what is your legal liability is such a situation? this discussion/ debate in a pub after a few drinks and revolved around being held liable for the “safety and well being” of the carjacker in the event you where the victim of a car jacking…some in the discussion argued that you as the registered owner/ operator of said motor vehicle and person whose name the insurance is issued under is totally and legally liable for all injuries, and damages caused in such situation… others argued that you as the “victim” could argue self defense and that you could tell the jacker or his estate to fuck off…
In short the question posed was: If you are carjacked are you liable for the well being of the jacker? that is to say if you some how wreck the car and the person doing the jacking is killed or made a quadriplegic etc… Do you or your insurance provider have any legal responsibility to them or their estate?Would the local DA bring you up on charges? or could you claim self defense? or would that depend on the “local election cycle” and what and who you are ( white vs black gay vs straight etc…aka local politics ) could you if sued just have your council tell them ( car jacker/ or their estate) to go fuck them selves…or will you have to go through all the bs of a court trial?
thanks…
In Australia you would be covered by compulsory 3rd party state insurance for any injuries, no problems. However the hijacker may have a few trying to claim it, they would have no civil claim.
how would this play out in the US and our litigious society?
one of the scenarios proposed was one in which you drove the car ( granted skilfully as to not injure or kill your self.) in to a bridge pylon and injure or kill the the car jacker? IE you "swerve’ in to the bridge pylon or telephone pole at the last second… is that premeditated or not and do you or could you held liable legally or other wise? ( i am avoiding the “morality” side right now…)
Most of the time, when you are carjacked, the carjacker throws you out of the car and drives away. In this case, though, most of your questions are moot. However, in a couple of US states, defending your car from theft by force can be considered justifiable.
If you are for some reason driving the car with the carjacker pointing a gun at your head (which I am imagining is the situation you present), you are not liable criminally or otherwise for anything you do that is commanded by the carjacker, because you are under duress. Things that you do of your own volition are a different matter, and as a general rule, you are liable for those actions.
However, as mentioned above, in some states, you can use any reasonable force to rid yourself of the carjacker. What this means overall is that you can do whatever you want that doesn’t make the situation worse. Swerving into a bridge pylon would be fine (although likely not effective), unless you kill some pedestrians, for example. In other states, the legal situation is different.
Sounds like you need to find a new pub.
Down my local there are long and heated debates over stuff that really matters.
Like ‘Who would win in a fight between Bruce Lee and Hong Kong Phooey?’
That one went on for hours…
Larry Niven wrote a short story about this, The Deadlier Weapon. Didn’t really go into liability issues, and the police were amused by the driver’s results. The story wasn’t autobiographical, but Niven heard stories afterwards of people using the same approach (must be a California thing?), including “they were going to obliterate the right side of the car against a tree at sixty mph. The left side of the car would have to take its chances.”
If you have a gun (or big knife) pointed at your head or torso, that is a threat of death (in any reasonable scenario) so anything you do to the hijacker to remove that menace should be considered self-defence. Odds are the hijacker is not pausing to put on a seatbelt so the crash scenario makes a lot of sense.
Don’t confuse criminal and civil. However, in neither scenario is a jury likely to find you guilty/liable - absent details like the guy getting out of the car at his destination and you running him down after the threat has ended. You can’t kill someone to get your wallet back.
IIRC on an earlier thread, you can’t kill a third party on the threat of death; so the “I taped a bomb to you” or “I’m holding your family hostage” might allow you to plead not guilty due to coercion for robbing a bank, but not for killing an uninvolved third party, i.e. running down a pedestrian on orders from he hijacker. (although a jury might think otherwise).