3 ms·
That's not criminal, that's a tort. Baltimore, not being the customer, probably lacks standing.
by linksnapzz 3y ago
That's not criminal, that's a tort.
Baltimore, not being the customer, probably lacks standing.
- plagiarist 3y agoAnd Baltimore is asserting they have standing regarding financial damages incurred from policing the thefts. If only there was some way to resolve whether the defendant or plaintiff is the correct party!
- linksnapzz 3y agoHyundai should countersue the city, for having such a reprobrate populace that necessitates that manufacturers of durable goods implement increasingly elaborate and expensive antitheft schemes. "Maintaining a Nuisance", I think the term is. Or perhaps they should have owners sign a release, promising not to operate or store the vehicle in any zip code that insurance companies deem high risk.
- plagiarist 3y agoI kinda agree! Forcing the customer to sign a car theft waiver that other car companies do not would solve the problem somewhat. It informs them so that they can use their money on a different vehicle.
- xkcd-sucks 3y agoBut it's established through case law that police aren't obligated to do anything about theft. So the costs of policing thefts would seem to be voluntary, not damages. Interesting to see how it turns out.
- ApolloFortyNine 3y agoYou have a good point here, would the judge rule that only the time taken to help file a report can be sued for? Any more than that and it sounds like you could theoretically sue the police for not finding your car.
- emodendroket 3y agoYeah presumably that's why they're suing and not charging them with a crime. Think about that one for a second.