Blanchard v. Hicks, 244 So. 3d 875

On Aug. 5, 2016, Hicks left his pickup running and unlocked with keys inside while he and a helper inspected a house for ~4–5 minutes on a public street in Alexandria, LA.
An unknown thief entered the truck, drove off, stopped behind Officer Blanchard’s patrol car, jumped out, and abandoned the truck while it was in gear; the truck rolled forward and struck Blanchard’s vehicle.
Hicks chased the thief on foot, knocked on Blanchard’s window to warn him, and later filed a police report that the truck was stolen; the thief was never apprehended.
Blanchard sued Hicks and insurer GoAuto for damages; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting the theft by an unknown third party was the sole cause.
Defendants supported the motion with Hicks’s affidavit and depositions; Blanchard submitted no contrary evidence. The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed Blanchard’s claims with prejudice.
On appeal the majority affirmed, holding prior Louisiana jurisprudence and Racine v. Moon’s Towing preclude owner liability where an unknown thief causes the injury; Judge Cooks dissented, arguing the law is unsettled and comparative fault may apply under La. R.S. 32:145.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether violation of La. R.S. 32:145 (leaving vehicle unattended with keys) creates owner liability for injuries caused by an unauthorized driver	Blanchard: Hicks’s statutory violation establishes duty/breach that contributed to the harm and can support liability or comparative fault	Hicks/GoAuto: Even if statute was violated, longstanding Louisiana precedent holds leaving keys does not make owner liable for harm caused by a thief; the thief’s conduct is the sole proximate cause	Summary judgment affirmed: owner not liable; unknown thief’s conduct was the proximate cause under controlling jurisprudence (Racine and predecessors)

Racine v. Moon's Towing, 817 So.2d 21 (La. 2002) (supreme court recognizing that leaving keys in vehicle does not, by itself, create owner liability for injuries caused by a thief)
Roach v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 279 So.2d 775 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1973) (appellate decision applying rule that leaving keys in car does not impose liability for thief’s careless operation)
DeCastro v. Boylan, 367 So.2d 83 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1979) (applies historical jurisprudence refusing to impose liability when an unauthorized person steals and negligently operates a vehicle)
Call v. Huffman, 163 So.2d 397 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1964) (early authority discussing purpose of the lock statute and theft prevention)
Blanchard v. Mitchell, 233 So.3d 719 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2017) (panel denied writ after trial court refused summary judgment; court noted factfinder could allocate comparative fault for leaving keys in vehicle)