FRIENDS OF CAR THIEF OFF THE HOOK - Mark P. Loftus

Interesting decision, Johhnson v. Bishop , just came out of the Third Appellate District Court speaking to the issue of the duty owed by vehicle owners when ne’er-do-wells steal their cars.

First, a brief rundown of the players. Robert Sonnemaker and David McLeod were roommates. Sonnemaker owned a Ford Taurus. Although not entirely clear, it appears that both Sonnemaker and McLeod had keys to the Taurus. One of the roommates allowed a Thomas Bishop to crash at their apartment. Mr. Bishop, it appears, was both homeless and a fan of crack cocaine. McLeod had previously allowed Bishop to use the car on several occasions. On the evening of December 3, 2005, the Ford Taurus was parked near the apartment. McLeod retired for the evening and although not entirely clear, it appears Sonnemaker did as well. When they retired, Bishop was still present in the apartment. You can probably guess where this is headed…
Bishop somehow gets the keys to the Taurus and decides to take it for a ride. Unfortunately, part of that ride included a collision with a vehicle driven by Todd Johnson. Johnson sued Bishop, Sonnemaker and McLeod. Johnson alleged that Sonnemaker and McLeod failed to prevent Bishop from getting the car keys and, thereby ultimately caused the collision. Sonnemaker and McLeod moved to dismiss those counts and the trial court did so.
On appeal, the Appellate Court noted that generally, Illinois Courts have held that no duty exists to a third party injured by a defendant’s stolen vehicle without showing special circumstances making the theft foreseeable. The Court went on to note that in order to state a claim the plaintiff had to show 1) the defendants committed some act which made the keys accessible to the person who stole the car and 2) that it was foreseeable that the car would be stolen. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to show how either Sonnemaker or McLeod had done anything to make the keys more accessible to Bishop. Furthermore, the Court found that there were no facts to suggest theft of the car was foreseeable. The trial court’s ruling was affirmed.