Ney v. Yellow Cab Co.

Supreme Court of Illinois
2 Ill. 2d 74, 117 N.E.2d 74 (1954)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The violation of a statute requiring the removal of keys from an unattended vehicle may constitute the proximate cause of damages caused by a thief's subsequent negligent driving. The question of whether the thief's intervening criminal act was foreseeable is a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law for the court.

Facts:

A servant for Yellow Cab Co. left a taxicab unattended on a street in Chicago.
The driver did not stop the engine, lock the ignition, or remove the key from the vehicle.
A thief stole the unattended taxicab.
While in flight after the theft, the thief negligently drove the taxicab into a vehicle owned by Ney.
The collision caused property damage to Ney's vehicle.

Procedural Posture:

Ney (plaintiff) sued Yellow Cab Co. (defendant) in the municipal court of Chicago, a trial court.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing its actions were not the proximate cause of the damage.
The trial court denied the motion and entered a judgment finding the defendant liable.
Defendant (as appellant) appealed to the First District Appellate Court, an intermediate appellate court.
The First District Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
The Appellate Court then granted an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, the state's highest court, on the ground of importance.

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 an owner's violation of a statute prohibiting leaving keys in an unattended vehicle create liability for damages caused by a thief who steals the vehicle and subsequently collides with another's property?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Maxwell

Yes, an owner's violation of the statute can create liability for damages caused by a thief. The statute is a public safety measure, and its violation is prima facie evidence of negligence. The central legal question is whether the thief's criminal act is a foreseeable intervening force that breaks the chain of causation. The court reasons that in the modern era, with the high incidence of car theft and resulting accidents, it is reasonably foreseeable that a car left with its keys in the ignition could be stolen and driven negligently, causing harm. Because reasonable minds could differ as to whether the thief's actions were a foreseeable consequence of the owner's negligence under the specific circumstances of a case, the issue of proximate cause is a question of fact for the jury to decide, not a question of law for a judge to dismiss.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Hershey

No, the owner's violation of the statute should not create liability. The purpose of the statute is to prevent inadvertent or negligent movement of a parked vehicle, not to prevent the intentional criminal act of a thief. The willful act of the thief is an independent, intervening cause that breaks the causal connection between the owner's negligence and the subsequent injury. The dissent argues that the majority adopts a strained minority view and that the owner's failure to remove the key cannot be the proximate cause of an injury that would not have occurred but for the intervention of a crime.

Analysis:

This decision is significant for establishing in Illinois that an intervening criminal act does not, as a matter of law, sever the causal chain in a negligence action. It moved the determination of proximate cause in 'key-in-ignition' cases from a question of law to a question of fact, thereby making it more difficult for defendants to have such cases dismissed before trial. By holding that a thief's negligent driving can be a foreseeable consequence of leaving keys in a car, the court adapted common law principles to address modern societal realities like increased car theft, expanding the scope of a vehicle owner's duty and potential liability.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Ney v. Yellow Cab Co. (1954)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature