A thief steals a car from a dealership that commonly leaves its autos unlocked and the keys in the ignitions.
The fugitive collides with another car while joy-riding, causing serious injury to the parties.Who's responsible?
Ask Francisco Javier Cruz and his wife Melody and they'd say the dealership was ultimately responsible for the series of events that tragically ended with the death of their unborn child. In the case of their May 1992 collision with a stolen Lincoln Towncar, the dealership in question is Wasatch Front-based Middlekauff Lincoln-Mercury.
But ask the Utah Supreme Court, which considered the Cruz case this week, and prepare yourself for a range of opinion. At issue is whether the owner of a car is liable for the actions of a thief if the car is left unsecured and with the keys in the ignition.
Specifically, the Supreme Court considered if the trial court was correct when it denied the dealership's motion to dismiss, based on failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In the end, four of the five Utah Supreme Court justices agreed that the trial court was correct to deny the motion to dismiss. Yet, in separate written opinions, the justices covered a wealth of philosophical and logistical problems associated with suggesting that a car owner could perhaps be held responsible for the actions of someone who steals their car.
Many previous rulings on such issues have found in favor of the car owner, suggesting that, except in special circumstances, a thief's actions constitute an unforeseeable act and a break in the chain of causation between the owner and the injured party.
But the Cruz case differs a bit in the foreseeability of the car theft, according to the majority opinion. Middlekauff commonly left keys in certain cars on its lot, a fact well-known to the thief as he'd stolen several cars there before, according to the court case.
The cars were easily assessible and, at the time, the dealership provided no surveillance or security. In the Cruz case, the thief stole the Lincoln luxury car during the early evening when the lot was overrun with other customers and his actions would not be immediately known, the case states.
Justice Richard C. Howe concluded the Cruz case constitutes a unique circumstance and the dealership's past problem with vehicle thefts suggest it could possibly have foreseen the series of events that led to the plight of the Cruz family.
"Middlekauff's burden of securing the keys to its parked vehicles was slight, especially when compared to the severe damages which might - and here did - result from the theft of one of them," Howe wrote.
Howe was joined in his majority opinion by Justice Christine M. Durham and Associate Chief Justice I. Daniel Stewart.
Chief Justice Michael D. Zimmerman also concurred, but posed that the consequences of such a ruling could prompt a "nightmare" for the courts and counsel. He solely suggested that the court overrule the current traditional law and "hold that any person who leaves a key in the ignition of a vehicle left in a public place is liable to anyone injured as a proximate result of the operation of the vehicle by a thief." Stewart criticized such a proposal.
Justice Leonard H. Russon dissented with the majority opinion, arguing that the special circumstances of the case - previous theft problems, lack of surveillance, etc. - go to the foreseeability of the theft, not to the foreseeability of injuries that could result.