Courts: Leaving Hotspot Unsecured Not 'Negligence' > Do We Need New Precedent?

Do We Need New Precedent?

None of these will be put on that person owning the vehicle as criminal negligence, and it shouldn't- exactly what the article says.

What happens as a result of those mentioned above is a whole another issue; but I can imagine it being very "unfun" proving being innocent while accused of being guilty.

What is "unfun"? I look it up in my Webster dictionary but there is no such word.

reply to rradina
In many place you are responsible to secure your vehicle, and leaving the keys in would result in a fine, and MIGHT let your insurance company off the hook for damages.

I've never heard of this. Do you have more information I can consume?

reply to tshirt
I did a Google search and almost all are laws fining folks for leaving their car running (warming in the winter). That's quite specific vs. simply leaving keys in the car. I didn't find any that allowed the insurance company off the hook.

Regardless, eliminating insurance liability is crazy. Although you should not leave keys in your car, people are not perfect. Creating a fine for it is petty but going so far as to eliminate insurance liability is ridiculous. The insurance company certainly has every right to factor such events into their risk profile and commensurate rates but by definition, accidents are without intent. That's the whole idea behind insurance.

Besides, unless police literally patrol for parked cars with keys (what a quality use of public funds), it'll be difficult to prove the whereabouts of the keys before the theft. It's just as likely someone dropped them near the car and the perps credibility is already shot.

That's what happens when silly laws like this are created. Sure some municipality could expand it to include dropped keys within 15 feet of the car but how insane is that? We're not playing horseshoes.

It isn't that the law specificlly says, "Insurance is void" but in cases where the damages are high the insurance company may refused to pay based on your contribtory or negligent act.
Had you carefully taken the keys and locked the car then you forfulled your best practice obligation.
Now insurance companies rarely totally refuse to pay fearing additional laws, but save it for the worst cases.
But people try to deal with difficult insurance ajusters everyday, trying to lower the value of your claim based on lesser "oversights" on your part.

A true ALL risk policy is quite a bit more expensive then a common standard coverage policy.
It's really a good idea for most people to have an all risk umbrella policy besides other standard policies for those times when you do something stupid (and everybody does sometime )

BTW google is good for many things, but for legal research try Lexus Nexus or other legal specific search engines...no they aren't free.

reply to Jaybird
'Unfun' means:
The opposite of fun.

Words that can describe the meaning of this word:
1. boring
2. bland
3. uneventful
4. uninteresting

Sentences applicable to this word:
1. That activity is so uninteresting and boring to me, it's unfun.
2. Talk about unfun, that's so groan-inducing I can't stand it!

Essentially, it's a made up word, designed to add more spice to language so that there are more choices when trying to form a new sentence.

reply to tshirt
Yes. I have an umbrella policy.

Each state also regulates the exclusions insurance companies are allowed to craft in policies. I think they should do more. It should be much more simple than it is to purchase insurance and expect to be covered for accidental risk without wading through hundreds of pages of limitations and exclusions and receiving a yearly "pamphlet" of additional clarifications and exclusions.

reply to rradina

quote:

---

Leaving a car running and unattended on a public street, highway, or public parking area is a violation of the State of Maryland Vehicle Law, Article 21 Section 1101 (a). The penalty for this violation is a $60 fine and one point on your driving record. The Maryland Vehicle Law requires that a driver turn the engine off, lock the ignition, remove the keys, and set the brake before leaving a car. Also, if your vehicle is stolen with the use of a key, it could result in sanctions by the vehicle’s insurer. These penalties can range from a premium increase to failure to renew the policy.

---

reply to XANAVirus
I enjoy playing Grammar Nazi with lots of folks when they use the "un" prefix, as it usually (but not always) means to reverse an action already taken:

Waitress: "Would you like your tea sweetened or unsweetened?"
Grammar Nazi: "It seems amazingly complicated to sweeten the tea and then unsweeten it again. How about you just bring me non-sweetened instead?"

Hilarity (or at least odd glances) ensue.

reply to moonpuppy
Checked with an officer friend and he confirms that the law only punishes for leaving a vehicle in an unsafe manner: i.e. in operation but unattended. When it reads "remove the keys" the keys need to be removed from the ignition switch but not necessarily the car.

The potential penalties it cites also refer to actions only between you and your insurance company: "...can range from a premium increase to failure to renew the policy." If your car is used in a criminal act and the state can't prove (or doesn't believe) that you were involved, you cannot be held legally responsible for those acts.

However, if you leave the keys on the seat and someone breaks the glass, steals the car (using the keys), rams into the front of a bank, robs the bank and shoots a clerk, your insurance company can decline to pay for those damages and the bank's insurer could sue you for recovery of same. Further, you could be sued by the estate of the killed clerk for negligence.

Bottom line, there are few legal issues with leaving your keys in the car but LOTS of potential civil ones (at least in Montgomery County).

reply to moonpuppy
A $60 violation perhaps but that certainly isn't the same thing as being 'responsible for anything that happens.'

reply to Desdinova
The problem is proving how the suspect acquired the keys. Only the suspect knows and their credibility is zero. As I mentioned before, the same sequence of events could be set in motion if the keys fell out of a purse or coat pocket near the car. Forgetting-your-keys-in-the-car laws that mitigate an insurers liability are crazy.

I also draw a distinction between forgetting keys in a car and leaving a started a car to warm on a cold day. The latter is what most of these laws target.

Regardless, once the car is stolen, it's outside the control of the owner. Like an open access point, it shouldn't matter how easy or hard it is to steal. We like to make owners responsible for securing "dangerous" items but almost anything can be dangerous in a given situation. Most would probably believe a person is negligent if they don't properly secure a gun. What if it's not loaded? What if it's an old collectible gun displayed on a shelf? What's the difference between an unloaded gun and a corn knife (machete) in the garage? See how crazy it gets when we try to claim owners are liable for what happens when their property is stolen?

That's why an IP address associated with a crime should only be enough to provide justification for a warrant to gather more evidence before liability can be determined. I don't think we need new laws. We just need to have a judge with character set precedent by throwing out cases based on flimsly circumstantial evidence.

I need to add my defense of "drive by WiFi crimes" has nothing to do with copyright. I fully suport the principles of copyright and I believe these items should be obtained legally.