Opinion ID: 1335818
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Common Law Cause of Action Arising From Violation of a Statute

Text: The focal point of the plaintiff's theory of recovery against the defendant is W. Va. Code 17C-14-1 (1951), also known as the unattended motor vehicle statute, which provides: No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall permit it to stand unattended without first stopping the engine, locking the ignition, removing the key, and effectively setting the brake thereon and, when standing upon any grade, turning the front wheels to the curb or side of the highway. The plaintiff contends that by allowing the ignition key to be easily accessible to the defendant's unattended automobile, the defendant violated W. Va.Code 17C-14-1 (1951). The theory continues that the violation of W. Va.Code 17C-14-1 (1951) is prima facie evidence of negligence and is actionable because the violation was the proximate cause of the death of the plaintiff's decedent. See Syllabus Point 1, Anderson v. Moulder, 183 W.Va. 77, 394 S.E.2d 61 (1990). Is the application of W. Va.Code 17C-14-1 (1951) dispositive of the facts of this case? This case presents the first occasion that we have had to discuss the scope of the unattended motor vehicle statute as it relates to injuries caused to third persons. W. Va. Code 55-7-9 (1923) expressly authorizes civil liability based on a violation of a statute: Any person injured by the violation of any statute may recover from the offender such damages as he may sustain by reason of the violation, although a penalty or forfeiture for such violation be thereby imposed, unless the same be expressly mentioned to be in lieu of such damages. W.Va.Code 55-7-9 (1923). Building on this statutory provision, we have consistently held that a violation of a statute is prima facie evidence of negligence, providing that such violation is the proximate cause of the injury. [6] See, e.g., Powell v. Mitchell, 120 W.Va. 9, 196 S.E. 153 (1938); Porterfield v. Sudduth, 117 W.Va. 231, 185 S.E. 209 (1936). The trial court was of the view that as a matter of law, the violation of W. Va.Code 17C-14-1 (1951) was not the proximate cause of the death of the plaintiff's decedent, reasoning that the criminal acts and subsequent negligence of Messrs. Tomblin and Yourtee were an intervening efficient cause that broke the chain of causation between the defendant's negligent act of leaving the keys in an unattended motor vehicle and the death of the plaintiff's decedent. The absence of proximate cause stimulated the trial court's entering of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendant. While we agree with the trial court and reserve discussion on that issue for a later portion of this opinion, there is a more fundamental explanation as to why the unattended motor vehicle statute does not lend aid and comfort to the plaintiff's cause. Whenever a violation of a statute is the centerpiece of a theory of liability, the question arises whether the statute creates an implied private cause of action. See Hurley v. Allied Chem. Corp., 164 W.Va. 268, 262 S.E.2d 757 (1980). Hurley was the first occasion that this Court considered the question of when a statute gives rise to a private cause of action. We formulated the following test: The following is the appropriate test to determine when a State statute gives rise by implication to a private cause of action: (1) the plaintiff must be a member of the class for whose benefit the statute was enacted; (2) consideration must be given to legislative intent, express or implied, to determine whether a private cause of action was intended; (3) an analysis must be made of whether a private cause of action is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme; and (4) such private cause of action must not intrude into an area delegated exclusively to the federal government. Syllabus Point 1, Hurley, 164 W.Va. 268, 262 S.E.2d 757. Measuring this case by the Hurley standards, we must first ascertain if the plaintiff's decedent was within the universe of persons that the statute was designed to benefit. Stated more specifically, the question is whether a person who participates in the theft of an unattended motor vehicle, in which the ignition keys were readily available, is within the class of persons that W. Va.Code 17C-14-1 (1951) was designed to protect. The authorities of our sister states have generally concluded that the unattended motor vehicle statute was enacted, in part, to protect the public against car theft and/or runaway cars. See, e.g., Hartford Ins. Co. v. Manor Inn, 335 Md. 135, 642 A.2d 219, 229 (1994) (citations omitted); Rollins v. Petersen, 813 P.2d 1156, 1164 (Utah 1991); Davis v. Thornton, 384 Mich. 138, 180 N.W.2d 11, 14 (1970); Richards v. Stanley, 43 Cal.2d 60, 271 P.2d 23 (1954); Ney v. Yellow Cab Co., 2 Ill.2d 74, 117 N.E.2d 74, 77 (1954); Anderson v. Theisen, 231 Minn. 369, 43 N.W.2d 272, 273 (1950); Sullivan v. Griffin, 318 Mass. 359, 61 N.E.2d 330, 332 (1945). However, an exhaustive search failed to yield any cases holding that the unattended motor vehicle statute was designed to protect a miscreant from his own misconduct. [7] We acknowledge that the plaintiff's decedent was not driving the stolen vehicle at the time of the crash that resulted in his death; however, his complicity in the crime places him outside the sphere of persons designed by the Legislature to be within the zone of protection afforded by a violation of the unattended motor vehicle statute. We therefore hold that a person who participates in the theft of a motor vehicle, and is injured thereafter as a result of the operation of that stolen motor vehicle, is not within the class of persons that the Legislature designed the unattended motor vehicle statute to benefit. [8] Accordingly, because the plaintiff's decedent is not within the class of persons that the unattended motor vehicle statute was designed to protect, the statute does not create a private cause of action for the plaintiff against the owner of the automobile whose conduct may have facilitated its theft. B.