Car broken into at work, who's liable?

[WhitleyStu]

Some years ago I had a situation similar to yours. I contacted the parents. I kept it polite and they came up with the money for the damages. Now, some parents can be asses, but most parents will try to make it right before the kids go to court. You might also have the court make it part of the punishment to make restitution to your gf.

 

[4sarge]

Imagine this America: The kids who broke into the car are liable...... and if they cant afford to pay it, then the parents are liable for your restitution, and getting the money out of the kids (one way or another).

Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner. Press charges, then ask for restitution or demand payment for your loss and damages. Plainfield PD & the Hendricks County Prosecutor should have the ball rolling from the PD report. How many other car break ins have the culprits participated in without being caught Do Not Let Them Skate

 

[Annie Oakley]

What those last two guys said! They aren't really smarter than I am just got the answer in before I could.....

 

[JetGirl]

When my car was broken into in a parking lot in Goshen several years back, the property owners were not responsible even though it was not posted. Homeowner's insurance covered the stuff that was stolen.
Good luck to your girl friend... and can she park anywhere safer?

 

[bigus_D]

It makes me sick to my stomach to even consider that one would think about suing a business owner for the acts of a third party just because it happened on the business property.

 

[GlockRock]

In my county the Prosecutor ask for the restitution to be ordered by the Judge during sentencing. Then if it isn't paid, they will be in violation of the court order.

 

[CarmelHP]

IC 34-24-3-1
Offenses against property; recovery of damages, costs, and
attorney's fee
Sec. 1. If a person suffers a pecuniary loss as a result of a
violation of IC 35-43, IC 35-42-3-3, IC 35-42-3-4, or IC 35-45-9, the
person may bring a civil action against the person who caused the
loss for the following:
(1) An amount not to exceed three (3) times the actual damages
of the person suffering the loss.
(2) The costs of the action.
(3) A reasonable attorney's fee.
(4) Actual travel expenses that are not otherwise reimbursed
under subdivisions (1) through (3) and are incurred by the
person suffering loss to:
(A) have the person suffering loss or an employee or agent
of that person file papers and attend court proceedings
related to the recovery of a judgment under this chapter; or
(B) provide witnesses to testify in court proceedings related
to the recovery of a judgment under this chapter.
(5) A reasonable amount to compensate the person suffering
loss for time used to:
(A) file papers and attend court proceedings related to the
recovery of a judgment under this chapter; or
(B) travel to and from activities described in clause (A).
(6) Actual direct and indirect expenses incurred by the person
suffering loss to compensate employees and agents for time
used to:
(A) file papers and attend court proceedings related to the
recovery of a judgment under this chapter; or
(B) travel to and from activities described in clause (A).
(7) All other reasonable costs of collection.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.19.

 

[22lr]

Take the parents to small claims Court. +10

 

[mike8170]

Small claims court.... then hire some kids from the local football team to "lay down the law"

Thats what we did in Mosul, had a bunch of kids throwing racks at us, paid some bigger ones to end it. Pretty funny to watch. If you can't win in small claims court, at least you will get some satisfaction!

 

[Libertarian01]

Some years ago I had a situation similar to yours. I contacted the parents. I kept it polite and they came up with the money for the damages. Now, some parents can be asses, but most parents will try to make it right before the kids go to court. You might also have the court make it part of the punishment to make restitution to your gf.

WhitleyStu is 100% correct. Keep things reasonable. Start the discussion with the simple presumption of their liability. Parents are responsible for their children, so you could start like this, "Mr. & Mrs. Smith, your son Charles was responsible with his two friends for damage to my girlfriends car. I have a bill for $600. Will you be paying $200 cash or check?" If they think the $600 is too high then simply tell them you will be more than happy to have the car fixed at a reputable dealer of their choice. They can then split that bill three ways with the other kids parents.

No matter what start things friendly. It will NEVER hurt you. If they become belligerent jerks then you can continue to kick things up a notch until you receive satisfaction.

Just my ,

Doug

 

[Indy317]

So my girlfriend's car was broken into while she was at work yesterday (Plainfield). Three Mexican boys under the age of 18 which were consequently released to their parents..

Anyway, here's my question, is the company she works for liable since it happened on their property? I'm kinda thinking they are NOT unless she proves negligence on their part, which I don't see happening since the employee saw it in progress and called the PD. But I don't think they have any cameras watching the lot or any signs deferring responsibility of the vehicles parked there. I don't really think she wants to get into a legal battle with the company, but if she could get them to pay for it, that would be great since otherwise she is screwed. (no comprehensive coverage on the car insurance side)

Why would the company be liable? The people liable are the kids and their parents (since they are under 18). More and more, people _hate_ to blame the criminals because usually the criminals have no money and they pretty much know they likely won't get a dime from them. Usually if the kids are poor, so are the parents. This line of thinking is exactly why most businesses want to ban their employees from having guns at work. The first time something goes wrong with the gun, everyone wants to blame/sue everyone _but_ the person who did the shooting. Also, why would the company be responsible for an I-Pod that _she_ choose to leave in the car? It isn't like those things weight 50 pounds and are the size of a brick. Devices such as GPS units, I-Pods, etc. should never be left in the car. Just hiding them isn't any good because if the thieves see just one wire, one suction cup mark, they may break in just to have a look around the glove boxes.

 

[Indy317]

It's interesting that companies (in general, not necessarily hers) can say that you can't keep a gun in your car for liability reasons, but can then turn around and say that they have no liability for things like a break in.

I realize that it isn't the exact same, but it seems like a double standard.

And this surprises you? Look at this thread and tell me why companies shouldn't worry. A non-affiliated third party trespasses upon their property, commits a criminal act, and someone in relation to the victim is talking liability _against_ the company. No wonder companies don't want their employees having guns, if people talking about company liability over simple property damage, imagine the lawsuits that would be flying if an employees gun went off accidentally, was stolen and used against someone on the property, or an employee went nuts and shot another co-worker.

 

[bigg cheese]

No matter what start things friendly. It will NEVER hurt you. If they become belligerent jerks then you can continue to kick things up a notch until you receive satisfaction.

Just my ,

Doug

Exacly! Give them an opportunity to make it right.

 

[SavageEagle]

Exacly! Give them an opportunity to make it right.

as well.

I have a question though....

When I was in HS I got car chased down by a kid in one of my classes. When I got out a bunch of my female friends jumped in between us and when he took a swing at us I pushed my friend out the way in fear of her getting hit and got my nose/glasses broken. As he took off he almost ran over two of my other friends. The police came and I told them I DIDN"T want to press charges but they told me that the state would anyway and I didn't have a choice.

ANYWAY, about a month later after his court date I got a check for $500. I was TOLD that the state paid the money and then they went after the kid for the money.

So my question is, once judgement is entered against the perps, wouldn't the court pay her the money and then the state go after the kids/parents until they got the money?

(BTW, me and the kid made up and ended up partying together about a year later. No hard feelings. It was my running mouth that caused it anyway. Imagine that! )

 

[suby]

Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers with this one lol

For the people who are mad that I would consider the company potentially liable, I see your point. Obviously the criminal is the one who is liable. BUT in some cases the employer is also liable.

"Torts based on negligence, rather than intent, may be brought against first party perpetrators or third parties whose negligence contributes to the commission of the crime or tort."
National Criminal Justice Reference Service

So if the location where she parks has had 1234092 burglaries in the past month but chose not to install security cameras, etc.; then they could be found liable. Or if her manager had chosen to not call the police when she saw the crime in progress. Etc.

However, this is not the case, and as I already said, the company is not liable. I didn't know that when I posted the thread, but that is why I posted it.

On a ideological level, I agree that it is not right for the company to be held liable for acts committed by a third party, but that isn't what the law says. So IF the company had been found liable based on one of the ridiculous examples I gave (and lets say the crooks got away, no trace), should I abandon the legal process against the company because I don't necessarily agree that they should be liable or should I just continue to operate within the laws that have been established and try to collect restitution? Hmmm Luckily it didn't come to that.

Charges have been filed against them through the Plainfield PD. I'll let everyone know what happens. Until then, feel free to continue debating tort liability

 

[haldir]

When my car was broken into in a parking lot in Goshen several years back, the property owners were not responsible even though it was not posted. Homeowner's insurance covered the stuff that was stolen.
Good luck to your girl friend... and can she park anywhere safer?

Annie, Annie, Annie... spreading misinformation about Goshen again eh? I see that last time the local tourism bureau had their little chat with you has worn off. I will send them over again... repeat after me, there is no crime in Goshen....

 

[CarmelHP]

For the people who are mad that I would consider the company potentially liable, I see your point. Obviously the criminal is the one who is liable. BUT in some cases the employer is also liable.

"Torts based on negligence, rather than intent, may be brought against first party perpetrators or third parties whose negligence contributes to the commission of the crime or tort."
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
....
On a ideological level, I agree that it is not right for the company to be held liable for acts committed by a third party, but that isn't what the law says.

In general, in Indiana, you won't be liable for the intentional torts of a third party based on negligence. Other states are different, but that's a good general rule in this state.

 

[suby]

In general, in Indiana, you won't be liable for the intentional torts of a third party based on negligence. Other states are different, but that's a good general rule in this state.

Good to know