I expect the car to come back the way it went out. I do not expect a ticket to be attached when it is returned. Simple as that.
If the ticket were the result of the driver’s irresponsibility, I would agree with you. However, this ticket was a result of the owner’s irresponsibility. Why should the driver pay for something that isn’t his fault?
If I were to borrow a friend’s car, I wouldn’t do a full inspection; I’d to assume that the owner had the car in proper working condition, and everything was legal. If the owner didn’t want a ticket, he should’ve properly affixed the plate himself, as was his legal responsibility.
We’re not gonna come to an agreement on this. I understand your point but feel more stongly about the drivers responsibility to control his personal situation than you do.
Let’s agree to diagree on this and I 'll work on not calling people names anymore.
You know, the MO law just might be written to say “the vehicle must display both plates if it is registered in a state which requires such.” My internet connection’s going rather slowly so I’ll ask for the Teeming Millions to give a shot at finding a link to the MO law in question here.
I believe in the driver being responsible for his own situation, too. I just feel that there are certain responsibilities contingent on ownership of the vehicle that cannot be transferred to the driver. Insurance, for example. If the car is not insured, it is the owner’s fault, no matter who is driving.
My take on this situation is that, by actively placing the front plate on the dash, the owner implicitly accepted responsibility for that action, tickets included.
Agreed. 
If the car was ticketed in a jurisdiction that doesn’t REQUIRE a front plate at all, then I would fight it. Unless your state or local town has stop backwards ordinance that follows the laws of other states. But that in itself would seem not logical.
Definitely fight it. And let us know the outcome.
Maybe it technically wouldn’t be “fair” for you to have to pay the ticket, but if you return this car to your friend with a ticket attached, rest assured that’ll be the last time you use your friend’s car. If you’re still friends after that.
Fight it, but if you cant win, pay it. IMHO.
billy is right. The owner did a kindness to Homer, and it would not be the act of a friend to repay that kindness by making him pay for a ticket.
Homer borrowed the car in it’s entirety, and he was aware of the issue of the unattached license plate. If Homer wouldn’t have been aware of the problem, one could argue that the owner should have notified him. But Homer was aware of this, and chose to use the car anyway. If he was concerned about the plate, he could’ve either a) not borrowed the car, or b) affixed the plate. He chose to do neither.
He chose to take advantage of his friends friendliness. If there’s money to be paid, he should pay it.
Joe Random wrote
If the owner implies to the user that it’s insured, then yes it’s the owners fault if something comes up requiring insurance. But if the user knows it is not insured, then the user accepts that responsibility. And if he’s in an accident, it’s 100% his responsiblity and 0% the owners. In fact, in this example you cite, it’s not just a moral statement that it’s the users responsiblity. It’s also a legal statement.
Monty
MO laws concerning licensing and display of plates are located in chapter 301 in the MO Revised Statutes. A quick read of Section 301.271 ( http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C300-399/3010271.HTM ) seems to say that a nonresident may operate his vehicle in MO if it is duly registered in another state and follows the laws for the state where it is registered.
Both MO, at 301.130(7), and TX, at 502.404(a), require license plates to be displayed at the front and rear of a passenger vehicle.
http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C300-399/3010130.HTM
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=XPGPBZPMOLGR&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=125274&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=2&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES
Thanks, Xgemina.
I think the issue is settled. As much as I’d like to complain about it (and I am damn good about complaining, ask the mods) I think I will just swallow hard and pay the damn ticket for him.
Thanks for posting the specifics, Xgemina, and thanks to everyone for the great discussion on the topic.
Tim
My comment above was really on a moral note, and was under the presumption that there is money to be paid…
But on a practical note, if right now money is far more precious then time, it’s probably wise to make a few calls to the court and see about getting a court date on the matter. I’d be very surprised if you can’t. When you go to court, go with a picture showing the license plate affixed, and explain to the judge that
a) it was a borrowed car.
b) you really didn’t know.
c) you fixed it immediately upon finding out it was a problem.
d) you’re really really sorry.
e) you’re broke.
The odds are you can get the fine reduced or even eliminated.
Looks like the decision has been made, but just to add my view of the morality issue (skip it if you don’t care):
.
.
.
.
The owner chose not to display his front plate properly, and (presumably) chose to accept the responsibility for that should he get caught. It probably should be the responsibility of anyone who happens to drive the car to check it over for safety and even look at the paper work to make sure it at least appears legal, but not to take steps to do required work himself. In fact, a driver who borrows the car has no right to start fiddling and tinkering with someone else’s car sans the owner’s say-so…
If it’s unsafe/unregistered (and he knows it), then he should not drive it - that’s where his responsibility ends; no less, no more. Should he choose to start tampering, that’s at his own risk, for better or worse. However the onus is not on to him to replace broken mirrors, balding tires or pay for registration. In fact it’s not all that hard to imagine the owner getting madder than Hell at the borrower for example de-tinting the windows, or lowering that back end if it’s higher than the legal limit, even under the threat of impoundment. Yes, putting two screws into a license plate ain’t a burden in any sense, but the principal is the same, and it’s the principal that applies WRT morality.
If an owner wants a car back the way he left it, then that should include it coming back with the plate still illegally displayed, and everything that happened because of the way he left it, including the ticket. Since this particular ticket did not arise from the borrower’s decision to drive the car with it’s illegal plate display, he’s not responsible for that ticket. It was stated that the car was parked on a street where both the owner and borrower routinely left it; therefore it would have been ticketed whether Homer had driven it every day OR chose NOT to drive it and let it sit there for the past two weeks; in other words the owner had the ticket coming and it just so happened that he was out of town when his luck ran out. But being X number of miles away from his car the day the cops saw it doesn’t mean that someone else should foot the bill for a risk the owner chose to take.
I don’t buy the “unfriendly act to let the owner pay for his own tickets” line… if there’s anything unfriendly it’s letting someone drive a car (or park it in front of their house) and then making that person pay for your negligence. It is however very friendly to pay the ticket anyways…
Well, let’s hear what The Master has to say on this subject. Well, not our Master exactly…but the next best thing:
Randy Cohen, author of The New York Times’ The Ethicist column addresses a very similiar problem in today’s column (free registraion required):
**
That’s also my opinion. If you borrow a car, it’s your responsibility to make sure to complies with all laws & regulations.
Fantastically well put, mmmiiikkkeee. I think it would be very rude for the owner of the car to coerce Homer into paying for the ticket.
Had Homer done just what many are suggesting he should - decline to operate the vehicle based on its illegality - the ticket would still have been issued.
The only way to have avoided the ticket would have been for Homer to start “fixing” the car - which surely no one will argue that he should have had the responsibility (and perhaps not even the authority) to do.
Had he been pulled over while driving, I think the issue would be a bit more muddled; as it happened, I think it’s pretty clear.
mmmiiikkkeee wrote
The principal is not the same. The examples you give involve a situation the owner desired in spite of it being illegal. The owner didn’t desire the license plate in the window. He just left it there and accepted the risk he’d be ticketed while he was using it.
When Homer borrowed the car he took on all the benefits as well as the responsibilities.
brad_d wrote
Not necessarily true, but completely irrelevant. To say “if it wasn’t in his posesssion, the same thing would’ve happened” doesn’t matter because it was in his posession.
It’s simply not moral to take on the beneficial parts of a friends loan and not the associated responsibilities.
Asked and answered.