Auto Liability Possible if Keys are Left in Car
A Court of Appeals in Tennessee has made an interesting ruling in a case where a stolen car was involved in a car accident. The plaintiffs were injured in a car accident in which their car collided with a car that had been stolen from Joseph Ash, and the main issue was whether Ash could be held liable for the accident since he left his keys in the car. This case is Newman v. Jarrell, 2010 WL 4968079 (Tenn.Ct.App.).
After the plaintiffs were injured in the accident, they sued the city, the police, and the person using the stolen car prior to the theft. The trial court granted summary judgment to all the defendants and the case went to the appeals court. The appeals court affirmed the summary judgment for the city and the police, but handled the complaint against the user of the car prior to the theft in a different manner.
The complaint against Ash alleged negligence because immediately prior to the theft, he was operating the car (with the permission of the owner) and left it unattended and unlocked with the keys in the car. The appeals court noted that Tennessee law stated that no person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall permit it to stand unattended without first stopping the engine and locking the ignition. Moreover, a review of case law from other jurisdictions showed that leaving a key in the ignition of an unattended auto in an area where the public has access could be found by a reasonable jury to be negligent.
So, the appeals court saw the complaint against Ash as one that a jury should rule on and not one that was subject to summary judgment as a matter of law. The court said that there were material facts to be analyzed and ruled on by a jury. For example, Ash left the keys in the car; there was evidence that a neighbor's car had been stolen recently; and the area where the car was parked was considered by the police to be a high crime area. Did these facts show negligence on the part of Ash that allowed, or at least did not prevent, a theft of the car with the result that the plaintiffs were injured when the car thief collided with them? In other words, was such negligence the proximate cause of the injuries?
The court concluded that the trial court erred in deciding the case against Ash at the summary judgment stage and remanded for further proceedings.
Editor's Note: This decision by the Tennessee Court of Appeals focused on the possible liability of the person that used the covered auto prior to the accident. Ash was not driving the car when the accident occurred, but was he negligent and the proximate cause of the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs? The court set out a three-pronged test in its opinion for establishing proximate cause: the conduct must have been a substantial factor in bringing the harm; there is no rule or policy that should relieve the wrongdoer from liability; and the harm giving rise to the action could have reasonably been foreseen or anticipated by a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence. The court ruled that whether Ash's conduct of leaving the keys in the car matched these criteria was for a jury to decide.
As noted, this was a case based on possible liability; the possible physical damage coverage was not at issue. But, the question arises: was this an accidental loss? Physical damage coverage depends on the loss being direct and accidental, but if the insured leaves keys in the car and leaves the car unattended in an area known to be unsafe, is the loss really accidental on the part of the insured? Absent a statute pertaining to the issue or a specific exclusion in the auto policy, this would be for a jury to decide based on the facts of the situation, with the caveat that the insured is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt.