*1 27 959, 1223. 953, 955, L.Ed. 93 69 S.Ct. BOLAND, etc., Appellant, Sheila Ilina 1949, Collett, See also Parte Ex v. 1207, 55, 944, 959, L.Ed. Spencer LOVE, al., Appellees. 1949, et Lines, City
United States v. Nat. No. 12240. 955, 80, 82, 78, S.Ct. U.S. L.Ed. 1226. Appeals, United States Court District Columbia Circuit. Normally, balance “unless the 26, Argued Jan. 1955. defendant, strongly in favor of the rarely 17, 1955. Decided March choice of forum should Laws, 1951, 90 v. be disturbed.” Wiren Rehearing Denied In Banc Petition for U.S.App.D.C. 105, 875. 194 F.2d April 1955. appel present case, neither In the any have been nor of the witnesses
lants slightest nexus
shown to have the has the Nor of Columbia.
the District doing
appellee, except it is business many states. well as
Still, circumstances if under these persuaded that the ac
District Court is entertained, “in not here be
tion should date, justice,” at this late
the interest of be dismissed—it action should ap other
should be transferred
propriate where it district brought. supra, Moore, at 209. position deter
We are appropriate fo what
mine forum lies The
rum. selection District
within the discretion of the showing.2 upon proper Court Bastían, Judge, Circuit dissented in dismissing judgment the action is part. remanded case is reversed proceedings in accordance with
further opinion. and remanded.
Reversed Chicago Pennsylvania Co., D.C., F.Supp. 233; Richer Co. Trust See Chicago Co., Co., Cir., 1950, R. P. I. & R. D.C.E.D. R. Mo.1948, F.Supp. v. New and cases collected in Scott 21 A.L.R.2d Co., D.C.N.D.Ill.1948, A.L.R.2d R. York Cent. A.L.R.2d Service, Supplement F.Supp. 815, possible 1-32, 1948- choices Vol. New Judge considered, also, and Bana Kaufman’s were 347. See Refining Co., Transfers Under v. Atlantic On Section chowski D.C. Observations S.D.N.Y.1949, F.Supp. 1404(a), F.R.D. United I. DuPont & v. E. De Nemours States
Virginia. belonged Robert Love, Love, both Lee son of J. appellees here, (defendants Dis- in the Court). Defendants resided trict *3 away were District of Columbia but both Coates, permission, when one without garage on the took car from Robert’s Washington premises where father’s gardener employed and as a Coates was appear allegations yard Pertinent man. margin.1 At the conclusion in the statement, plaintiff’s opening the trial granted judge for a defendants’ motion appeal on This turns directed verdict. mistakenly judge the trial whether up succinctly summed so ruled. He plain- . if the whole issue thus: “. everything proves has said tiff that she George and Allen Wilbur E. Messrs. going case, prove in she is her as Richmond, Va., bar Allen, C. matter of still will be no case law there Virginia, Appeals Supreme Court go jury.” Court, special vice, by pro leave hac appellant. for pertinent in- far to the So as explore, quiries we must we draw Miller, Washington, D. E. Mr. Warren At plaintiff’s statement. appellant. C., for on brief was injury, defendant time of Labofish, Washington, D. John Mr. P. premises Spencer Love owned J. appearance appellant. C., for entered Washington Street, N. W. in Ellicott Harry Welch, Washington, D. Mr. J. kept in- automobiles several C., Mason H. whom Messrs. Welch with cluding by his son a Pontiac owned Daily, Washington, C., and John R. D. Prior to the events Robert Lee Love. brief, appellees. were for on Army suit, had the son entered leaving home in care of one BAZELON, DANAHER Before and pri- Hamilton, employee and his father’s Judges. BASTIAN, Circuit cars, property secretary. The other vate charge father, also were left DANAHER, Judge. Circuit of Hamilton. and control sought Appellant (plaintiff) damages injuries em- sustained when she named Anderson was was A man by just Ashland, struck ployed automobile near Coates. Coates was ahead 1. “On and before District January in the courts 23, 195.1, victed breaking defendants were the lar- owners and had of house and un Columbia der their control a certain a term of and sentenced serve ceny, Pontiac eight He they years. convertible automobile which months kept thirty-two on parole September and maintained their use released on upon their premises at 3200 until his dis- April, 1949, Ellicott From Street, N.W., Washington, charge parole January D.C. The said automobile before until the date of the colli- January 23, 1951, was and thereafter negligently left on referred premises to, said hereinafter sion, igni afore- said defendants unlocked with defendants as employ tion said and each of key automobile, freely The defendants acces said. Coates, sible to one James of the said conviction servant them knew gardener the defendants as he could Coates, parole, handy said man in and about trusted an auto- premises. safety with said was on January Coates 15, 1943, eon- mobile.” assistant, gardener Coates, employed “So, with no one there to supervise yard man, him, Mr. him or that is control took accident, automobile, left Love. Before the Anderson went down into Vir- ginia and, perform coming back, according “left there evidence, performed” services that had was a little late hurrying Among get Anderson. duties “when Coates’ back Wash- ington got family there,” that of driv- before Mr. Hamilton back work, front automobiles around had this accident. family door. When the “not there” “Now, will evidence .further “any
and the automobiles or
of them
Coates,
show that
I believe back in
*4
premises,
sup-
were
on
he
left
teens,
stealing
his
was convicted of
posed
up
to start
and
automobiles
again
stealing
and
convicted of
when
idle,
speak,
keep
run them
so to
so as to
twenty-two.
he was about
He was
keep
or
them alive
the batteries
young
go
too
serve
to the
dying,
perhaps
and
the automo-
wash
penitentiary
conviction,
first
the-
biles.”
training
but he was sent
to some
accident,
A few weeks before the
school here and confined
there
house,
up
law,
father
left
it and
his
locked
infractions of the
and then
away
twenty-two
went
several months. “He left
he was convicted about
Hamilton,
given
employee-secretary
months,
Mr.
believe,
I
Coates,
there, supposedly
supervise
years
prison.
five
in
not,
look after the automobiles
what
get
see if
“Let’s
I can
the dates
Mr.
Hamilton worked
the office
September
here
13th,
now. On
morning
and so in
he
downtown
1948,
prison
released from
go
would
office and
leave
leave
supervision
parole
of-
premises.
So,
Coates on the
on the
ficer,
reporting
parole
morning
1951,
January 23,
with Mr.
early part
officer.
’49,
I
family away,
Love and his
.
.
. ex-
was,
employed
believe it
cepting
Coates,
Mr.
Hamilton
Mr.
left
Love,
completed
Mr.
and he
morning leaving
the house that
no one
parole,
believe,
January
14,
supervise
any way,
there to
form,
finding
shape or
and Coates
him-
“Now,
premises
the evidence will show
self on the
with no one to
Mr.
him,
supervise
Love and his
took the automobile and
servant
employee,
Virginia.”
Hamilton,
Mr.
drove it down into
knew
Coates;
record of James
knew
might perform
In order that Coates
untrustworthy,
that he
duties,
had
stealing
been twice convicted of
keys
.
“.
the automobile
.
prison
and had served in
almost half
given
were sometimes
to the maids
got
of his time
years
after he
ten
they
house,
when
were in the
old, and the evidence will show that
give
the instructions
them to
they knew that he did not have a
Hamilton, and if none of them were
they
driver’s license and that when
keys
there,
placed
were
over the
away
went
and left him without
sun visor or windshield.
any supervision,
it is our claim that
morning
“On this
.
. Mr.
n they
negligent
were
in thus entrust-
placed
keys
Hamilton
these —accord-
ing these
man,
automobiles
ing to Coates —over the windshield
negligence upon
and it is that
which
keys
told him where the
were
we
our
base
claim.”
take
car and
and to
start
charge
foregoing
Linking
up
the batteries.
the events
But
give
injury
involving
permission,
him
he did not
we
brief-
course,
ly
January
on the afternoon
drive the car off
note
carrying
premises.
bus,
plain-
a school
brought
stopped
children,
actions
where the
other school
tiff with
Virginia,
highway,
right
Rubenstein
occurred
as in
side
Route
on the
266,
Williams, 1932, App.D.C.
the bus v.
On
Richmond.
headed toward
575;
Morow,
lights
operating
United
with F.2d
States v.
were
red blinker
U.S.App.D.C.
Our
of the 87
with the
to an
told to
and that he “drank intoxicants”
engine,
run
start and
is then left
transporting
and “had been arrested for
supervision
control,
spirits,”
without
upon purloins
and there- ardent
still
car,
away,
drives
and son to drive the defendant’s car at will.
negligently injures
person.
opinion
“Incompetence,
a third
Cf. The
observes:
Restatement,
302(b),
recklessness,
Torts
comment
§
accident
univer
are so
n,
sally
sequel
and 308.
drinking
§
an own
put
er of an automobile is
notice
Chesapeake
In Howard
&
likely
what is
to occur if
take
he does not
Co., 1897,
App.D.C. 300,
O. R.
af
steps
prevent any
active
one addicted
firmed, 1898,
drinking
driving
fails
it.
If he
44 L.Ed.
this court said: “There
performance
duty,
being
proof
Kentucky
of the laws of
consequences
should suffer the
regards
rights
property
or Indiana as
neglect.” Repeatedly
approv
cited with
women,
presumption
of married
must
cases,
al in later
the Crowell doctrine
indulged
either that the rule
expressly
Hackley
was
Robey, 1938,
affirmed in
common law or that in
in the Dis
force
170 Va.
195 S.E.
prevails
trict
Columbia
in both those
693-694,
regarded
providing
and is
States.
If it be the rule of the common
liability
the foundation of
“the test
law, clearly the wife could not release
entrustment,”
under the
viz.
doctrine
damages.
the claim for
If it
rule
knew,
“whether the owner
or had reason
*6
prevailing
District,
we are con
know,
able cause to
was entrust
adopt
strained to
the same conclusion.” ing
motor
to an unfit driver
vehicle
(Emphasis supplied.)
“In the absence likely
injury
Mc
cause
to others.”
evidence,
the common law of another
Spindler, 1950,
685,
Neill v.
191
62
Va.
presumed
common-law state is
to be the
13,
also,
S.E.2d
16.
v.
See
Harrison
same as the common law of the forum.” Carroll, Cir., 1943,
427,
428.
139 F.2d
Restatement, Conflict of Laws § 622.
Virginia by statute,
46-384, Michie’s
§
apply
We will therefore
the common law
Virginia, 1950,
provided:
Code
has
standard as it has been defined in this
knowingly
“No
shall authorize or
presumption
Circuit on the
that Vir
permit
motor
a
vehicle owned
him or
ginia’s common law is the same as our
by any
under his control to be driven
Restatement,
own.
Conflict of Laws §
legal right
person who
do
has
380(2). Cf. Peterson v. Boston & M. R.
provisions
so or in violation of
of the
R., 1941,
45,
310 Mass.
701,
36 N.E.2d
chapter.”
sections,
By
of this
other Code
702.
operator’s
required,
license is
II
penalties
provided
are
for
vio-
various
principle
Closest in
as to wheth
chapter
designed
lations. The
un-
“was
particular
er the
conduct involved here
power
police
pro-
der the
of the state to
negligent
is or is not
is Crowell v. Dun
highways
tect the
use
from those
can, 1926,
489,
582,
576,
Va.
134 S.E.
qualified
operate
who are not
motor
There,
action
defense so that
unable to
It
be in-
one.
prepared
employer
ferred
better
understand
that his
deem-
be
to
knew and
exists,’
incompetent,
when
evidence.
‘If a doubt
him
ed
to be
even
Case,
Oscanyan
home,
family
he
trusted
said the
was at
Court
only
supra,
premises,
coun-
to
‘as to
statement of
to
on the
drive
sel,
its direc-
will withhold
front
instruc-
the court
door. Maids were under
give
tions,
keys only Hamilton,
con-
evidence is
tions to
as where the
flicting,
might
the matter
Coates
and leave
from which it
be inferred
jury.’
respect
perform
Plain-
determination of the
was to
duties with
only
supervi-
in-
all
is entitled to the
the cars
under Hamilton’s
benefit of
tiff
may
family
away,
that
drawn
be
sion.
it
When
from
ferences
might
inferred,
To warrant
counsel’s statement.
be
not to be
Coates was
directing
up
the court in
a verdict
trusted to do
than
more
warm
statement,
engine
it
defendant
that
and then under Hamilton’s con-
enough
keys
not
statement
that
trol. Yet
avail-
Hamilton made
lacking
definiteness,
must
untrustworthy,
incompetent
able
clearly
resolving
appear,
all
supervision
gardener,
all
abandoned
after
favor,
plaintiff’s
that
doubts in
away
day.
control
went
for the
Even
Illinois
See
exists.
of action
cause
try-
when the
occurred Coates
Hurley,
Light Corp.
v.
Power &
premises
Hamil-
reach the
before
684;
Cir.,
v.
Stuthman
F.2d
ton
and detect
could return to the house
States,
Cir., 67 F.2d
United
infer
the dereliction.
Is it untoward
supplied.)
(Emphasis
523.”
thing
very
have done that
previous
Ham-
unknown to
occasions
grant plaintiff the ben
Clearly, must
we
any event,
possible,
is it not
ilton?
principles
be deduced
efit
deciding,
con-
our so
without
exposition
foregoing
as we consider
doing
Hamilton in
owner or
duct
negligence and
issues
the substantive
failing
done,
to do
as well as
what was
pro
Moreover,
proximate
cause.
negligent?
done was
aspect
what
could have
matter,
the case
cedural
Pennsyl
impru-
so,
less
because the
squarely
Tobin v.
“and not the
within
comes
page
App.D.C.
another
Co., supra,
act of
at
dent and unauthorized
vania R.
necessary
F.2d
and Shewmaker
realize the mischief
negligence
Co.,
U.S.App.
Capital
act
Transit
which the unlawful
given
occasion.”?
has
D.C.
defendant
Harlan
the discussion Mr. Justice
See
Railway
VI
Pacific
Co. v. McDon-
in Union
ald,
S.Ct.
say
that an
and will
We do not
principles
434, and
evolved and
L.Ed.
peril
employer
hires one known to
at his
analyzed
quotes,
in cases from which he
would wish
a thief. We
have been
foregoing excerpt
including
paroled former convicts rehabilitated
see
page
page
encouragement
S.Ct. at
U.S.
in their ef-
and receive
duty
special
Here,
If
“must find its source in
status.
how-
forts to achieve that
circumstances”,
prove
ever,
Co-
Best v. District of
offered to
lumbia, supra,
page
merely
291 U.S. at
Love
manager
page
knew that Coates had
Hamilton
Clax-
S.Ct.
Schaff R. W.
stealing
ton, Inc., supra;
Hornbach,
twice been convicted
Medes v.
supra,
jury may
half
almost
life
had served
decide
institutions;
gravamen
penal
of statement disclosed them. And
*10
untrustworthy
Restatement,
b,
Coates was
offer was that
Torts
see
comment
§
by
illustrating
“applies
known
Love and Hamilton
was
that
the rule
and
thing
They
per-
so.
had
driver’s
knew he
li-
actor entrusts a
to third
cense,
person’s
which
it
be inferred
...
if
the third
son
incompetent, unqualified
peculiar
was
or
that he
for known character
circum-
agree
give
I am unable
decision
as
of
case are such
stances
(except
majority
good
as the
so far
that the
reason to believe
actor a
ruling as
is con-
to Robert Lee Love
It was for
misuse it.”
third
cerned) , as it seems to me
the trial
not
whether
to decide
directing
judge
clearly
Spencer
correct in
Love breached
J.
defendant
duty
open-
verdict for both
defendants on the
not
and whether
plain-
might reasonably
statement
counsel
consequences
Gunning
Cooley, tiff.
anticipated.
90,
Affirmed as Robert Lee Love. grave departure recognized prin- ciples, margin I have set forth in the every allegation seeking place liability Judge (dissent- BASTIAN, Circuit in so far as the defendants are concern- ing). connection, agree ed.1 while Mr. District which happened. stances but, however, at Lee Love for car had dent he was which was involved in the accident was was in the owned business of Mr. J. brought by sustained the evidence day.” dent down in “May “I “The evidence will show that [*] gentlemen premises should will under which the Spencer here. possession of please by her in Robert Lee Love employ [*] show Then I will briefly showing Sheila Ilina Boland Virginia. of J. compensation the court and The driver driving Love you of Mr. J. the time of the acci- tell Spencer [*] Spencer how jury. how the accident you and Mr. Robert the car on that automobile the car briefly driver of the This is a case Spencer [*] Love’s. the evidence Love of the car the circum- you kept the car injuries against outline ladies [*] Love acci on tomobiles were west Ellicott Avenue. He left Love. that Mr. J. them was this Pontiac ligence left place owned a man named Hamilton who was the shortly Love secretary “The evidence “Shortly “Robert Lee “Now, (Here Robert Lee Washington, [*] the automobile there car.) several accident, which, before and entered the on the scene. with reference to what follow facts as to the place the control of Mr. Hamilton. after [*] Spencer employee Love part automobiles, out Love, left will the evidence will show the accident [*] had of the driver of the show there in his son. Love at if automobile of Mr. J. left true, kept [*] 3200 North- the driver care of a show Army charge happening these au- happened premises on that private among owned [*] time neg- *11 ¡that, Restatement, Laws, an the of on direction a verdict also Secs. Conflict of n ¡377, being so, made when statement should be This we have a situ- only reached, ation one can Best which to conclusion be the law decided District, Columbia, of a of state which has no financial re- U.S. sponsibility (as S.Ct. L.Ed. I feel that 'this law does District of the pe- Columbia), case where such direction was where the courts ex- .
. culiarly appropriate.2
rejected
pressly
“family purpose
It should bé noted
the
doe-
.
passing
open ,-trine,” Hackley
in
Robey,
also that
not an
this was
170 Va.
ing
inexperienced
statement
S.E.
law
and have
yer,
recovery against
who
have overlooked an im-
of an auto-
the owner
portant point,
able,
responde-
expe
but that
the
of
of
mobile under
doctrine
.
recognized
superior “only
lawyer
rienced and careful
of
of
relation
when the
ability.
master and servant
shown to exist be-
is.
wrongdoer
the
and the
tween
agree
my
I
brethren that the sub
with
sought
charged
to
result of
the
stantive law of the State of
neglect wrong at
in
some
or
the time and
applicable
this case.
Kas
in
See
v. Gil
respect
very
kerson,
U.S.App.D.C. 153,
to
out
the
transaction
Casey
Co., which
arose.” Nixon v. Row-
v. Corson & Gruman
land,
757, 761;
95 U.S.App.D.C.
-,
63 S.E.2d
Va.
¡leave go con- premises. on first So, on the viction, sent train- to some January morning with -the family here and confined there for his school away, all Mr. Love law, then he was servants, infractions maid and man servants other twenty-two given about away family, excepting convicted Mr. years believe, prison. months, five X Coates, Hamilton left house Mr. n page morning leaving super- 2. See note one there to *12 Graybeal, case, pointing S.E.2d supra, ed the Meek 195 Va. Crowell out v. Virginia by gave (Emphasis supplied son, that in 593. court.) Crowell the father when use, it was not the un- otherwise by limited taxicab, use of the to be used Further, is that law of will, being him the son addicted to dangerous instrum is automobile not a spirits use of ardent and this fact be- entality3 “intrusts owner unless the ing well known to the father. In Flana- though agent servant, one, it to not an gan the record disclosed that the mother handling incompetent who is so as to the single on did not a occasion allow the son dangerous of same as to convert it into a automobile, permitting drive him incompetency instrumentality, and the to use it she was when assured that some permitting to the when known being drive; and, else it one would shown (Emphasis sup of the vehicle.” use having given that mother never her Duncan, plied.) Crowell v. Va. permission son drive the automobile 576, 582, A.L.R. 1425. 134 S.E. operator’s permit, after revocation of his recovery. Flanagan, there could Weatherly In circumstances, plaintiff is Under these driving an automobile upon doc- forced to base her claim belonging Weatherly’s his mother. of Vir- The law trine “intrustment”. fiancee, Flanagan, passenger was a in the ginia a that if the owner of is clear injured car and was as a result of Flana- by intrusts his be driven automobile gan’s negligence. The court struck out accustomed to drive known to be against all evidence the mother. The intoxicating liq- under the influence uors, court said: incompe- or known as reckless or driver, who epileptic tent is an one “Apparently, theory may like, liability be fastened on or the plaintiffs’ cases, as disclosed their if these the owner he knew facts. respective motion, notices Flanagan Kellam, Weatherly operating In v. 187 Va. that agent S E.2d where intrustment was relied automobile as for his moth- distinguish- upon by stages plaintiffs, er. the final trial get sympathy expressed “Let’s see if I the dates can reference he September 13th, injured plaintiff any he for the now. On was released sion of the prison supervi- from parole officer, doubts he have had toas his deci- report- sion. The statement was made to the ing parole early explanation why to the officer. In the reason part ployed they ’49, was, required I it he was em- were not believe to hear the case. Further, Love, completed Mr. he I do think that the trial January judge parole, believe, I Indicated that considered he presented during argument matter “Now, the will 'show evidence that Mr. other than those submitted gone beyond em- Love and servant and Nor have statement. ployee Hamilton, Mr. knew the record of judge words that statement. The trial Coates; that un- James knew specifically ruling stated in his that “if the trustworthy, that had been twice con- plaintiff proves everything she has said stealing pris- victed of and had served in prove going case, she in her got half of time almost after he matter of law there still will be no case years old, ten evidence will show go jury.” they knew did not have a Hackley Robey, supra, 3. See they driver’s license and when went court said: “Some of courts any supervi- away left him without taken the that an view automobile they neg- is such sion, our claim were it is dangerous agency, Am.Jur., p. a 11, although entrusting ligent § thus these automo- expressly rejected by man, negligence and it is that biles this court in Cohen [Cohen v. Meador claim.” we base our which Meador, 876] Va. 89 S.E. judge, appear- trial The statement in Blair water, [Blair v. Broadwater v. Broad majority opinion, that he had 121 Va. 93 S.E. L.R.A. 1918A, decision in “a difficult had 1011].” case” *13 otherwise, family, theory business or and the was abandoned
this liability act of entrustment con- results was then sole basis for incompetent an Kellam motor vehicle to tended to be that Carrie a (cid:127) Negli- negli- operator. inexperienced independent guilty or entrusting gence gence by basis of of the owner is the automobile liability.” previously had to her son who had operator’s permit be- revoked court also stated: operated improperly had a cause he therefore, liability, not does “The motorcycle.” relationship of the out of the arise The court said further: parties, en- of the act of but out vehicle, motor with trustment of the permission “We think court was correct same, operate striking in the evidence as to Carrie inexperi- incompetency, one whose was not be- Kellam. The automobile or ence or recklessness is known ing hers; driven on mission own- known should have been being for driven the time delivery (Citing cases.) Mere er. Weatherly pleasure of the friends; to another with- vehicle a motor therefore, doctrine of operate permission it does out apply.” superior respondeat does not liability give the owner rise to not single disclosed, case has been Not a negligent op- wrongful and where, Virginia elsewhere, in either vehicle.” such motor eration of case, instant similar to the under facts supplied.) (Emphasis liability onto a de- has fastened been of in- the doctrine I do not believe fairness, counsel entire With fendant. applicable case. is trustment employee admits that The car was no “intrustment”. There given any permission to drive premises of the de- driven off premises that, at the car off by a fendants thief. accident, driv- time defendants’ business.4 car on look Let us the direction toward Spindler, In McNeill Va. majority the decision leads which discussing in the doctrine S.E.2d intrustment, Suppose impris- a has been us. court cited Upon for assault. his release he oned Eclipse approval Mo- Williamson v. position ain obtains a restaurant Lines, 145 Ohio St. N.E.2d tor or as a kitchen dishwasher assistant of 339, 342, 168 A.L.R. which case Among the some sort. articles he wash- stronger than the instant case. is even sharp is a knife or es or uses cleaver. alleged incompetent driver had There day cleaver, he steals such knife or One permitted operate to take and de- hold-up, it in connection with a uses automobile. He deviated from fendant’s theory some one. Under the kills employment and drove the automobile majority he has been “intrusted” with purposes. for his own The court exam- alleged negligent implement. Does this make the res- question damages? ined the liable taurant of the automobile intrustment al- suppose parolee employed a Or a legedly inexperienced incompetent shop, where machine he uses a chisel or person. The court said: goes night out, One screwdriver. liability have seen that the “We chisel or in- uses the screwdriver to break store; involved does not arise out of he robs the store kills a relationship parties, theory whether ma- watchman. Under Crowell, supra, Spindler, infra, Note that relied on McNeill v. v. and in Harri permission plaintiff, given Carroll, Cir., son cited driving plaintiff, use the car for out restriction. at will and with- the owner ease, driving the Crowell of the car. with the jority “intrusted” has been COMPANY, CAPITAL TRANSIT make the machine implement. Does corporation, Appellant damages? shop owner liable course, examples, be mul- can These HEDIN, Appellee. Enoch ; just reason tiplied as much there *14 No. 12322. holding or the owner restaurant Appeals, United States Court shop ex- in the above machine owner District Columbia Circuit. damages is for amples as there liable in Argued 24, 1955. Jan. holding liable the defendants either of April Decided 1955. case. this Rehearing Petition for Denied although forming no passing, basis In June may my opinion, be noted that it makes it even harder this action of parolee today to rehabili- for a than it is a one could hire such himself. No
tate person except peril, is if the law majority says is Cer- to be. as the person,
tainly, a he had if one hires such keep the in which to install safe a better
keys car, may leave for he unguarded.
them around girl young A has
This is a hard case. seriously injured. But been it has
been and, in make bad law” “hard cases said
my case opinion, is the here. saying opportunity of I take lawyer experience my a trial and a something judge me
trial convinces protect innocent vic- done to should be financially persons ir- are who tims
responsible, apparently the case as was up to case. But it is of the thief remedies, legislative provide bodies by way judg- of an unsatisfied
whether not for or otherwise.5 It is
ment statute legislate liability the courts to or extend none has ever law existed. conclusion, majority rules out intervening
of this case the doctrine independent negligence, which has been
recognized courts. both would affirm as to
I defendants. responsibility remedy provided, The financial laws do not such as some ex- give adequate protection. least, by An a tent the Canadian unsatis- may properly park car, judgment fund, plan a car lock fied the Manitoba windows; ignition particular, the windows should considered. Sim- forced, engine plans adopted started cross- ilar in North away by wires, Jersey, Alberta, and the driven Dakota New Nova ultimately may injure per- suggest thief, who and Newfoundland. Scotia injured escape. plan deserving then such son some the con- Consequently, Congress. recourse. some is without sideration