Court Opinion

ID: 9771217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:37:10.807229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:38:14.082928
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I believe the majority has erred by holding that, as a matter of law, the criminal acts of a car thief extinguish the liability of a negligent car owner. The sole issue upon which this case rests, in my view, is that of foreseeability. If the jury could reasonably conclude the van’s theft, and later the collision, were foreseeable, their verdict should stand. I believe there was sufficient evidence on those issues to sustain the jury’s verdict, and I would therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment. I also believe the general negligence verdict is sufficient to uphold the outcome here, so my analysis will be directed first at that theory of liability and not the plaintiffs’ theory of negligent entrustment.1

LEGAL BACKGROUND

1. Foreseeability creates duty.

All persons are charged with a general duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid foreseeable injury to others. Foreseeability is the foremost and dominant consideration in determining the existence of duty. El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 311 (Tex.1987). Ordinary care is that degree of care that a person of ordinary prudence would use under the same or similar circumstances. Foreseeability does not require the tortfea-sor to anticipate the particular nature of the injury which occurs, but only the general character of that injury. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co. Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546, 551 (Tex.1985). Athough generally criminal conduct of another extinguishes the liability of a negligent actor, the initial negligence is not superseded when the criminal conduct is a foreseeable result of that negligence. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 549-50; El Chico Corp., 732 S.W.2d at 311; Gutierrez v. Scripps-Howard, 823 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1992, writ denied). The Restatement (Second) of ToRts reflects this approach. It states:
The act of a third person in committing an intentional tort or crime is a superseding cause of harm to another resulting therefrom, although the actor’s negligent conduct created a situation which afforded an opportunity to the third person to commit such a tort or crime, unless the actor at the time of his negligent conduct realized or should have realized the likelihood that such a situation might be created, and that a third person might avail himself of the opportunity to commit such a tort or crime. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 550, quoting Restatement (Second) of ToRts § 448 (1965). [Emphasis in Nixon].
*500Foreseeability that conduct involves an unreasonable risk of harm to another, then, creates a duty to avoid that conduct, even where the risk stems only from intentional misconduct of another. The fundamental question is one of fairness: Is it fair, under the facts of a particular case, to hold a negligent party responsible for the criminal act of another? Is it fair, under the facts of a particular ease, to hold a car owner responsible for damages caused by a criminal using the stolen ear? As one court has observed in passing upon this issue:
Whether a duty exists is ultimately a question of fairness [citation omitted]. As we view the matter, there is nothing unfair in requiring defendants to go to trial on the question of whether they should have foreseen that the leaving of [defendant’s] automobile unattended under the circumstances recited above unreasonably increased the hazard of its theft and subsequent mishandling — particularly where that hazard could have so easily been substantially reduced, if not entirely eliminat-ed_ Hill v. Yaskin, 75 N.J. 139, 380 A.2d 1107, 1111 (1977).
I believe that the imposition of such a duty is recognized by existing Texas law and presents an evenhanded approach to a difficult problem. I would hold that a duty to avoid foreseeable car thefts exists, as a part of the general duty to avoid foreseeable criminal acts of others. I do not see that our Supreme Court has created or sanctioned an exception to this general rule applicable only to ear thefts.

2. Foreseeability creates proximate cause.

The second issue we must determine in assessing tort liability here is proximate cause. The two elements of proximate cause are cause in fact and, again, foreseeability. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 549. Cause in fact is established when defendant’s negligent act is a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiffs’ injury, and without which no harm would have been incurred. Id. Cause in fact is not an issue here. Foreseeability in this context means that the actor, as a person of ordinary intelligence, should have anticipated the dangers that the negligent act created for others. Id. We should not excuse a tortfeasor’s negligence where criminal conduct is a foreseeable result of such negligence. Id.
Once plaintiffs present some evidence from which a reasonable fact finder might determine that criminal conduct was the foreseeable result of a negligent act, they establish two things: (1) the existence of a legal duty to avoid negligent conduct enabling the criminal act, sufficient to present the case to a jury; and (2) a fact question as to whether the defendant’s enabling negligence proximately caused plaintiffs’ damages. This is the law in Texas, and this general rule is applicable to the facts we review here. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 550; Castillo v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 663 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Walkoviak v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 580 S.W.2d 623 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
Several Texas courts, moreover, have recognized specifically that a vehicle owner’s negligence in leaving a ear unattended with keys in the ignition may proximately cause a third party’s injuries after the car is stolen. In Simmons v. Flores, 838 S.W.2d 287, 288-89 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1992, writ denied),2 the Court characterized the law as follows:
[T]he act of an owner in leaving a ear unlocked with the keys in it at a public place may be negligence and a proximate cause of damage to a third person or property when a thief takes the car and causes such damage. But, to constitute negligence and proximate cause in those circumstances, proof of the owner’s conduct must be accompanied by evidence that, because of the facts and circumstances surrounding the location and the conduct, a reasonable, prudent person would not have *501acted as the owner did and could have reasonably foreseen that the car might be stolen and that some damage might result. Simmons, 8B8 S.W.2d at 288-89.
The Simmons Court addressed the situation where a tortfeasor merely left ignition keys in a parked car; the only Texas case, before this one, which involved a car left running found that act to be negligent, and resulting damage to be foreseeable. Finnigan v. Blanco County, 670 S.W.2d 313 (Tex.App.—Austin 1984, no writ) (deputy sheriff left car running in front of jail, escapee stole ear and was involved in fatal collision). I believe in this ease the issue was properly left to jury determination, as reasonableness and foreseeability are inherently issues dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case; we should not as a matter of law preclude plaintiffs from recovery for the negligent failure to secure a vehicle against theft. What may constitute a negligent act in one circumstance may be perfectly reasonable in another. Id. at 317; Simmons, 838 S.W.2d at 288-89; Hunsucker v. Omega Industries, 659 S.W.2d 692, 699 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1983, no writ); Bicknell v. Lloyd, 635 S.W.2d 150, 152 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no writ).

“SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES” APPROACH

A number of courts, in devising general rules for imposing a duty in circumstances like those presented here, adopt a “special circumstances” formulation where the acts of a car thief result in injuries to a third party. That is, they require that plaintiff satisfy a threshold inquiry showing some increased hazard of vehicle theft beyond just the frequency of crime in our modern world. Some courts require, too, a showing of increased likelihood that the vehicle will be mishandled once stolen. After plaintiff meets this initial “special circumstance” requirement, it then becomes the jury’s task to determine whether defendant should have foreseen the risks which led to plaintiffs damage. The Minnesota Supreme Court thoughtfully constructed the rule as follows:
Special circumstances which impose a greater potentiality of foreseeable risk or more serious injury, or require a lesser burden of preventative action, may be deemed to impose an unreasonable risk on, and a legal duty to, third persons.
[[Image here]]
Each case must be considered on its own facts to determine whether the joint effect of them in toto justifies the conclusion that the foreseeable risk of harm imposed is unreasonable, and that the defendant owner or one in charge of a vehicle has a duty to third persons in the class of the plaintiffs to refrain from subjecting them to such risk.
[[Image here]]
If the defendant is aware or should be aware of circumstances that increase the probability that the car will be stolen, that the thief is likely to operate the car negligently, and that consequently injury or damage to a third party will result, the defendant is under a duty to act so as to prevent the theft and such injury or damage.
[[Image here]]
Once we acknowledge conceptually the existence of a duty predicated on foreseeability of an increased hazard of theft and subsequent mishandling of an automobile, it should then become the jury’s task to determine whether under the facts of this ease that duty was violated by defen-dant_ Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Tapemark Co., 273 N.W.2d 630, 634-36, 638 (Minn.1978).
See also Itami v. Burch, 59 Or.App. 400, 650 P.2d 1092 (1982); Enders v. Apcoa, Inc., 55 Cal.App.3d 897, 127 Cal.Rptr. 751, 756 (1976); Ruyle v. Reynolds, 43 Ill.App.3d 905, 2 Ill. Dec. 584, 357 N.E.2d 804 (Ill.4th Dist.1976); Zinck v. Whelan, 120 N.J.Super. 432, 294 A.2d 727 (1972). In formulating this “special circumstance” rule, courts balance competing interests. On the one hand is the dubious social utility of conduct which enables ear theft (leaving unattended cars with keys inside, or even with engines running), the minimal effort owners need exert to remove ignition keys and lock cars, and the opportunistic nature of most car thefts. On the other hand is the prevalence of ear theft in our society *502and the greatly increased likelihood that drivers of stolen cars will cause accidents. This seems to me a sound approach to the problem: it structures the foreseeability requirement so courts may apply the law consistently; it allows defendants the opportunity to show they could not anticipate the enhanced danger of theft or mishap; and it gives plaintiffs access to a jury if they present a prima facie case of foreseeability.
Based upon this legal precedent, therefore, I believe Texas does not subscribe to an unqualified rule that the owner of a vehicle is never liable to third parties injured as a result of negligent operation of that vehicle by a thief. Rather, I think this case is governed by the law pronounced in Nixon. The foreseeability of criminal conduct enabled by defendant’s negligent acts creates a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent that criminal conduct.

THE MAJORITY OPINION DOES NOT REFLECT CURRENT LAW

The majority opinion bases its conclusion that Story owed plaintiffs no duty upon this Court’s 1961 decision, holding that the owner of a motor vehicle is not liable, as a matter of law, to third parties for damages caused by the negligent operation of the vehicle by a thief. Parker and Parker Constr. Co. v. Morris, 346 S.W.2d 922, 925 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1961, writ ref'd n.r.e.). I disagree with the majority’s reliance on that case for two reasons: First, I believe its sweeping holding that a vehicle owner is never liable, as a matter of law, for the negligent driving of a thief is incorrect; and second, I believe the circumstances here were so different from those in Parker that it is of little prece-dential value.
Parker involved the theft of a tractor which was driven into plaintiffs house, causing damage. The driver-thief was never apprehended. The tractor had no ignition key or lock. The owner would have had to modify the tractor’s “push-pull” ignition design, standard on tractors at that time, to render the unattended tractor inoperable. Under those facts, at that time, the Court held that any negligence of the tractor owner in failing to modify the tractor’s ignition did not proximately cause plaintiffs damage, as the theft was an independent intervening cause. Under those particular facts, Parker was probably correctly decided, but the facts of this case are very different, and the law has evolved significantly in the thirty-two years since Parker was written. I do not believe it should control here.
Likewise, the majority relies upon Williamson v. Wayne Strand Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 658 S.W.2d 263 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.), a 1983 case where a car owner entrusted his vehicle for repairs at defendant dealership. The owner left his keys in the car when he dropped it at the lot, and it was stolen by two thieves. The thieves abandoned the car in a Corpus Christi street, darting across the intersection just as plaintiff had the bad luck to approach. Plaintiff was injured as he evaded the running thieves and abandoned ear. Williamson relies upon Parker, holding that the dealership’s failure to remove the ignition keys could not make it liable for plaintiffs injuries. It noted that Texas statute makes it illegal to leave a car unattended "with keys in the ignition, but found that this statute did not apply to vehicles on private property.3 Simply put, the majority opinion holds that a ear thief s intervening criminal acts, as a matter of law, preclude a negligent car owner’s liability for injuries sustained after the theft. This is not the law in Texas.4

*503
FACTS

Using the legal analysis I have outlined, then, the foreseeability questions of this case are two: (1) was it reasonably foreseeable that the van would be stolen; and (2) was it reasonably foreseeable that after a theft, the car would be involved in an accident. Evidence supports the jury’s implied findings of foreseeability as to both prongs of this test.5

1. Foreseeability of the theft.

First, as to whether it was foreseeable that this van would be stolen, on these facts it would be miraculous had it escaped theft. This was no ordinary situation; indeed, it is a textbook example of just the “special circumstances” where courts are willing to impose liability. Story Dodge did not just leave an unattended vehicle with dealer plates at a spot close to the street; it did not just leave that unattended vehicle unlocked; it did not just leave the vehicle unlocked with keys in the ignition. Story Dodge left an expensive conversion van at “the point,” the most visible spot on its lot, next to the street, and far from its office. It left the vehicle unattended at night, equipped with dealer tags, unlocked, doors and windows wide open to invite attention, keys in the ignition, and the motor running. The van might as well have had “STEAL ME” written across the windshield.
El Paso County has an extraordinarily high rate of car theft; employees of Story Dodge are aware of that rate and know they must exercise caution with their cars because of it. In the five years before this accident occurred, about 30,000 cars were stolen in El Paso. In 1988, the year before this theft, around 250 cars were stolen from El Paso dealerships.6 Seven cars had been stolen from Story Dodge in three years; three were stolen off the lot during working hours. Theft was “not unusual” at this car dealership. Story Dodge had only one other 1988 conversion van on its lot during the summer of 1989 and that van, too, was stolen.
Based on these facts, the jury was entitled to find that theft of an expensive conversion van, parked near the street, unattended at night, wide-open with keys in the ignition and engine running, in a city where car theft is rampant, was not just foreseeable, it was almost inevitable. I would find plaintiffs fully satisfied this aspect of the foreseeability test.

2. Foreseeability of the accident.

The second aspect of foreseeability here is whether Story Dodge could reasonably anticipate the van would be involved in an accident after it was stolen. Admittedly, plaintiffs did not present a surfeit of evidence on this point. Foreseeability that the driver of a stolen car would drive it negligently and collide with another automobile is, nevertheless, a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact.7 Two witnesses, however, one *504of them the sales manager at Story Dodge, testified it was reasonably foreseeable a thief might have an accident in this stolen car. The evidence on this matter was disputed, but I would hold it adequate to support the jury’s verdict. Moreover, the testimony on this issue only reinforces common sense: an individual driving a stolen ear is not a law-abiding citizen, nor likely to be a cautious driver, and is probably nervous and distract-able.8 I would therefore uphold the jury’s finding that it was reasonably foreseeable the stolen van would be involved in a collision such as occurred here.

SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE THAT DRIVER WAS UNLICENSED

Finally, I disagree with the majority’s conclusions on plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment theory. As to plaintiffs’ proof that Watson was unlicensed, I would hold that sufficient evidence supports that claim. Evidence was that Watson, when arrested, gave police a Texas driver’s license number that proved to belong to another person. Watson did not have a Texas driver’s license. Although plaintiffs’ search for Watson’s license went no further, I would hold that from the combination of facts that Watson lied about his license, and that he had none in the State he claimed, sufficient evidence satisfied plaintiffs’ burden here. This is so particularly where defendant presented no rebuttal evidence that Watson was indeed licensed, or that Story Dodge had some reason to believe he was. Plaintiffs presented evidence that it would be impossible to negate the possibility that a fugitive, using numerous abases and birth dates, did not possess a driver’s license. Plaintiffs should not be held to the onerous burden of proving Watson had no license in any of the fifty states, nor in any foreign country, which is what the majority opinion seems to require. Where a driver asserted he had a Texas license, and plaintiffs proved this was false, the jury may reasonably conclude he holds no valid driver’s license at all. I would so hold.

CONCLUSION

I see no reason to overturn the jury’s verdict in this case. It was foreseeable that this van would be stolen, and foreseeable that a stolen car would be involved in an accident. I would affirm the trial court’s judgment.

. Story Dodge basically conceded its negligence in leaving the van running for thirty to forty-five minutes at an unattended corner of its lot.

. The majority ignores the fact-specific nature of Simmons' holding. There, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment to which plaintiff filed no response. There was no evidence that special circumstances existed which would create liability. Particularly in light of its unambiguous statement of the general rule, I do not believe Simmons stands for the proposition for which the majority relies upon it.

. That statute 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 from the ignition and effectively setting the brake thereon and, when standing upon any grade, turning the front wheels to the curb or side of the highway. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6701d, § 97 (Vernon 1977).
While this law applies only to cars on public highways, it demonstrates the legislature’s concern with the dangers of leaving operable, unattended vehicles in accessible places.

. At least nine jurisdictions, besides Texas, have recognized that a car owner may owe others a duty to remove keys from a car’s ignition, and negligent failure to do so may result in the owner's liability. See Hallmark Insurance Co. v. Chicago Transit Authority, 179 Ill.App.3d 260, 128 Ill.Dec. 319, 534 N.E.2d 501 (1989); Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Tapemark Co., 273 N.W.2d 630 (Minn.1978); Vining v. Avis Rent-A-*503Car Systems, Inc., 354 So.2d 54 (Fla.1977); Hill v. Yaskin, 75 N.J. 139, 380 A.2d 1107 (1977); Enders v. Apcoa, Inc., 55 Cal.App.3d 897, 127 Cal.Rptr. 751 (2d Dist.1976); Ruyle v. Reynolds, 43 Ill.App.3d 905, 2 Ill.Dec. 584, 357 N.E.2d 804 (Ill. 4th Dist.1976); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Grain Belt Breweries, Inc., 309 Minn. 376, 245 N.W.2d 186, 188 (1976); Zinckv. Whelan, 120 N.J.Super. 432, 294 A.2d 727 (1972); Davis v. Thornton, 384 Mich. 138, 180 N.W.2d 11 (1970); Khoyan v. Turner, 255 Md. 144, 257 A.2d 219 (1969); Gaither v. Myers, 404 F.2d 216 (D.C.Cir.1968); Mellish v. Cooney, 23 Conn.Supp. 350, 183 A.2d 753 (Cir.Ct.1962); Justus v. Wood, 209 Tenn. 55, 348 S.W.2d 332 (1961); Ross v. Hartman, 139 F.2d 14 (D.C.Cir.1943).

.This two-pronged approach to foreseeability is not generally acknowledged by case law: the courts have focussed only upon the foreseeability of a particular theft, and tend to skim over the foreseeability of an accident following the theft. This may be, as I will discuss later, because there is a common assumption of harm following a vehicle theft.

. That defendant here is a car dealership, handling hundreds of vehicles every year, is also worth noting. Professional automobile vendors should know that car theft is dangerously frequent in El Paso and should take measures to guard against it. See Enders v. Apcoa, Inc., 127 Cal.Rptr. at 756 ("A parking lot operator is no less knowledgeable of these risks and dangers than a private citizen, and perhaps should be held to a greater degree of responsibility because of the volume of cars left in his care.”). A dealership’s eagerness to entice customers should not excuse the sort of carelessness which. led to the theft here.

. In a highly unusual tactic, Story Dodge called a law professor to give his opinion on proximate causation and foreseeability. The jury chose to *504discount his opinion, (that Story Dodge was not responsible for plaintiffs' damages) as it was entitled to do. We are not asked to review the admissibility of this evidence on appeal. Suffice it to say that law professors are experts on law, not on any factual matter that might help the jury in determining the questions before it. Deciding the applicable law to be submitted to the jury is the judge’s province.

. Empirical studies substantiate this intuitive conclusion. One author cites statistics indicating that accident rates for stolen cars are anywhere from forty-seven to two hundred times the normal rate; and the percentage of recovered stolen vehicles that have been wrecked range from 15 percent to 46 percent. See 13 AM.JuR.3d, Proof of Facts 405, 435 (1991); Peck, An Exercise Based Upon Empirical Data: Liability for Harm Caused by Stolen Automobiles, 1969 Wis.L.Rev. 909.
Courts examining this aspect of foreseeability have arrived at similar conclusions. Enders v. Apcoa, 127 Cal.Rptr. at 756 ("The negligent driving during such a course of attempted escape would be expected and therefore patently foreseeable. Where it is foreseeable that the manner of driving will be negligent, the likelihood of injury to the arresting officer and/or to innocent third parties is also foreseeable.”); Zinck v. Whelan, 120 N.J.Super. 432, 294 A.2d 727 (1972) (the purpose of regulations prohibiting leaving keys in unattended vehicles is at least in part to reduce the hazard of accidents caused by the takers of the vehicle); Ross v. Hartman, 139 F.2d 14, 15 (D.C.Cir.1943) ("The evident purpose of requiring motor vehicles to be locked is not to prevent theft for the sake of owners or the police, but to promote the safety of the public in the streets.”); Justus v. Wood, 348 S.W.2d at 338 (“It is common knowledge that a person possessed of the characteristics which would cause him to thus steal an automobile is a person who is irresponsible and totally devoid of regard for the rights and safety of others ..."); Hill v. Yaskin, 380 A.2d at 1110 (citing statistics that between 24 and 57 percent of car thefts are accomplished with the ignition key; the accident rate for stolen cars is forty-seven times greater than the rate for general public); Gaither v. Myers, 404 F.2d 216 (D.C.Cir.1968) (citing similar statistics); Itami v. Burch, 650 P.2d at 1093 (acknowledging high rate of accidents with stolen vehicles because thieves lack concern for property involved).