Court Opinion

ID: 9711578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:34:50.578382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:06.049969
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
It seems to me that an injury to a debtor who resists a repossession accomplished by force is a foreseeable consequence of the repossession.
The defendant and his employee Holmes went to the farm for the express purpose of taking possession of the pickup truck and driving it away. Not content to take only the pickup truck, they took the cargo also. When the owners, Murcek and Able, tried to resist the repossession, Holmes continued to drive away, resulting in the injury to Murcek. The defendant was present at the scene and, instead of telling Holmes to stop, shouted encouragement to Holmes to continue. This appears to be a classic case of aiding and abetting, which is what the trial court found.
I would affirm the judgment.