RoR: Forum

Ted,

As a blossoming law student, perhaps you can allow me to take a crack at a negligence charge:

- Ceteris Paribus, there is nothing inherently dangerous about leaving a car running with a child inside. The 2-year-old will remain strapped into his/her car seat, thereby denying the child access to accidentally changing gears, etc. A running car in park is not per se a dangerous item. Hence why it's so schizophrenic to arrest folks on say, DUI charges if the keys are simply in the ignition or the car is running. We have to stop being chicken-littles about this and recognize that a parked car is NOT dangerous. Unless you're going to make the case that the mother should have known or planned for a car thief

- Additionally, you're ignorantly using joint and several liability; it's (to my knowledge) used only in civil cases, whereas this is a misdemeanor criminal case. So don't call others ignorant when you don't know the terms upon which you're operating. Your google-fu is weak, Keer-sahn. Let's face it, if you're going to say that the mother facilitated the kidnapping, that makes her an unwitting co-conspirator with the car thief, but that's a stretch. So, bottom line: don't use civil court terms for criminal justice. It shows you don't know what you're talking about.

Also, I'd like to mention that your editorializing, while sneaky, is intellectually flawed.

You wrote:

PASSIVE NEGLIGENCE: Failure to do something (as to discover a dangerous condition on one's property) [e.g., pool, open well, unlocked car, abandoned refrigerator, loaded weapon, open car trunk, dangerous animal, -TK] that...in combination with another's act is a cause of injury.

Sorry Ted, but you're not going to convince a rational person that "an unlocked car" [running or otherwise] is again, per se a dangerous condition or state for one's property (i.e. the car) to be in. Pools, wells, refrigerators, weapons and trunks all present passive (i.e. requiring no action on the part of a child) risks that endanger(although I morally disagree with many of these...why are people responsible for the actions of others' children? But that's an argument for a different day). What risk does a running, unlocked car present to a strapped in two year old? That Britney Spears will come on the radio and the child will be scarred for life? Whereas the other examples you cite are applicable, an unlocked car has plenty of ventilation and, unlike the other examples, if the child can get in, the child can get out. Not so with a pool or an abandoned refrigerator.

Are you going to claim next that an unlocked house presents a danger to a child? Should people be forced to lock up every single thing in their home just in case?

Post 21

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 3:42am

The point is to criticize what SHE did. Do you seriously disagree?

Yes. I seriously do.

You think she executed well?

Probably, within the context of her own knowledge, which is unknown by me, yes, I do. I don't think her actions were unreasonable, or created an unsafe environment. She reasonably expected her child to be safe in the car, as millions of children are everyday, when she dashed into the house.

It would be just as easy to criticize anyone who drives with a child in the car, which gets broadsided by a reckless individual, resulting in the child's injury or death. "You should have known it wasn't safe to drive today!"

At what point, at what distance, can an action be taken seriously as creating a hazard? Every action has its risks.

The woman's expectations were reasonable. I would never suggest anyone should constantly expect or anticipate the worse outcome in every action they take.

Maybe men just expect the worse to happen more than women do. Maybe men anticipate the worst possible scenarios because that's how they're wired to think. I don't know.

Post 22

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 4:18am

Ted:

John, what a wonderfully frothing at the mouth picture you're painting of yourself as an Objectivist. Rand would be proud of that one. Wake me once you get back to making arguments. I still won't hold this silly lack of self control against you. And Angela Lansbury would have been a better choice.

Another words you have nothing to add but insults and condescension. Cute but cowardly way of skirting oneself away from one's argument. Well I still won't hold the fact you don't have a law degree against you. Wake me up once you get one so we can discuss issues of morality and crime.

Post 23

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 4:32am

Teresa it seems people that are so quick to judge this mother's actions are themselves either not parents or are arm-chair parenting. I would like to see a test of people's parenting skills who are so quick to judge this poor woman for momentarily leaving her child in a parked car on her own property.

From the article:

New regulations signed into law by Florida Gov. Charlie Crist last month make it a second-degree misdemeanor to leave a child under the age of 6 alone in a vehicle for more than 15 minutes, but it is illegal to leave a child in a running car for any amount of time. [emphasis mine]

Where do we draw the line? When do we just start locking people up in padded cells because they just might get hurt living life?

Post 24

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 8:09am

Teresa: �Maybe men just expect the worse to happen more than women do. Maybe men anticipate the worst possible scenarios because that's how they're wired to think.�

Maybe. I can tell you that what she did seems crazy-unthinkable to me.

Post 25

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 12:56pm

Tell it to the Judge

John, you still haven't made any arguments. I have. I never said that you needed a law degree in order to make a valid argument. Get over your outrage and your own straw-men and reread what I have said. I introduced certain concepts into this thread - it was you who have made this a matter of silly personal insults.

Steven, yes, you are quite correct that there is a difference between criminal culpability and joint and several liability which is the terminology used in civil suits. But the same concept of joint culpability does apply in criminal cases. If someone is shot during a bank robbery, even the getaway driver who never handled a gun can be charged with felony murder. The principle is the same. (You concede this, no? Also you concede that John's incredulity about the mere concept of joint and several liability is ignorance on his part, not a mistake on mine?) My objection was primarily against Teresa's (apparent) contention that if it was the car thief's fault, then it was could not also be the mother's fault. The law does not agree with that idea. Both parties can be at fault, albeit in different ways in this case. There is, of course, a huge difference in their wrong-doings. The thief committed the active felonies of theft and kidnapping. The mother was apparently possibly guilty of the much lesser offence of passive negligence.

As for an unlocked home, the liability depends upon the ease of access and what is in that home. If there is a dangerous animal or exposed electrical wiring and one leaves the door wide open, and a toddler can wander in, then you can be sure the court will find negligence. If the door is shut and there are no dangerous items lying about unattended and a teenager, who is expected by the law to know better, walks in, breaks into the liquor cabinet, and gets drunk, the court will asses most or all of the blame against the child.

I fail to see why these concepts are so difficult. This is decades and centuries old established common law. People can be as outraged as they like against Ted the Ogre for being the bearer of bad news, but they'd be better off studying the law. I haven't said that the woman is indeed guilty or that she should be punished, only that existing law and precedent allows this, and the law has stood the test of time. If this concept so offends people, let them petition the government to change it. I am not God Emperor or the proper object of their wrath. I'd love to see someone go before a judge and say "but I've read some Ayn Rand, and..."

Ted Keer

PS In some jurisdictions in civil cases joint and several liability does not apply for certain torts. But the concept is still widely known and joint culpability still applies in felony murder or when the types charges against the defendants differ.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/02, 1:54pm)

Post 26

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 1:17pm

     One question:

      What are the morally-allowable limits of 'risk' allowable to a parent without the govt threatening them with jail-time?

      I think few are considering the 'consequences' on the children whilst the parent(s) are gone, for 60 (or 180) days, nor the ongoing later ones in the family with DCYS for years...all over...a 'risk' taken?

      Face it: too many of these well-meant but over-punitive laws cause worse probs than the 'risks' they are punishing for. Can one say our Nanny-State has shown too many ways it's going overboard?

LLAP
J:D

Post 27

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 1:40pm

Using the term Nanny-State to complain about simple laws against negligence is overreaching. The idea of the nanny-state has to do with mandating such things as airbags and seatbelts for adults or outlawing second-hand smoke or trans-fats. Negligence regarding patently dangerous things like loaded weapons left in public, unrestrained horses, unleashed dogs and uncovered wells is nothing new and simply deals with real threats that exist due to a person's failure to take due care of known risks. Such issues of statute and common law are not new.

I don't see how the mere idea that leaving a child unattended is negligent leads necessarily to advocating months of imprisonment on a first offense. Surely a fine or simple probation or other minor sanctions will suffice to remind most truly culpable parents of their responsibilities. Anyone so irresponsible as to continue leaving his children unattended after a first warning can't claim ignorance of the law or that he wasn't reminded of his responsibilities.

Of course, it is also undeniable that the state is interfering more and more by placing positive requirements upon parents and especially in the case of overzealous child-protective services and family courts seizing children simply because they can. Legislative and executive busibodies abound. As I mentioned once before, I had the distinctly disturbing experience of meeting a male employed in child services who expressed his sexual thrill when a new child came into his custody. I don't see how a simple discussion thread on a forum like this will solve Solomon's dilemma.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/02, 1:51pm)

Post 28

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 3:36pm

Ted:

John, you still haven't made any arguments. I have. I never said that you needed a law degree in order to make a valid argument.

Oh cut it out Ted you did to. By calling me an armchair lawyer, the implication was quite clear you were attacking my lack of professional expertise in law to try and undercut my arguments about a moral issue. Now you're just being a damn coward about it. At least stand by your own thinly veiled insults.

Also you concede that John's incredulity about the mere concept of joint and several liability is ignorance on his part

What ignorance? Read the my post again. You mischaracterized joint liability, all parties as the defendants do not all each take 100% liability in joint liability civil suits as you erroneously claimed. They each take a fraction of the total liability. Or is the math too difficult for you? Got news for you, I am suing three different parties in a joint liability lawsuit. You think I don't know how this shit works?

Using the term Nanny-State to complain about simple laws against negligence is overreaching.

There is a clear distinction between civil and criminal negligence. Do you think this mother, a victim of a crime, ought to be criminally negligent for leaving her child momentarily in her car, on her property? Yes, or no? The fact is that you keep dancing around the issue there was no danger to the child sitting in a parked car until the thief took the action to steal the car. The parked car itself in her driveway was not a danger to the child, the thief was.

If a woman was walking down a back alley way with a short skirt on, and was raped, do we hold the rape victim morally culpable for being a victim because she took on risky behavior that increased her chances of being a rape victim?

I would honestly like to know where you draw this line. What if the mother was on the road, stopped at a red light, and her car was unlocked, then was carjacked and the child kidnapped. How about then? Is she criminally negligent? Where is this line that you draw?
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/02, 3:37pm)

Post 29

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 12:21am

Ted, I see where you were going with liability, but in order for someone to be jointly criminal, they have to be indicted as a co-conspirator, which would involve the DA making a case that the mother leaving her infant in the car directly contributed to the resultant kidnapping. That's why I said it was a stretch.

The fact is that you keep dancing around the issue there was no danger to the child sitting in a parked car until the thief took the action to steal the car. The parked car itself in her driveway was not a danger to the child, the thief was.

This makes sense, 100%. Just to draw out the logical argument further...what if the mother was five feet away from the car? Two? What if she had stepped 6 inches away from the car? Now you're asking the law to parse the distance a mother travels that places child in danger.

Ted, what if the mother fell asleep in the car while it was running with her child strapped in? Would you charge say, a single mother who's trying to get some rest in the parking lot in between her first and second jobs with negligence? I mean, being asleep is pretty much the same as not being protective of the child....carjacking is just as easy.

Post 30

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 9:07am

Steven asked: �Just to draw out the logical argument further...what if the mother was five feet away from the car? Two?� Interesting question. In the case of a running, unlocked car with a child inside, I would draw the line at visibility, not so much her seeing the car, but any would-be thief seeing her.

I�d be interested in what Steven, John, Teresa, anyone would think about her leaving the kid in the unlocked running car while she took a shower or went to a friend�s house a block away for a cocktail. If we draw this out in the opposite direction, when do you guys criticize her?

Post 31

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 2:10pm

Jon Letendre if I can ask for more clarification from your question. When you say when do I criticize her, do you mean when do I criticize her parenting skills (to which if that was the case I would probably criticize the parenting skills of about 75% of the parent population, and if I was a parent would probably critique myself and my spouse constantly) or would I advocate and expect she be arrested and labeled a criminal and thus punished by the state?

Post 32

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 2:36pm

I mean simply criticize, no crime.

Teresa says she has no criticism of the choice the mom made, so I am curious as to at what point she would criticize. If a dash inside for an umbrella sounds fine while the car runs, unlocked, child inside�then how about a shower, fixing of lunch and paying some bills?

Steven seems to agree with her with comments about armchair parenting, which sound like he thinks the mom�s choice was dandy, too.

So I mean, leaving criminal charges against her out of it, where would they or you draw the line beyond which it�s just plain stupid?

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 8/03, 3:01pm)

Post 33

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 3:18pm

If the mother had left her child in a running car for an extended period of time yes I would criticize her parenting skills. Since any of the activities you cited as an example would leave little reason to leave the child in the car. I would worry about the child suffering from CO poisoning (now I'm not sure if that is a valid worry) But the reason why I don't criticize her parenting skills in this case is because she claimed she went inside to fetch an umbrella to keep her infant dry while transporting her child from the car into the home. Seems totally reasonable to me, and ultimately my criticisms of other parents are of no great value other than to myself in order to reflect on what I would do differently as a parent and see how I could learn from other people's mistakes. You can be certain that now I would never consider leaving my child in a car on my property even momentarily (if I was a parent), and I would betcha this mother would never think to do this again either. Lesson learned.

To go back to the criminal issue, a mother shouldn't be labeled a criminal if she made a mistake and had no intention to harm the child. Civil disputes for damages between individuals are a completely different matter which do not require intent, and if say the father wants to sue the mother, maybe I would entertain that idea.

If it is the government's responsibility to use incentives to cut back on risky behavior, besides that being a question of an over-bearing nanny state, what kind of perverse incentives would we create if say we held a parent responsible for a criminal kidnapping their child? Do we want to have parents fear for their own well being from a nanny state before picking up the phone to call for help when a criminal strikes? Ultimately it is a government's responsibility to punish criminals, not victims. I have no problem trying to teach our fellow citizens on how to avoid becoming a victim. But to hold them morally culpable for a crime they took no part in is despicable. And I make no distinction here between people holding this mother up as a criminal and the Prince of Saudi Arabia claiming it was America's fault the 9/11 attacks occurred.
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/03, 3:23pm)

Post 34

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 3:24pm

Jon:

What is your opinion if the mother had turned off the car engine but left the keys in the ignition while she ran into the house? The results would have probably been the same. Is the fault in leaving the engine running unattended for 20 seconds, leaving the baby unattended for 20 seconds, or not anticipating that someone was going to steel her car and kidnap her baby? Would it have been better to just take the baby with her in the rain?

The mother made a decision. As John Armaos seems to be saying, in retrospect you can say that there were likely better options she could have exercised, but you can say the same thing about each of us in the decisions we make every day. I doubt that anyone is operating optimally all of the time - nor do I think you could get any group of people to even agree as to what constituted optimal behavior in a variety of circumstances. I certainly don't know the entire context that led to this mother's action and therefore do not feel that I am in a good position to judge whether this was a particularly good or bad decision. In any event, I am comfortable saying that the theft and kidnapping were not in any way her responsibility.

This is simply another case of one group of holier-than-thou people wanting to micro-manage the behavior of others. Whether it is seatbelt laws, helmet laws, laws about what you can eat, drink or smoke, who you can marry or associate with, etc., this ever-increasing nanny state mentality must be stopped. And that is only going to happen once we reassert individual rights and personal responsibility in this culture.

Regards,
--
Jeff

P.S. John's and my last post crossed in the aether.
(Edited by C. Jeffery Small on 8/03, 3:26pm)

Post 35

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 3:33pm

John,

�she claimed she went inside to fetch an umbrella to keep her infant dry while transporting her child from the car into the home. Seems totally reasonable to me�

Maybe, but why keep the car running and not lock-up? Perhaps so the AC could remain on, but it�s just going to be a quick dash for the umbrella, right? And the child will hit hot air when removed anyway, so I say bad choice.

�ultimately my criticisms of other parents are of no great value other than to myself in order to reflect on what I would do differently as a parent and see how I could learn from other people's mistakes. You can be certain that now I would never consider leaving my child in a car on my property even momentarily (if I was a parent), and I would betcha this mother would never think to do this again either. Lesson learned.�

Good point. I too am rethinking all my practices!

Post 36

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 4:06pm

Jefferey,

You ask, �What is your opinion if the mother had turned off the car engine but left the keys in the ignition while she ran into the house?�

That would be better because walk-bys would be less tempted by that than by a running car.

�The results would have probably been the same.�

Assuming the perps saw her drive up and get out and go into the house, you are probably right, since they would also have seen her hands empty of keys and her failure to lock-up. On the other hand, if they had seen her get out and lock-up, they would have kept walking.

�Is the fault in leaving the engine running unattended for 20 seconds, leaving the baby unattended for 20 seconds, or not anticipating that someone was going to steel her car and kidnap her baby?�

The fault is in leaving the engine running, which presents an attractive opportunity to thieves (running engine implies unlocked doors, for otherwise, how would she get back in?) And in not fortifying her practices against the existence of opportunistic perps who notice this stuff like wolves notice a limp. There is no problem with a twenty second unattended child, per se, but its being in the car makes all of this that much more important.

�Would it have been better to just take the baby with her in the rain?�

Well, yes. But I think tuning off the car and locking it would be fine, too.

�I certainly don't know the entire context that led to this mother's action and therefore do not feel that I am in a good position to judge whether this was a particularly good or bad decision.�

I respect your decision to withhold judgment of her practices. I think it is because I have been doing this for over five years, thinking about it every day and long ago decided this was something I will not do, that what she did strikes me so plainly. Remember the cartoons of the guy who sits on a limb and saws it off between himself and the trunk instead of away from himself and the trunk? No thinking required, right? You see that and automatically cringe. That is how this looks to me.

Post 37

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 4:50pm

Jon,

Teresa says she has no criticism of the choice the mom made, so I am curious as to at what point she would criticize. If a dash inside for an umbrella sounds fine while the car runs, unlocked, child inside�then how about a shower, fixing of lunch and paying some bills?

You've got to be kidding me. Jon, the only reason you're even able to criticise the former is because the car was stolen.

If theft was never a problem, you'd have no issue with fetching an umbrella.

Or would you?

Post 38

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 5:07pm

You mean if there were no thieves, no child molesters� no bad guys at all?

Then, yes, of course I would have no problem with it.

If bullets were made of papier m�ch�, I�d have no problem with playing Russian roulette. What�s your point?

Post 39

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 6:02pm