woman sues mother of deceased girl in car wreck

[Rowan]

Perhaps you've all seen this already, perhaps you haven't. I saw this recently and found myself conflicted. I've learned that when you debate that there's something you've gotta do that is sometimes very hard to control, and that's leaving the emotion out of it. I struggle with this a lot and have given up on talking about things that personally matter to me, because I am nowhere near educated or eloquent enough to articulate my point across in a manner in which is easy for people to comprehend. Having watched this video, I tried to ignore the crying mother of the deceased girl and spent time focusing on the matter at hand. What I've come to realise is that I honestly dont agree with the outcome that I once would agree with.
Here is a summary of the case (at least what is portrayed in the video)

-Mother always leaves keys in her car
-son asks mother if he and his friend can listen to the music in the car
-mother says yes
-boy is asked by girl if she can drive upto her grandads which is nearby
-girl flips car
-girl dies
-mother of boy is suing the mother of girl for damages to her car.


The outline of the offence is as follows. The mother of the boy believes the daughter endangered her son, and wants compensation his medical bills and her car. The car was driven without the permission of the mother and therefor, stolen. The boy claims that the mother lets him drive the car sometimes around their property so he says its okay for the girl to drive it. You cannot give permission on behalf of someone else, especially if that person isn't aware of what that is. The girl drives the car when she isn't supposed too.

The defence (Which seemed to be made entirelly up from judge judy) was as follows.

-Shouldn't have left your keys in your car
-What did you think was going to happen.


I'm sorry if this seems like im missing something, but that's about all I got from it. I feel very sorry for the mother of the girl, almost breaks my heart that she is in a court room defending herself to this woman, but she only has her daughter to blame, unfortunately. That is my view based on what is law.

maybe what law is, isn't right. But if you were to put yourself in the shoes of a person who has taken your property without your knowledge, and ended up killing themselves, it is not your fault. Ask yourself, if the girl had lived, would you be pursuing damages to your vehicle?

thats just my opinion. What do you think?

edit: you can also see my discussion on the youtube page with other members if you want to get others opinions on it.

[Alpha]

First impression:

a) It's not the mother's fault for leaving the keys in the ignition. That's like blaming the way a woman dresses for her being raped. You should be able to do whatever you want (if it is legal) and if someone else breaks the law, then they are at fault. If I leave my door unlocked and I get robbed, it's still not my fault someone else decided to be a thief.

b) Emotion is important in these cases, Rowan. Ironically, it's hard to be objective without it. The whole thing is tragic; no-one wanted the girl to die. Suing the mother of the girl for property damages is a callous kick in the teeth when the party who has already suffered the most damage is the girl's family.

EDIT: Tidied it up after writing this from my phone... where it felt like a massive undertaking.

[Rowan]

First impression: a) it's not the mother's fault for leaving the keys in the ignition. That's like blaming a woman's clothes for her being raped. You should be able to do whatever you want and if someone else breaks the law they are at fault. Me leaving my door unlocked and I get robbed, it's still not my fault someone else decided to be a thief.

b) emotion is important, Rowan. The whole thing is tragic. No one wanted the girl to die. Suing the mother of the girl for property damages is a callous kick in the teeth when the party who has already suffered the most damage its the girl's family.

I agree, but how do you justify that when the person who caused the damage was the daughter? Im not arguing that the boys mother was cold, but where do we draw the line for people being responsible for their own actions? Is she entitled to compensation for the damages to her car or not?

[GypsyElder]

Let's play the quoting game becuse it makes us look intellectual and stuffs weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee~

jk Rowan <3

The outline of the offence is as follows. The mother of the boy believes the daughter endangered her son, and wants compensation his medical bills and her car. The car was driven without the permission of the mother and therefor, stolen.

The car wasn't technically stolen imo, because she handed over the keys. If we think of it that way, then both the boy and the girl stole the car and are equally at fault. The mother cannot sue on on the basis of theft if the son was present, since he asked for the keys originally...(unless she wants to cry kidnap, which she probably would, because she's an idiot.)

The boy claims that the mother lets him drive the car sometimes around their property so he says its okay for the girl to drive it. You cannot give permission on behalf of someone else, especially if that person isn't aware of what that is. The girl drives the car when she isn't supposed too.

If I were the defendant I would be suing the f*ck out of the mom and son who gave the girl the keys. I will play the "just because game" and say: Just because the boy drives the car on the property "with permission" does not mean that it is okay for a 14 year old to drive "on the property" and that the car is "not stolen" --> Just because the boy asked for the keys to listen to music does not mean that he is actually going to listen to music and not drive the car--> just because the girl asked for the keys and the boy thought is was okay since he does "on the property", does not mean that the boy should have given her the keys, and that she wouldn't kill her damn self in the process. <-- The lack of this kind of thinking is why she is ultimately at fault.

The defence (Which seemed to be made entirelly up from judge judy) was as follows.
-Shouldn't have left your keys in your car
-What did you think was going to happen.

If I give someone the keys to my house to watch TV it doesn't mean they aren't going to steal all my belongings "with permission" to enter my home. What would I say then? "I didn't give him or her the permission to steal my stuff?"

Sure, I agree that theft is theft regardless if I'm giving the person easy access but this is just bad parental logic.

[Rowan]

[QUOTE=GypsyElder;1345872]Let's play the quoting game becuse it makes us look intellectual and stuffs weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee~

jk Rowan <3

The car wasn't technically stolen imo, because she handed over the keys. If we think of it that way, then both the boy and the girl stole the car and are equally at fault. The mother cannot sue on on the basis of theft if the son was present, since he asked for the keys originally...(unless she wants to cry kidnap, which she probably would, because she's an idiot.)

keys were already inside the car.

If I were the defendant I would be suing the f*ck out of the mom and son who gave the girl the keys. I will play the "just because game" and say: Just because the boy drives the car on the property "with permission" does not mean that it is okay for a 14 year old to drive "on the property" and that the car is "not stolen" --> Just because the boy asked for the keys to listen to music does not mean that he is actually going to listen to music and not drive the car--> just because the girl asked for the keys and the boy thought is was okay since he does "on the property", does not mean that the boy should have given her the keys, and that she wouldn't kill her damn self in the process. <-- The lack of this kind of thinking is why she is ultimately at fault.



If I give someone the keys to my house to watch TV it doesn't mean they aren't going to steal all my belongings "with permission" to enter my home. What would I say then? "I didn't give him or her the permission to steal my stuff?"

Ignorance isn't a crime.

I get your point about her son, although its obvious they knew the mother would not allow them to drive the car, otherwise they would have asked her...

[GypsyElder]

Bottom line is the mom already allowed the boy to drive, he thought it was okay so he gave them to the girl, girl doesn't know any better and dies. Bad parental logic. I don't think it has anything to do with law or crime.

[Rowan]

Bottom line is the mom already allowed the boy to drive, he thought it was okay so he gave them to the girl, girl doesn't know any better and dies. bad parental logic. I don't think it has anything to do with law or crime.

sorry, my fault for not making my point clear enough.

Is she entitled to compensation for damages to her car caused by the girl?
If not, do you feel she should be entitled to compensation if the girl had lived?

I know you say this is bad parenting , but these are 14 - 16 year olds, are they not reponsible for their own actions at this age?

[SuperSabin]

I think this issue is pretty straightforward. The mother is responsible for giving the keys to her son, the son is responsible for giving the keys to the girl in question. Since the girl is dead from the incident the mom and son are both responsible in the end.

EDIT: about the compensation, wouldn't that fall to the girl's parents to compensate since the girl isn't alive?

[GypsyElder]

Why is this post not saving!

This case differs because it depends on what you as a person constitutes as "putting yourself in a situation"

keys left in car more equals = driving than Skimpy clothing = I want to be raped. (It maybe means there is a higher "possibility for") Which is why I can't say a Judge would rule any differently even if the girl were alive.

Its a lot easier to say "you're an idtiot for leaving your keys in the car, how could you expect no one to steal it/ drive it?" vs "You dress too skimpy how can you not expect me not to take advantage of you?"

I see where you are coming from though. In this case I think she really did put herself in that situation by not making sure the car wasn't driven, and in order to do that you keep the keys.

[Odin1199]

What was the judges verdict? The woman who sued the mother of the girl is a total high grade down to earth rotten and callous bitch though. The mother suffered enough, suing her is very low and immoral.

[Alpha]

I agree, but how do you justify that when the person who caused the damage was the daughter? Im not arguing that the boys mother was cold, but where do we draw the line for people being responsible for their own actions? Is she entitled to compensation for the damages to her car or not?

I think she is entitled to damages to her car, yes. If the girl had survived, my gut instinct is that she would be culpable because she was driving it (presumably) recklessly and illegally.

However, entitlement does not mean that the boy's mother should try to get it. That just seems like a really **** way to get money out of the family who had to go through the trauma of losing their child.

[Taco-Calamitous]

I think it was negligent parenting. If both children are 14, than neither of them are old enough to have a license yet (or even a permit iirc.) If she's gonna let two miners without licenses be in the car with the keys, she should be paying attention to what the fuck they're doing out there. She was the adult present and she failed at her job badly. So no, I don't think she's entitled to anything. Anyhoo...

Wuv, Yer Mom

[Zargabaath]

I think it was negligent parenting. If both children are 14, than neither of them are old enough to have a license yet (or even a permit iirc.) If she's gonna let two miners without licenses be in the car with the keys, she should be paying attention to what the fuck they're doing out there. She was the adult present and she failed at her job badly. So no, I don't think she's entitled to anything. Anyhoo...

Wuv, Yer Mom

Yet, in the american justice system minors are charged as adults when convenient, like that case in CA where a boy stabbed his sister. Unless they were special needs 14 yr olds they should know better. I'm sure they could crossa street w/o adult supervision or mommy hokding their hand. They're of age to have some sense. I say some b/c the boy thought b/c his mom lets him drive that she woukd ok his friend driving. Stupid on him. Maybe he was trying to score some points with his lady friend.

I would say the mother should be rewarded the money due to her son not being of age to give consent to his friend driving. He is not in position as car owner or as the insurance holder to verbally give her the ok. Technically I would see it as theft. The mom did not give the girl permission to drive so what she did was theft. While I don't know the situation with how the mom and son go about with him driving: does he have to ask everytime? I presume since he woukd need the keys. Just because he is her son does not negate the fact he can steal from her too.

[noxious.sunshine]

I agree with Zarg, actually.

It's like when I was 14 or 15 and my parents went to Ohio to take care of some stuff for my grandmother - they decided I could just stay home this time. They took their F350 & left the keys to their Explorer sitting on the kitchen table. Sure, I had driven a few times - with my mom and then when I was little and would sit in my dad's lap. Anywho. So, I took the car, picked up my friend, went for a joyride. Got in a shit ton of trouble when we got caught - dunno what happened to my friend. She got put in Juvy or something 'cuz she already had a record. Was it theft? Absolutely. They never gave me permission to take the car.

So no, the mother of the son -isn't- at fault because she never gave permission - verbal or otherwise - to actually drive the car. However, since she'd given the kids the keys, she should've kept closer watch on them.

It's also kind of like when these kids in a Civic exactly like what my brother was driving was speeding on an icy freeway - their rear end hit the front end of my brother's car, crushing his foot into like 70 pieces (and later causing him to have 3 surgeries on it). My brother had only been going like 15 mph, but 2 kids in the other car died. Parents tried suing my brother over their deaths. Kids shouldn't have been speeding. On an icy road, no less.

[Taco-Calamitous]

You two have more faith in kids than I do. I wouldn't trust my 14 year old with the keys to a car, much less leave him alone with his girlfriend with them. Why do they need the car radio to listen to music anyway? That's gonna run down the battery! Actually, I wouldn't let them be alone together in a private place at all. I'm old fashioned though, and I'm digressing. I realize what the law says is different from my opinion on the matter, but I don't care. Most kids are not mature enough to be left in a situation like that for me to think "nothing bad's gonna happen today!" Some are, but they're the minority I think. Hell, I see quite a few of 18 to 21 year olds who aren't emotionally mature yet... dirtbags, heh... (or they just weren't ready for this.) Anyhoo...

Wuv, Yer Mom

[Rowan]

I think what alpha said is spot on, although I don't think whether she lived or died should make a difference in terms of whether or not the mother is entitled to compensation, whether it is a heartless thing to sue for or not. Because at the end of the day, law is law and many of you already agree that if the girl had lived, she should be culpable. I reiterate, her death is very unfortunate but it shouldn't alleviate the fact that she took the car without permission from the owner and is responsible for the damages to the vehicle.

edit: By the way, the girl was 16.

[Taco-Calamitous]

Y'know, the law also allows for shit like this:

And similar stories. Just because the law says one thing, does not make it right. Just because you are legally able to do something, does not mean you have the moral high ground in doing it. I think this case fits right in with stories from this website. Anyhoo...

Wuv, Yer Mom

[SOLDIER #819]

Similar to Tele, this is an issue of bad parenting. If you don't want your car to be misused, don't leave your keys in the ignition.

Whether or not this is technically theft I do not know. I'm sure it varies by state. It sounds like the son was present with the girl in the car when the event took place, as the mother wanted to be reimbursed for his medical fees. Had the son been at the wheel instead of the girl, rather than just in a passenger seat, would that still be considered theft? The girl definitely wouldn't have just taken off with the car if it weren't for him being present, enabling her to do so.

In California, the law seems to trend toward people having to keep valuables out of sight (whether it's your car, if you're business owner and have a register, etc.), or you may not be able to file claims for damages or whatever may happen. It's considered to be goading would-be thieves into committing the act, because it's just so easy. But I also know that in a lot of states people don't even bother locking their car doors in public places because they feel just that safe. The norms fluctuate, I guess.

If this were a loaded gun left out in the open instead of a car, there'd be an uproar. The girl could have taken someone out on accident while driving, or damaged other people's property... the same goes for the son, who she seemed to allow to drive about. There was nothing responsible about how she handled her property, yet she wants others to take responsibility.

Also: Negligent entrustment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No clue if this applies.

[GypsyElder]

To answer Rowan's question:

I don't think the mom is entitled to expenses for damages because she gave the kids the tools to hurt themselves and her car.

[Lacquer Head]

I don't see why people keep bringing up "morals" as if they're some kind of objective term. The mother of the girl and the woman's son should BOTH be sued. I leave my keys in the car all the time, that doesn't mean I'm saying "DRIVE MY SHIT", I'm just forgetful and tend to lose my keys. It's kinda like leaving a butcher knife in your dish drainer. Your son's friend grabs it and kills your son. It's your fault for leaving a knife in the dish drainer.

If the girl hadn't died, this would be open and shut, girl stole car, parent gets sued, but since she died, all problems are just magically ignored. You may call it "cold", but life is cold.

Also, I used to go to my dad's car to use the radio since I didn't have one...and I still do it occasionally.

[Taco-Calamitous]

I guess you totally ignored S's post then about negligent entrustment then. And first of all, leaving a knife on the counter or whatever is different than giving a kid permission to using the keys to your car on several levels that I'm pretty sure I don't need to explain. Next, if you think morals are some abstract thing when it comes to whether it's right or not to sue someone who's just lost their child when what happened was an accident and as much or more your fault than theirs... that speaks about you as a person. Some things are a gray area, but that one's pretty black and white to me. Lastly, good for you. You were also eating the battery away. Anyhoo...

Wuv, Yer Mom

[Lacquer Head]

How is it not? She let them listen to the radio, not turn it on. Personally, I probably wouldn't sue (depending on the situation), but that doesn't change anything. That would just be MY decision and I wouldn't judge someone else for making a different decision.

Yes, yes I was eating the battery away, but it's a fairly common thing vOv

[Alpha]

I guess you totally ignored S's post then about negligent entrustment then. And first of all, leaving a knife on the counter or whatever is different than giving a kid permission to using the keys to your car on several levels that I'm pretty sure I don't need to explain.

I think you do need to explain that actually. Owning poisonous/dangerous substances in your house (fly spray, bleach, anti-freeze, knives, guns...) and the means to access them (a ladder, a chair, the capacity of children to jump or find keys...) does not mean that you are enabling or giving permission for your children to kill themselves. Leaving a loaded, assembled gun out IS illegal. If it were a gun that had been improperly stored, then the gun owner would be responsible because they were behaving illegally in the first place. But given the girl was 16.... I'd call that the age when a person becomes an adult in the eyes of the law. It's the legal age of sexual consent here. The girl drove the car. Even if she asked the boy for permission, she still chose to drove it. She crashed it; she caused her own death.

Now suing the mother of the girl for property damages is stupid because the mother of the deceased girl didn't drive the car and shouldn't be punished. And as I've already stated, it's also callous given the tragic circumstances. But the mother of the boy isn't at fault for doing anything... she is perfectly entitled to leave her keys in her car if she wants simply because that is perfectly legal, as is giving them permission to listen to the radio in the car. If her children were very young (i.e. anything less than 16, although that's a grey area), then yeah she's responsible for their safety. But the girl was 16, she knew what she was doing, and she was responsible for the accident and the theft of the car.

[Rowan]

I think it's also important to mention that the girl was driving wrecklessly. I'm not sure how 60mph translates to KMs, but that's how fast she was going around a corner before the car flipped.

[Clint]

The way I see it, if you have a vehicle, and you have people on your property not permitted to drive, you don't leave the keys in the ignition. The simple fact that the mother of the boy gave him permission to drive, unlicensed, on her property is enough of an insensitive for the two children to take the car without worry of consequences.

Negligent parenting lead the the girl's death. It's the boy's mother's fault. She isn't legally responsible that the girl took the car, but she is morally responsible. And the simple fact that she shows no empathy for the loss of another woman's dead daughter is downright disgusting. She had to bury her child, and all that bitch cares about are the damages to her goddamn car. That says that she values a stupid machine more than another person's life. That sort of attitude sickens me. There is nothing more valuable than life.

I would get rid of every single possession that I own if it meant that just one person would be saved. Or dog, cat, hamster, etc. I value all life. I wish everybody would feel the same way. But instead, most people are just a bunch of selfish pricks.