Ney v. Yellow Cab Co.
2
Ill.2d 74, 117 N.E.2d 74.
Prosser,
pp. 207-210
Facts: The defendant company left
the keys in the ignition of one of their cabs.
The cab got stolen and it crashed into the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff sues on the theory that the
company violated a statute that forbids leaving a car unattended with the keys
in the ignition. The defendant argues
that the statute was not an anti-theft measure, but rather a public safety
measure, and thus it does not establish a reasonable standard of conduct.
Issue: What was the intent of the statute? Did the violation of the statute cause the
injury, or did the act of the thief intervene such that the violation was not
the proximate cause?
Rule: A standard of conduct
established by statute will be adopted when, among other things, it is designed
to protect against the harm that actually resulted.[1]
Analysis: The majority finds that the
question of the intent of the statute is tied up with the question of proximate
cause. The court argues that the cab
company’s violation of statute was a proximate cause of the harm if the theft
of the cab was foreseeable. If the theft
of the car was unforeseeable, then the responsibility for the harm caused to
the plaintiff would fall solely on the thief.
The court finds that this question ought to be left to the jury. The jury apparently found that the defendant’s
conduct was a proximate cause of the harm, and the majority refuses to “usurp”
the jury’s power.
The
dissenting justice believes that legislative intent is the key to this
case. He believes that the statute was
intended solely as a public safety measure.
This justice almost seems to imply that the operative question is not
what harm the defendant might have foreseen in leaving the car unattended, but
what harm the legislature might have foreseen in crafting the statute.
Conclusion: The court affirmed the verdict.