7 ms·

It seems perverse that mere ownership of something can create liability. If she had failed to get some maintenance that made the car dangerous to drive, that w

It seems perverse that mere ownership of something can create liability. If she had failed to get some maintenance that made the car dangerous to drive, that would be one thing. But there is no indication that this is the case. If a psychopath rents a VHS from Blockbuster and then uses it to bludgeon someone's head in, is Blockbuster liable for that act of violence? Sure, a VHS is not intended to be used this way, but a car is not intended to be crashed either.

sliverstorm 14y ago
Ownership implies responsibility. For precedence, see pets and children.
- staunch 14y ago
  Guardianship is probably the word in the case of children ;-)
- fffggg 14y ago
  Children don't have owners, they have parents -- and the determination of responsibility is much less clear than your glib comment implies. For example, is liability held by the biological parent, or by an entity acting in loco parentis? The distinction is crucial, as it is similar to the difference between an owner of a car, and a renter of a car. With pets, again, if I lease or rent a pet it is not the case that the owner is necessarily responsible for the pet while I have possession. They may, but they also may not -- and it's this uncertainty which drives much frustration with tort law.
newbie12 14y ago
It is conceivable that renting your car to a complete stranger, who might be a reckless driver, could result in serious harm to others. Even worse, in this case, RelayRides makes you partly responsible because you are allowed to interview the renter before agreeing to hand over the keys. There's an adverse selection problem with RelayRides: terrible drivers who cannot afford or obtain auto insurance will be over-represented among their customers.
sunir 14y ago
It's not that straightforward. You are required to have insurance to drive a car by law for a reason. So the question here is whose insurance pays, which depends on the policy terms, not that the car owner is guilty of anything. You can insure the vehicle for all drivers for instance, in which case there would be ambiguity.
rayiner 14y ago
It seems less perverse when you think of tort liability as assignment of the costs of risk, rather than punishment for negligent behavior. When someone drives a car, this creates risk. Who should bear this risk? Somebody has to, the only thing the tort system decides is who. If you don't assign the risk to the owner of the dangerous instrumentality, then you assign it to either the operator or the general public. Assigning the risk to the public essentially socialized the costs of this activity (which generates private benefits), so as a practical matter the tort system allocates the risk to the owner and operator. Under this system the operator has a responsibility to use the dangerous instrument carefully, while the owner has the responsibility to carefully choose who operates the dangerous instrument.
- omonra 14y ago
  What if the car was stolen?
- fffggg 14y ago
  This doesn't seem any less perverse to me. Shifting responsibility to the operator makes sense for injury resulting from operation. Shifting responsibility to the owner only makes sense for injury resulting from the ownership (improper device maintenance, etc). If you can hold the owner of a car liable for a crash then what stops you from holding the creator of a car liable for a crash? Why not go after Toyota? By this line of reasoning Toyota is just as culpable as Ms. Fong. Indeed, some tort actions have gone beyond owners and even pursued manufactures -- particularly gun manufactures. The idea that an object owner or object creator might be liable for the actions of an object user is unreasonable and perverse. It has a chilling effect on innovation and forces small businesses (who can't afford to lobby regulatory protections such as the Graves amendment) out of the market.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    If owners are not liable, what stops the owners of inherently dangerous businesses like car rentals from shielding themselves from the inherent risks created by their activity by having judgment-proof operators operate that risk-creating business? The issue here is not regulation of lobbying. It's the very simple fact that driving a car creates substantial risks that have a price. Someone must pay that price. Owners and operators of dangerous instrumentalities are much more appropriate to bear that price than injured third parties. Owners are much more likely to be able to bear the cost than operators. If you shield owners, than you are practically shifting the burden to the public. I.e. socializing the costs. Yes it's great for small businesses to shift the costs of their profit-making activity to the public. Ms. Fong's ownership of the car gives her the right to profit by renting it. It is fair to link that right with the obligation for risks created by that profit-making activity.
rayiner 14y ago
Also: bludgeoning someone to death is not an inherent risk of operation of a VHS tape. A fatal car crash is an undesired, but extremely common, foreseeable, and mostly unavoidable risk inherent in the operation of a car.
njharman 14y ago
It's not mere ownership. It's owning something you rent to a 3rdparty. You should be responsible for decisions.
JumpCrisscross 14y ago
Liability is a function of risk which isn't necessarily a function of fault. In capitalism the returns and risks are, by default, routed to the owner. Shares in a company whose factory gets wiped out by a hurricane you will experience a loss. This isn't the shareholders' fault, but it is a risk assumed by owning the asset. The shareholders could later sue management for being negligent and management could sue the construction company or risk advisor who said hurricane insurance is bull, etc. But the risk first comes to roost with the owners. A similar outcome would be expected if a tree on the factory premises toppled over and killed a pedestrian. The principle difference between my example and the RelayRides case is the limited liability afforded by a common stockholder versus unlimited liability of a sole proprietorship (which is what you operate as if you directly interact with RelayRides as a natural person). P.S. Those of you piping up about how this could never happen in Europe, note that this is because European countries tend to have higher insurance caps. In this case I would expect, in my completely un-qualified opinion, RelayRides to be ultimately responsible for implying that a $1 million liability cap was sufficient.
- chrischen 14y ago
  Are you sure your analogy is sound? Ms fong had a 100% share in the car, but she already lost 100% value of the car to an entity at fault which is dead. Like a natural disaster, both entities can not reimburse for the fault, however the ride sharing company has willingly assumed the role of protector in the car case. But now the fault for the damage caused by the car while operated by someone else is more analogous to people getting killed by rubble in the factory during the hurricane. The hurricane can't be sued, and the fault doesn't technically lie with the factory owners, so society doesn't have a right to assign the consequences of fault arbitrarily to the owner now does it?
  - JumpCrisscross 14y ago
    No analogy is going to be apt since this is legal grey area. Ms Fong should have recognised that risk going into the situation. Absent special laws protecting rental car companies from their drivers' actions they too would be liable for me taking my rental and ramming it into a McDonald's before fleeing the country.
ajross 14y ago
The analogy is flawed. If routine use of VHS tapes caused death and serious injury at measurable rates (which is true for motor vehicles), then yes: they'd be considered dangerous devices, and their owners would be legally liable for their safe use.

sliverstorm 14y ago

Ownership implies responsibility. For precedence, see pets and children.

staunch 14y ago
Guardianship is probably the word in the case of children ;-)
fffggg 14y ago
Children don't have owners, they have parents -- and the determination of responsibility is much less clear than your glib comment implies. For example, is liability held by the biological parent, or by an entity acting in loco parentis? The distinction is crucial, as it is similar to the difference between an owner of a car, and a renter of a car. With pets, again, if I lease or rent a pet it is not the case that the owner is necessarily responsible for the pet while I have possession. They may, but they also may not -- and it's this uncertainty which drives much frustration with tort law.

newbie12 14y ago

It is conceivable that renting your car to a complete stranger, who might be a reckless driver, could result in serious harm to others. Even worse, in this case, RelayRides makes you partly responsible because you are allowed to interview the renter before agreeing to hand over the keys. There's an adverse selection problem with RelayRides: terrible drivers who cannot afford or obtain auto insurance will be over-represented among their customers.

sunir 14y ago

It's not that straightforward. You are required to have insurance to drive a car by law for a reason. So the question here is whose insurance pays, which depends on the policy terms, not that the car owner is guilty of anything. You can insure the vehicle for all drivers for instance, in which case there would be ambiguity.

rayiner 14y ago

It seems less perverse when you think of tort liability as assignment of the costs of risk, rather than punishment for negligent behavior. When someone drives a car, this creates risk. Who should bear this risk? Somebody has to, the only thing the tort system decides is who. If you don't assign the risk to the owner of the dangerous instrumentality, then you assign it to either the operator or the general public. Assigning the risk to the public essentially socialized the costs of this activity (which generates private benefits), so as a practical matter the tort system allocates the risk to the owner and operator. Under this system the operator has a responsibility to use the dangerous instrument carefully, while the owner has the responsibility to carefully choose who operates the dangerous instrument.

omonra 14y ago
What if the car was stolen?
fffggg 14y ago
This doesn't seem any less perverse to me. Shifting responsibility to the operator makes sense for injury resulting from operation. Shifting responsibility to the owner only makes sense for injury resulting from the ownership (improper device maintenance, etc). If you can hold the owner of a car liable for a crash then what stops you from holding the creator of a car liable for a crash? Why not go after Toyota? By this line of reasoning Toyota is just as culpable as Ms. Fong. Indeed, some tort actions have gone beyond owners and even pursued manufactures -- particularly gun manufactures. The idea that an object owner or object creator might be liable for the actions of an object user is unreasonable and perverse. It has a chilling effect on innovation and forces small businesses (who can't afford to lobby regulatory protections such as the Graves amendment) out of the market.
- rayiner 14y ago
  If owners are not liable, what stops the owners of inherently dangerous businesses like car rentals from shielding themselves from the inherent risks created by their activity by having judgment-proof operators operate that risk-creating business? The issue here is not regulation of lobbying. It's the very simple fact that driving a car creates substantial risks that have a price. Someone must pay that price. Owners and operators of dangerous instrumentalities are much more appropriate to bear that price than injured third parties. Owners are much more likely to be able to bear the cost than operators. If you shield owners, than you are practically shifting the burden to the public. I.e. socializing the costs. Yes it's great for small businesses to shift the costs of their profit-making activity to the public. Ms. Fong's ownership of the car gives her the right to profit by renting it. It is fair to link that right with the obligation for risks created by that profit-making activity.

rayiner 14y ago

Also: bludgeoning someone to death is not an inherent risk of operation of a VHS tape. A fatal car crash is an undesired, but extremely common, foreseeable, and mostly unavoidable risk inherent in the operation of a car.

njharman 14y ago

It's not mere ownership. It's owning something you rent to a 3rdparty. You should be responsible for decisions.

JumpCrisscross 14y ago

Liability is a function of risk which isn't necessarily a function of fault. In capitalism the returns and risks are, by default, routed to the owner. Shares in a company whose factory gets wiped out by a hurricane you will experience a loss. This isn't the shareholders' fault, but it is a risk assumed by owning the asset. The shareholders could later sue management for being negligent and management could sue the construction company or risk advisor who said hurricane insurance is bull, etc. But the risk first comes to roost with the owners. A similar outcome would be expected if a tree on the factory premises toppled over and killed a pedestrian. The principle difference between my example and the RelayRides case is the limited liability afforded by a common stockholder versus unlimited liability of a sole proprietorship (which is what you operate as if you directly interact with RelayRides as a natural person). P.S. Those of you piping up about how this could never happen in Europe, note that this is because European countries tend to have higher insurance caps. In this case I would expect, in my completely un-qualified opinion, RelayRides to be ultimately responsible for implying that a $1 million liability cap was sufficient.

chrischen 14y ago
Are you sure your analogy is sound? Ms fong had a 100% share in the car, but she already lost 100% value of the car to an entity at fault which is dead. Like a natural disaster, both entities can not reimburse for the fault, however the ride sharing company has willingly assumed the role of protector in the car case. But now the fault for the damage caused by the car while operated by someone else is more analogous to people getting killed by rubble in the factory during the hurricane. The hurricane can't be sued, and the fault doesn't technically lie with the factory owners, so society doesn't have a right to assign the consequences of fault arbitrarily to the owner now does it?
- JumpCrisscross 14y ago
  No analogy is going to be apt since this is legal grey area. Ms Fong should have recognised that risk going into the situation. Absent special laws protecting rental car companies from their drivers' actions they too would be liable for me taking my rental and ramming it into a McDonald's before fleeing the country.

ajross 14y ago

The analogy is flawed. If routine use of VHS tapes caused death and serious injury at measurable rates (which is true for motor vehicles), then yes: they'd be considered dangerous devices, and their owners would be legally liable for their safe use.