So I was trying to write something out about the various elements of ownership and I wanted to make sure I’d properly nailed down my concepts. So I tried out various scenarios and was able to come to pretty satisfactory conclusions, then this one stumped me.
Three scenarios:
I have spent nuclear fuel rods. I don’t keep them properly. You get cancer. My responsibility (financially).
I have a dog. My dog eats your petunias. My responsibility (financially).
I think those are pretty straight forward. Then this…
I let my buddy borrow my car. He drives it drunk and kills someone. ??
In the first two scenarios I have neglected my property and that neglect led directly to the damage caused to others by my property. In the last, I didn’t “obviously” neglect my property.
There are two different possibilities here. Either I didn’t know he was going to drive drunk (or I did know or had a reasonable suspicion). If I didn’t know, I haven’t acted negligently. There is no way I could have known that this man drive drunk in my car. It seems reasonable to conclude that I wouldn’t be financially responsible for the damage (death) he caused. But if I knew, reasonably, that if I gave him the car he would probably drive drunk, can I be held responsible? Even if not fully responsible?
I have always thought up to this point that financial responsibility for damage follows the damage. I wasn’t driving the car, I didn’t make the choice to drive the car, I didn’t kill the person, I’m not responsible… but I recognize that this may not be the only way to look at this situation. There could be something hovering just out of sight here, and I’m looking for someone to bring it into sharp relief, if it exists at all.
Thanks so much!
– as an after thought, this conversation might have some implications with regard to contract killing… I’d be interested in discussing that as well.
I am not a judge or lawyer but I know when there are situations such as in #3, Government courts hold the drunk driver responsible. the justification would be that when you lend someone property, they are to treat it as if it was their own. On top of that, anything they do with the property, they are responisble for. And if you have insurance, then they are most likely going to intrevene in the situation. I know that it would be your fault in #3 but the insurance company would probably raise your rates because they want you to limit the times you lend your car
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
I am not a judge or lawyer but I know when there are situations such as in #3, Government courts hold the drunk driver responsible. the justification would be that when you lend someone property, they are to treat it as if it was their own. On top of that, anything they do with the property, they are responisble for.
[/quote]
Does this change at all if my buddy is already drunk or if I know he has a history of driving drunk? It’s not uncommon for insurance companies to not pay on claims if a person was negligent… i.e. if he was driving without a seatbelt and that caused his injuries to be worse, or if he left his car unlocked and it was stolen…?
Under the American Government, I do believe the situation does change if you knew that your buddy was drunk. If your buddy is drunk, and you have knowledge of this, then you are somewhat responsible for this because a drunk person is not always doing rational things while if you are sober, you should have the status as being the more rational out of the two. By somewhat responsible, I mean that you are not going to be sentenced to life in prison because your buddy killed a person with your car, but I am sure you’d be paying money (and probably have your license suspended).
I do not think the situation changes if your buddy has a history of drunk driving and your buddy is sober. What I mean by that is that your buddy would be responible, while you, probably, wont be. You’d just have to deal with your insurance company. But I could be wrong, this really is up to the judge to decide…
You are right but these types of insurance companies I like to call “cheapo insurance.” These cheapo insurance companies usually have a sign at their front door that says, “No License, No Problem!” And sure, the those insurance companies might only have you paying $30/a month for insurance but the trade off to having one of these cheapo companies is that when an accident happens, they are less likely to help compared to a more recognized insurance company. But whos fault is that? I would say it is the consumers. I think it is the consumers job, especially when trying to decide on an insurance company, to do some research on the company. The internet is a wonderful resource and there are sources that you can pull up that shows the quality of the service you will receive.
For that reason, I do not cheap out on insurance and I always get full coverage.
Was it your property that did harm or the operation of your property by your buddy that did harm?
If you gave your car to your drunk buddy or had prior knowledge that he intended to cause harm, then someone could attempt to sue you as providing your buddy the opportunity to harm someone with your property.
If you gave your car to your buddy who was sober or had no prior knowledge that he intended to harm, and he harmed someone with it then it would be unlikely someone could win a lawsuit against you. They could still sue you, but their chances for success are much lower.
Loaning your car to your buddy is insufficient to determine liability. His actions once you loan him the vehicle are his own, unless he gave you prior notice of his intentions. So the question, as you’ve put it, is insufficient to determine liability and thus you could conclude no responsibility.
The exception to this would be loaning an item that has an implicit function that would cause harm. Loaning your knife or gun could hold such an implicit function - what does my buddy need a weapon for? This implicit function, however may not be sufficient. For example, you’re buddy asks for your gun so he can clean it or he asks for your knife so he can sharpen it or use it as a tool for some mundane purpose.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
Under the American Government, I do believe the situation does change if you knew that your buddy was drunk. If your buddy is drunk, and you have knowledge of this, then you are somewhat responsible for this because a drunk person is not always doing rational things while if you are sober, you should have the status as being the more rational out of the two. By somewhat responsible, I mean that you are not going to be sentenced to life in prison because your buddy killed a person with your car, but I am sure you’d be paying money (and probably have your license suspended).
[/quote]
I’m not really concerned with how things are in the world today… I’ve long since parted with the idea that the way things are today under “state” is the way things should be.
I apologize for not being more clear. I’m asking how this would work in a hypothetical world free-market sort of society. Having my “license suspended” wouldn’t really happen, at least not the way it does today. What reason does the owner of a private road have to cut off his agreement with me if I haven’t personally broken his rules? I don’t think he does. I am looking for whether or not there’s a possible situation where the victim, or in this case more appropriately his agents/heirs would have a legitimate claim to damages against me if I gave my buddy the keys to my car while he was drunk.
But, like I said, this situation is really up to the specific judge to decide. I think the situation which is going to be the most debatable is the situation where you lend your car WHEN your buddy is also drunk. I would say that since there would not be a law against drunk driving in a free market society, that it is just your buddy’s fault. But if you had insurance, I would still make the claim that you would have higher rates after the accident to reduce the incentive to lend your car.
on a side note: Some Mises.org articles call to Legalize Driving, http://mises.org/daily/2343 , this article is not really expressing the point that drunk driving should be legal because Rockwell’s point in this article is basically that just law just be determined by the States and not the American Federal government. Or here,http://mises.org/daily/3419, but this article mainly says that by privatization we can reduce the amount of deaths in a society.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
But, like I said, this situation is really up to the specific judge to decide. I think the situation which is going to be the most debatable is the situation where you lend your car WHEN your buddy is also drunk. I would say that since there would not be a law against drunk driving in a free market society, that it is just your buddy’s fault.
[/quote]
I’m going to change this scenario because I have neglected to take into account the nature of what would surely amount to contracts between drivers and road-owners, which would surely stipulate “don’t drive drunk.”
Let me ask a different question. I have a buddy to whom I loaned my gun. This buddy later kills his wife with that gun. If I knew ahead of time that he wanted to kill his wife, what is my financial liability (if any) to his wife’s heirs/agents?
What if, instead, I asked John to kill my wife (for free or for a price). What’s my liability then?
Again, my perception was always that financial liability followed damage. John’s hand directly did the killing. Absent duress, is there any reason to hold anyone but John financially liable? And if so, why?
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
But if you had insurance, I would still make the claim that you would have higher rates after the accident to reduce the incentive to lend your car.
[/quote]
I would say it’s fairly obvious that I would and should be held to any agreement/contract I’ve entered into with an insurance agency. I’m talking about liability for the death of the person killed by my drunk buddy, only, someone who I’ve never met and therefore would have no contract with that would make me contractually liable.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
on a side note: Some Mises.org articles call to Legalize Driving, http://mises.org/daily/2343 , this article is not really expressing the point that drunk driving should be legal because Rockwell’s point in this article is basically that just law just be determined by the States and not the American Federal government. Or here,http://mises.org/daily/3419, but this article mainly says that by privatization we can reduce the amount of deaths in a society.
[/quote]
Thanks, I’ll read those when I’m able.
