who.

The insurance company is just balking, they know they are liable and just want to bluff the uneducated.

You are about to become very educated.

Research the Supreme Court decisions in your state. Look for third party intentional torts and negligence of car rental companies. A car rental company rents a car, the car then gets stolen and damage occurs, the car rental company is liable, not the person renting the car. (Unless the car renter leaves the keys in the car).

But you already knew that.

 

[JETX]

I plan to take her to Small Claims Court and submit my case to a judge. Is there a precedent (court case number) I can include in my brief summation to the judge to convince him/her that NEGLIGENCE was the cause of my property damage, rather than a simple case of a STOLEN VEHICLE?

Nope. Her leaving the keys in her vehicle was stupid... but not negligent. Your only claim is against the person who was driving the vehicle. You have NO claim against the 'victim' of the theft.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

What is the name of your state? az
BACKGROUND:

I live in Phoenix, AZ . Here is my case. A person who lives 1/2 mile from our home left her expensive car (Land Rover) in her driveway overnight unlocked AND forgot the keys in the ignition. Two teenagers stole her car that same night (4 am) and were driving the car very fast around the neighborhood. Suddenly they lost control of the car and drove it through our garage door causing $1300 of property damages. They left the car imbedded in the garage and fled the scene. A neighbor saw the whole thing and called the police. I have a police report describing the whole incident, including Mrs. “X”’s negligence — leaving the keys in the ignition. I sent the police report to both Mrs. “X” and her insurance company, plus receipts for repairing the damage and asked them to reimburse me for the property damage. They refused, claiming the “car was driven by an unauthorized driver”, completely ignoring my claim that Mrs. “X”’s negligence caused this incident.

QUESTION:

I plan to take her to Small Claims Court and submit my case to a judge. Is there a precedent (court case number) I can include in my brief summation to the judge to convince him/her that NEGLIGENCE was the cause of my property damage, rather than a simple case of a STOLEN VEHICLE?

My response:

Because "permission" is a key element, liability cannot be imputed to a car owner for injuries [or damages] caused by a thief. Even if the owner carelessly leaves the keys in the ignition, he or she does not thereby give "permission" to third persons to use it. [Archer v. Sybert (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 722, 213 Cal.Rptr. 486]

"Special circumstances" may exist when an ordinary vehicle is carelessly made available to children incompetent to drive. [Richards v. Stanley 43 Cal.2d at 66, 271 P.2d at 27 (dictum) - - suggesting an owner might be liable for leaving keys in unattended car in front of school where owner might "reasonably expect irresponsible children to tamper with it"]

Leaving an ordinary vehicle unattended on the street with a key in the ignition is not itself such a "special circumstance." [Richards v. Stanley (1954) 43 Cal.2d 60, 66, 271 P.2d 23, 27] "It is not equivalent to inviting or enticing an incompetent driver to tamper with a vehicle"; and thus imposes on the car owner no duty to control the actions of a thief. [Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. v. Super.Ct. (Koch) (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 221, 233, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 711, 719

IAAL

 

[seniorjudge]

"...A person who lives 1/2 mile from our home left her expensive car (Land Rover) in her driveway overnight unlocked AND forgot the keys in the ignition...."

Judge: Good morning. We are here to hear PCTHEO's case against Stupid Woman. PCTHEO, I need to know how Stupid Woman's actions caused you damage. Go ahead...tell me.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Our writer needs to sue the teenagers and their parents. Parents are liable for their children's malicious or purposeful acts. The teenagers themselves are liable for the damages as well.

IAAL

 

[seniorjudge]

....Parents are liable for their children's malicious or purposeful acts....

Is that the law in California!?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Is that the law in California!?

My response:

Yes, as it is in Arizona too.

IAAL

 

[Florid-aise]

I am looking for the other one I know that is locally applicable. Not AZ law to be sure.

This, from another website:

Findlaw > Library
TORT Reform Will Hurt Those Most In Need


Just imagine if you were driving down I-95 on your way home and a negligent driver in a rental car suddenly and negligently loses control of the car and crashes into you causing you to become catastrophically injured.

Under the current law, established in 1920 by the Florida Supreme Court, the rental car company would be liable for the negligence of the individual who was renting their car.

The rental car company knows that the use of its automobiles on the highways in the State of Florida poses extraordinary risk and that rental car companies profit by placing their cars on the highway. They are thereby exposing all the citizens of the State of Florida to significant risk. This law and reasoning is what is referred to in legal doctrines as the Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine.

The Florida Supreme Court stated that it is believed to be a common opinion among many that the automobile constitutes a dangerous machine and that the operation of the motor vehicle on the public thoroughfare is necessarily hazardous.

Unfortunately, Florida's legislature prepared HB777, which will abrogate to a great extent liability of the rental car agencies based on this 80 year old doctrine known as the Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine. HB777 which is known as Tort Reform limits the liability of rental car agencies to $100,000.00 per person, $300,000.00 per incident plus $500,000.00 additional for economic damages if the lessee or operator has less than $500,000.00 insurance, combined limits. Tragically this Bill was signed into law on May 26, 1999 by Governor Bush.

This law will severely hurt the most catastrophically injured victims who are in need of compensation. Catastrophically injured patients will not be able to recover adequately from rental car companies who profit by having their cars on the street. These victims will become wards of the State and taxpayers dollars will have to pay for their medical care and other expenses associated with their catastrophic injuries.

Torts/ Personal Injury Rental Cars 6254

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Florid-aise, what does our writer's post and question have to do with rental vehicles? We're talking about a first party owned vehicle being stolen and used in the commission of a crime. The question is whether the first party owner is liable for the acts of a criminal.

IAAL

 

[Florid-aise]

IAAL,

It is true. A first party owner.

It is true. A third party criminal act.

The point. Where does the first party's insurance kick in?

Who is covered? For what purpose?

The owner's insurance applies to the covered insureds.

The owner's insurance covers the insureds liability. Even if third party actors expose that liability.

See this link below;

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=11th/955446opn.html

 

[seniorjudge]

My response:

Yes, as it is in Arizona too.

IAAL

www.aals.org/profdev/torts/barnes.pdf

Ah, but parent must commit a threshhold tort first, right?

 

[JETX]

The owner's insurance applies to the covered insureds.

Are you saying that the at fault driver was somehow a 'covered insured' and thereby the owners insurance applies?? Sorry, that won't 'fly' in ANY court.
As stated previously by IAAL and myself... the owner (victim) has NO liability for the damage caused by the car thiefs actions.

 

[Florid-aise]

Are you saying that the at fault driver was somehow a 'covered insured' and thereby the owners insurance applies?? Sorry, that won't 'fly' in ANY court.
As stated previously by IAAL and myself... the owner (victim) has NO liability for the damage caused by the car thiefs actions.

Just imaging that we all were outside SeniorJudge's chambers by the water cooler. The time comes, you Jet, taking the first party's case, IAAL as well. You proffer the first party owner has no liability for the tortious acts of a third party by crime. IAAL tackles the liability of the teens and their parents. I show up with a copy of the insurance policy of the first party. If there is similar language in that policy as is noted in the case above - that insurance company is gonna write the check.

Just for good measure. You and I both know where there are instances where an insured had an auto insurance policy expire or lapse and that company was still mandated and targeted the carrier and forced to pay the claim.

It should also go without saying that given all the variables here. Joint and several liability may be split four or five ways. It is at least reasonably possible.

For clairification. I am not saying the at fault driver was a "covered driver". What I am pointing to is the insurance carrier is covering the insured's exposure to any liability. The carrier stands in the gap where the insured is exposed.

 

[seniorjudge]

...Just imaging that we all were outside SeniorJudge's chambers by the water cooler....

I would say, "Quit talking about this **** and let's go get an adult beverage!"