Legal liability question.

[Joey_P]

@Shodan

Ruining your game console is somewhat different from crashing a stolen bike, although I see that the principle is much the same. You aren’t going to die or break a limb from a video game sabotage.

Then again, “serves you right, you fucking thief” is a principle that isn’t enshrined into law as much as I might like.

Regards,
Shodan

I know it’s not the same, but as you said, it’s a similar concept, so my question stands. If someone got hurt because the owner rigged up their bike to violently crash and created a situation that would make it easy to steal, should the owner be on the hook for that?

In both cases the owner manufactured a situation that was enticing to thieves for the sole purpose of harming them or damaging their property.

In both cases, the owner could have better secured their property, they left it out as bait. In both cases if the owner had done, literally, nothing, not only would there be no harm, their property wouldn’t have been stolen in the first place.

@boffking

What does Nintendo have to do with this? Sony makes the Playstation. If you drove a Chevy down a road you knew you weren’t supposed be on, and got flat tires from spikes planted there, would you sue Ford?

Yes. :rolleyes:

[Projammer]

@Joey_P

Working on the assumption that this is real, how do you feel about the bait bike videos?

@Tom_Tildrum

The thief could try to argue that the store owner essentially set up a spring gun.

The important difference between these examples and the OP is that these are man traps designed to to operate against a person with potential to injure or kill.

I was asking if there are any similar laws covering damage to property in a “trap” situation.

[drewder]

There is no consumer protection on a product that was never intended to be sold or used.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Peter_Morris]

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio (Latin “from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise”) is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal remedy if it arises in connection with his own illegal act.

[Typo_Negative]

Even if the thief brought a lawsuit, wouldn’t a good defense be ‘I never saw that before. That didn’t come from me. Prove it did!’ ?

[Joey_P]

@Typo_Negative

Even if the thief brought a lawsuit, wouldn’t a good defense be ‘I never saw that before. That didn’t come from me. Prove it did!’ ?

Subpoena his surveillance system that likely points right at the counter and probably saw the theft happen.

[kayaker]

@Joey_P

Subpoena his surveillance system that likely points right at the counter and probably saw the theft happen.

Of course, he will have recorded over that data by the time the subpoena arrives, right?

[Joey_P]

@kayaker

Of course, he will have recorded over that data by the time the subpoena arrives, right?

No-Knock warrant?

[kayaker]

@Joey_P

No-Knock warrant?

I’m not accusing the store owner of doing anything nefarious. The recording systems I’m familiar with are set up to record over the previous day unless something happened and the store owner therefore saved the data.

[Velocity]

@Peter_Morris

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio (Latin “from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise”) is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal remedy if it arises in connection with his own illegal act.

But haven’t burglars successfully sued homeowners from getting injured while burglaring the home?

[Typo_Negative]

@Joey_P

No-Knock warrant?

They generally don’t issue those in civil cases. Or warrants of any kind.

Even if the thief tries to have the store owner arrested this wouldn’t rise to the occasion of police searches. I doubt they would be interested.

[Joey_P]

@kayaker

I’m not accusing the store owner of doing anything nefarious. The recording systems I’m familiar with are set up to record over the previous day unless something happened and the store owner therefore saved the data.

Mine stores about a month. The insurance company wanted us to have one that saved 90 days, never did anything about that.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@Typo_Negative

Even if the thief brought a lawsuit, wouldn’t a good defense be ‘I never saw that before. That didn’t come from me. Prove it did!’ ?

An even better defense for the store owner might be* “that device was in here to be repaired – it damages any game system it is connected to. But it got stolen before we could repair it.”*.