Your example is a standard law example showing negligent liability. from http://lawschool.lexis.com/emanuel/web/torts/torts06.htm C. Foreseeable intervening causes: Often the risk of a particular kind of intervening cause is the very risk (or one of the risks) which made D's conduct negligent in the first place. Where this is the case, the intervening cause will almost never relieve D of liability. [148 - 151] Example: D leaves his car keys in the ignition, and the car unlocked, while going into a store to do an errand. X comes along, steals the car, and while driving fast to get out of the neighborhood, runs over P. If the court believes that the risk of theft is one of the things that makes leaving one's keys in the ignition negligent, the court will almost certainly conclude that X's intervening act was not superseding. 1. Foreseeable negligence: The negligence of third persons may similarly be an intervening force that is sufficiently foreseeable that it will not relieve D of liability. [149 - 151] (Example: D is a tavern owner, who serves too much liquor to X, knowing that X arrived alone by car. D also does not object when X gets out his car keys and leaves. If X drunkenly runs over P, a court will probably hold that X's conduct in negligently (drunkenly) driving, although intervening, was sufficiently foreseeable that it should not absolve D of liability.) 2. Criminally or intentionally tortious conduct: A third person's criminal conduct, or intentionally tortious acts, may also be so foreseeable that they will not be superseding. But in general, the court is more likely to find the act superseding if it is criminal or intentionally tortious than where it is merely negligent. [151] "Webmaster" <webmaster@rbfcu.org> on 06/11/2001 02:01:38 PM To: "Claussen, Ken" <kclausse@columbus.rr.com>, "'Zachary Uram'" <zu22@andrew.cmu.edu>, "'Young, Beth A.'" <youngba@more.net> cc: firewalls@Lists.GNAC.NET(bcc: Bill Royds/HullOttawa/PCH/CA) Subject Re: 3rd party liability Was RE: This is a must : read document Ken, To clarify, you say that if I leave my keys in the car and the door unlocked and someone steals the car and kills someone with it, I'm partially liable? That's stretching it a bit...I think the burden should fall squarely on the shoulders of the person that stole the car. Please don't think that this means that *every* situation like this is the same. But I don't think we need to start putting the folks that can't remember to tie their shoes in jail... Michael Sorbera Webmaster Randolph-Brooks Federal Credit Union ----- Original Message ----- From: "Claussen, Ken" <kclausse@columbus.rr.com> To: "'Zachary Uram'" <zu22@andrew.cmu.edu>; "'Young, Beth A.'" <youngba@more.net> Cc: <firewalls@Lists.GNAC.NET> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:30 AM Subject: RE: 3rd party liability Was RE: This is a must read document > ***Disclaimer I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV**** > First I agree with the author's perspective, people should be held > accountable for their actions, or inaction. My understanding of the article > was if you had the club on the car then you upheld the "reasonable > expectation" of personal protection and therefore would not be "Held > liable"(read negligent) in this case should a crime be committed. A better > analogy would be to say if you left the keys in the ignition and the door > unlocked and someone then used your vehicle to commit a "Hit and Run" that > there is a far greater likelihood your actions would be found negligent and > you could be held accountable. In other words if you provided easy access > to the "Weapon" for a third party, then you are as much as fault as the > person who committed the crime. Hence the potential to be charged as an > "accomplice" to a murder. Same applies to computers, if you enable "File and > Print sharing" and do not take measures to protect yourself, IE a Virus > scanner and/or (IMO both should be required) personal firewall then > essentially you have left the keys in the ignition and the doors unlocked. > Anyone for a joyride? > > Ken Claussen MCSE CCNA CCA > Ken@kccweb.com > "The Mind is a Terrible thing to Waste!" > > > -----Original Message----- > From: firewalls-owner@Lists.GNAC.NET > [mailto:firewalls-owner@Lists.GNAC.NET]On Behalf Of Zachary Uram > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:59 AM > To: Young, Beth A. > Cc: firewalls@Lists.GNAC.NET > Subject: Re: 3rd party liability Was RE: This is a must read document > > > this is silly position but understandable considering we live in > most litigitous country in the world. > this is analogous to saying if you don't have "The Club" on your > car you are liable if someone steals it and commits a crime. > > > > uram@cmu.edu > "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have faith." - John 20:29 > > - > [To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@lists.gnac.net with > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.] > - > [To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@lists.gnac.net with > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.] - [To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@lists.gnac.net with "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.] - [To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@lists.gnac.net with "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]