JOSEPH GMEREK AND SOPHIA GMEREK, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
NORMAN S. RACHLIN, REVA RACHLIN AND AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Car owners who leave keys in the ignition of a vehicle parked in a high-crime area are not liable for injuries caused by an accident involving that vehicle occurring months after it is stolen. The court held that negligence liability must terminate at some point and does not extend to results that are merely possible rather than reasonably probable.
The owner is not liable. Although leaving keys in the ignition may constitute negligence, the responsibility for such negligence must terminate at some point, and an accident occurring five-and-one-half months after the vehicle was stolen is not a reasonably probable result of the negligent act.
[1] The owner of an automobile parked in a high crime area with keys in the ignition is not liable to third persons injured in an accident involving the vehicle if the accide…
[2] The responsibility of a tort-feasor for the consequences of negligent acts is limited to reasonable and probable results, not merely possible results.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the owner of an automobile parked in a high crime area with the keys in the ignition is not liable to third persons injured in an accident involving said vehicle, which occurred some five-and-one-half months after the vehicle was stolen”
States the core holding of the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Gmereks left their automobile parked in a high-crime area with the keys in the ignition. Approximately five-and-one-half months later, the vehicle…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
[*1231] PER CURIAM.
The trial court held, as a matter of law, that the owner of an automobile parked in a high crime area with the keys in the ignition is not liable to third persons injured in an accident involving said vehicle, which occurred some five-and-one-half months after the vehicle was stolen. We affirm.
Even if it was negligent to leave the keys in the ignition, under the principles announced in Vining v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 354 So. 2d 54 (Fla.1978); Section 316.097, Florida Statutes (1975) we hold that the responsibility for such negligence must terminate at some time in the future and, at least, the owner of the automobile would not be liable for an accident occurring some five and one-half months after the automobile was stolen. It was not reasonable and probable that such a result would occur from the negligent act of leaving the keys in the ignition. Newton v. Davis Transport & Rentals, Inc., 312 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Casey v. Corson & Gruman Company, 221 F. 2d 51 (D.C.Cir.1955); Childers v. Franklin, 46 Ill.App.2d 344, 197 N.E. 2d 148 (1964); Liberto v. Holfeldt, 221 Md. 62, 155 A. 2d 698 (1959); Anno. 45 A.L.R.3d, §§ 6(b) and 9(b) and cases cited therein; and Cone v. Inter County Telephone and Telegraph Company, 40 So. 2d 148 (Fla.1949), wherein the following is found:
“The responsibility of a tortfeasor for the consequences of his negligent acts must end somewhere, and under our legal system the liabily of the wrongdoer is extended only to the reasonable and probable, not the merely possible, results of a dereliction of duty.”
Therefore, for the reasons stated, the final summary judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Vining v. AVIS Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 354 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1977)
- Cone v. Inter Cnty. Tel. Tel. Co., 40 So.2d 148 (Fla. 1949)
- Rexford G. Casey v. Corson & Gruman Co., 221 F.2d 51 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
- Newton v. Davis Transp. & Rentals, Inc., 312 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)