Joyce v. M & M GAS CO.
1983 Okla. LEXIS 250, 1983 OK 110, 672 P.2d 1172 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Leaving ignition keys in an unattended vehicle does not constitute the proximate cause of injuries sustained from a subsequent theft and negligent driving by a third party, absent special circumstances creating a heightened duty of care.
Facts:
- On December 19, 1981, Pat Mahoney left the ignition key inside a truck belonging to his employer, M & M Gas Company.
- That evening, the truck was stolen from Mahoney’s residence in Geary, Oklahoma.
- The stolen truck was driven to Oklahoma City by the thief.
- In Oklahoma City, the stolen truck was driven through a red light and collided with a vehicle driven by Alvin T. Wickware.
- Alvin T. Wickware died instantly from the collision.
- Alvin T. Wickware’s teenage son, Roger Dean Wickware, received serious and permanent injuries in the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Alvin T. Wickware's estate and Roger Dean Wickware) brought an action against M & M Gas Company and Pat Mahoney in the District Court (the court of first instance).
- The District Court sustained the defendants' (M & M Gas Company and Pat Mahoney) demurrer to the plaintiffs' petition, concluding that Mahoney's actions were not the proximate cause of the injuries.
- The District Court dismissed the action.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does leaving ignition keys inside a truck, which is subsequently stolen and then involved in a fatal collision due to the thief's negligent driving, constitute an act of negligence that is the proximate cause of the resulting injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilson, Justice
No, leaving ignition keys inside a truck that is subsequently stolen and negligently driven does not constitute an act of negligence that is the proximate cause of the resulting injuries. The court reaffirmed its previous holdings that a defendant who leaves keys in an unattended vehicle merely furnishes a condition by which injury is possible, and the subsequent independent, negligent act of the thief breaks the chain of proximate causation. The court also found that Pat Mahoney owed no duty to the general public to protect its members from the risk of a thief's negligent driving under these circumstances, as no special circumstances (e.g., leaving the vehicle in a high-risk area for theft by specific individuals like drunks or children) were alleged. Citing the Restatement of Torts, Second, the court noted that one typically has less reason to anticipate intentional criminal misconduct than negligence. The court dismissed appellants' argument regarding national statistics on auto theft and crashes, stating that a reasonably prudent person is only required to know matters of common knowledge, and these statistics are not commonly known by ordinary citizens. Therefore, Mahoney's action did not create an unreasonable risk of harm, and the tragic events were not reasonably foreseeable.
Dissenting - Opala, Justice
Justice Opala dissented on procedural grounds, stating that the appeal should be dismissed. He argued that the appeal was brought from a non-appealable disposition because the trial court's order merely sustained a demurrer to the plaintiffs' petition and granted them 10 days to amend, which does not constitute a final judgment. He contended that subsequent attempts to create a retroactive journal entry of judgment were ineffective, as judgments cannot be rendered retroactively, and nunc pro tunc corrections cannot alter a past decision that was correctly memorialized. Therefore, Justice Opala believed there was no record of a final appealable order terminating the action in the trial court.
Analysis:
This case reinforces Oklahoma's strict interpretation of proximate cause, particularly when an intervening criminal act occurs. It solidifies the principle that merely creating a 'condition' for an injury is distinct from being the 'efficient cause.' The ruling sets a high bar for establishing a duty of care to protect the general public from the criminal acts of third parties, emphasizing that foreseeability is limited to common knowledge unless 'special circumstances' are present. This decision makes it challenging for plaintiffs in Oklahoma to recover damages against vehicle owners or their agents for injuries caused by stolen vehicles, absent specific allegations that elevate the risk to a level of foreseeability. It highlights the importance of distinguishing between contributing factors and direct causation in negligence claims.
