Bait cars and crashes

Last week, I was watching “Bait Car” on TruTv. They were in Atlanta and had placed a car in a parking lot. A man got in and during the course of the crime, he backed into another car. Who is liable for the damage? The thief who crashed it (and probably cant’ pay) or the police department (It is their car after all)? Anyone know the polices in other cities and counties on this type of situation?

If you suffer damages for which you can sue - you sue everyone and anyone who could posibly be liable. The judge will allocate damages by percent. However, there is a doctrine of “joint and several liability”.

Let’s say the nurse messes up and causes you damage. The doctor should have been watching her for this procedure. The hospital is responsible for its employees. The judge says the poor patient gets $2M, the nurse is 85% responsible, the doctor 10% and the hospital 5%. Well, the nurse has no money or malpractice insurnace, so the doctor’s malpractice and the hospital have to come up wth the whole amount.

So if the police department’s negligence contributed in any way to the accident, according to a judge, the police department’s insurance is likely on the hook… Unless the insurance does not cover vehicles with keys left in ignition, etc. Then it comes out of the department’s budget. Most insurace (here, at least) does not cover criminal acts - which the insurance company uses to not pay for damage due to DUI. So the criminal, unless he is a bad boy millionaire, won’t be paying much.

I am very skeptical of this answer. I can’t imagine a judge finding one person 80% responsible and another 20%, but assessing 100% of the costs to either one because the other is unable to pay their share.

It’s a legal principal, the judge has no say. If you are partly responsible, you may end up paying the whole amount (“jointly and severally”) unless the judge specifically assigns an amount to each person. Your liability is not limited to your share; if your cohorts can’t pay and you can, you will. If you have money, don’t do dumb stuff with people who cannot pay. I suppose you could turn around and sue your codefendants for that amount, but they just finished proving they couldn’t pay anyway.

Saw something similar with a bunch of bozos on the board of a non-profit organization. Thorugh petty politics, they ended up firing someone (to hire someone’s relative). In Canada, the board members of a non-profit are personally liable for back wages if the organization can’t pay. Similarly in Canada, an improper dismissal with improper behaviour by the employer can cost up to 2 years’ wages in separation pay. They jerks who did the damage didn’t have a lot of money, so the board members who did (a bunch of retirees) ended up footing the bill for being too stupid and polite, sitting back and letting the bozos rack up the damages.

Bit of a hijack, but why would anyone serve on a board with this kind of liability being a possibility?