tottaled evo ,, bad day
Sep 3, 2007, 03:00 PM
#62
Account Disabled
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ, currently in Space Coast, FL
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The company has a responsibility to keep their vehicles safe.
In the court case of "Hewitt v Avis" in California, which was a rental car stolen from the car lot with the keys left in the car... the theif then was in an accident with the rental car.
Here are a few findings from the case "The court thereupon concluded that the theft of the car and it's negligent operation may have been foreseeable, the defendant (Avis) owed a duty to the plantiffs to take adequate precautions to prevent theft of it's cars ID. at 1256-57"
It could be argued that "adequate precautions" mean that they should have had the vehicle in a locked, supervised yard, or that the keys should not be accessable to any theif in the area.
also
In "Gibson v Avis Rent-A-Car systems" which is a Florida case take note as the current topic of discussion is from florida.
It was found that "Although it was not foreseeable that the particular automobile involved in the accident would be stolen and cause injury, such facts do not break the causative chain. '[A] foreseeable zone of risk means conduct that foreseeably creates a broader zone that poses a general threat of harm to others, rather than the extent to which such conduct may foreseeable cayse the specific injury that actually occured. In other words, if the type of harm has in the past so frequently resulted from the same type of negligence, then "in the field of human experience" the same type of result may be expected again "Pinkerton - Hayes Lumber co v Pope Fla 1961.
Let me put it in simple terms. Many cars in the past have been stolen because the keys were left in the ignition. Many of these cars were involved in accidents. Therefore it is foreseeable that if you leave the keys in the car, that the car could be involved in an accident. Therefore one who leaves the keys in the car has a reasonable assumption that the car could be involved in an accident and cause injury. Therefore it is the owner's responsibility to NOT leave the keys in the car.
Mom says I should have been a lawyer. of course mom also thinks I am handsome...
Sep 3, 2007, 04:32 PM
#64
yes sir everything working out for the good,,,, except a couple of details, ,,,, like my insur trying to refurbish my brand new wheels ,,,, i will stand until they get me brand new stock Evo ix wheels,,,,,, these wheels were brand new before this accident therefore they should be replace to the same cond
Sep 3, 2007, 04:35 PM
#66
You're only reading part of the story. The trucking company left the keys in the vehicle in an unlocked yard.
The company has a responsibility to keep their vehicles safe.
In the court case of "Hewitt v Avis" in California, which was a rental car stolen from the car lot with the keys left in the car... the theif then was in an accident with the rental car.
Here are a few findings from the case "The court thereupon concluded that the theft of the car and it's negligent operation may have been foreseeable, the defendant (Avis) owed a duty to the plantiffs to take adequate precautions to prevent theft of it's cars ID. at 1256-57"
It could be argued that "adequate precautions" mean that they should have had the vehicle in a locked, supervised yard, or that the keys should not be accessable to any theif in the area.
also
In "Gibson v Avis Rent-A-Car systems" which is a Florida case take note as the current topic of discussion is from florida.
It was found that "Although it was not foreseeable that the particular automobile involved in the accident would be stolen and cause injury, such facts do not break the causative chain. '[A] foreseeable zone of risk means conduct that foreseeably creates a broader zone that poses a general threat of harm to others, rather than the extent to which such conduct may foreseeable cayse the specific injury that actually occured. In other words, if the type of harm has in the past so frequently resulted from the same type of negligence, then "in the field of human experience" the same type of result may be expected again "Pinkerton - Hayes Lumber co v Pope Fla 1961.
Let me put it in simple terms. Many cars in the past have been stolen because the keys were left in the ignition. Many of these cars were involved in accidents. Therefore it is foreseeable that if you leave the keys in the car, that the car could be involved in an accident. Therefore one who leaves the keys in the car has a reasonable assumption that the car could be involved in an accident and cause injury. Therefore it is the owner's responsibility to NOT leave the keys in the car.
Mom says I should have been a lawyer. of course mom also thinks I am handsome...
The company has a responsibility to keep their vehicles safe.
In the court case of "Hewitt v Avis" in California, which was a rental car stolen from the car lot with the keys left in the car... the theif then was in an accident with the rental car.
Here are a few findings from the case "The court thereupon concluded that the theft of the car and it's negligent operation may have been foreseeable, the defendant (Avis) owed a duty to the plantiffs to take adequate precautions to prevent theft of it's cars ID. at 1256-57"
It could be argued that "adequate precautions" mean that they should have had the vehicle in a locked, supervised yard, or that the keys should not be accessable to any theif in the area.
also
In "Gibson v Avis Rent-A-Car systems" which is a Florida case take note as the current topic of discussion is from florida.
It was found that "Although it was not foreseeable that the particular automobile involved in the accident would be stolen and cause injury, such facts do not break the causative chain. '[A] foreseeable zone of risk means conduct that foreseeably creates a broader zone that poses a general threat of harm to others, rather than the extent to which such conduct may foreseeable cayse the specific injury that actually occured. In other words, if the type of harm has in the past so frequently resulted from the same type of negligence, then "in the field of human experience" the same type of result may be expected again "Pinkerton - Hayes Lumber co v Pope Fla 1961.
Let me put it in simple terms. Many cars in the past have been stolen because the keys were left in the ignition. Many of these cars were involved in accidents. Therefore it is foreseeable that if you leave the keys in the car, that the car could be involved in an accident. Therefore one who leaves the keys in the car has a reasonable assumption that the car could be involved in an accident and cause injury. Therefore it is the owner's responsibility to NOT leave the keys in the car.
Mom says I should have been a lawyer. of course mom also thinks I am handsome...
well bottom line the firm i am working with took the case .... this means to me that we have a case,,,,, specially when there are injuries here
Dec 6, 2008, 07:41 PM
#68
Newbie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Conn
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as your wife is ok, thats all that really matters.... But on the other hand i would just pay your deductable and your insurance co should go after the other insurance co from the truck and you should end up getting your money back.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
