To be specific, I don't think the cities are suing over the car thefts. If I understand correctly, they're suing because the availability of easily hacked Kia cars enabled a wave of other crimes, because the criminals knew they had easy access to a getaway vehicle that couldn't be traced back to them.
> It's fair to say that a company which makes cars that can be stolen with only a USB socket bears significant culpability for car thefts.
WHAT?
I don’t have my wallet on a chain, do I have some responsibility if I get pickpocketed?
These criminals are breaking the law, it is ENTIRELY their fault. Any other interpretation has way, way too many logic holes and strange consequences that says it’s our fault when a criminal willingly breaks the law.
If suddenly a massive number of cars are stolen, that's the government's problem. (As now police forces have to deal with criminals trivially obtaining getaway cars)
So it seems reasonable that the manufacturer in question should be sued for the cost of the additional police resources required.
> If suddenly a massive number of cars are stolen, that's the government's problem.
I have no idea why you jump to that conclusion.
The problem is clearly the person breaking the law.
But anyway, going with what you said...
> So it seems reasonable that the manufacturer in question should be sued
Wait, if it's the government's problem, then THEY should be sued for not requiring manufacturers to have these anti-theft devices (as the Canadian government does). The auto manufacturer is building cars precisely as the US government mandated them to.
It seems like you're trying to bend logic to blame anyone and everyone other than the people who are breaking the law.
The linked page doesn’t define ‘social consequences of their choices’ nor do any of the linked or cited texts, and most don’t even touch on the issue of differences between ‘companies’ making a choice and individuals within the companies making a choice.
I’ll take victim blaming for $200, Alex. Breaking into a house is easy as a rock through the window but we don’t sue homebuilders for not putting in stronger glass.
So if a window manufacturer decides to save money and not put latches on their windows, enabling them to be opened from the outside at will, and home invasions spike, that manufacturer isn't a large part of the problem?
Part of the problem and the only cause are not the same thing.
Both Kia and the thieves can be in the wrong. Trying to break it down to one cause is never going to work.
Some car will always be the easiest to steal. People should always take reasonable precautions. But crime is still crime; if someone leaves their car running with the door unlocked as they run into the store and it gets stolen - they made a mistake but the criminal did a crime.
Your use of “only cause” was the first in this discussion.
Lots of people get sued for lots of things. Nowhere does it say that suits can succeed only if the defendant is the sole cause of the problem. See: Takata air bags. Huge liability, but in any given incident it wouldn’t be a problem unless someone else caused an accident. Yet Takata does not get to say “or defective product wouldn’t have been a problem if Mr. Doofus hadn’t rear-ended you”
Binary is great for computers, less good in legal thinking.
> Your use of “only cause” was the first in this discussion.
No, but this statement implied Kia wasn't at fault because someone else committed the crime...
> I’ll take victim blaming for $200, Alex. Breaking into a house is easy as a rock through the window but we don’t sue homebuilders for not putting in stronger glass.
So sure, that was the first use of "only cause"; in the same way that "there was 1 light" and "there weren't multiple lights" aren't the same words; but they contain the same information.
He was talking about civil liability. The concept you’ve tripped over here is called intervening superseding causes and the criminal only destroys the tortfeasor’s liability if his intervening criminal cause is unforeseeable.
Here, because the entire purpose of car immobilizers is theft protection, the thief is foreseeable and his crime does not supersede.
I’m a little troubled by your use of the word “asinine” in this context.
What about door locks? Or the ignition that had to be ripped out to use the usb stick trick? Does everyone have to use a club or hidden kill switch to not have them blamed.
I’d be willing to guess you won’t use this word salad when describing sexual crimes.
Literacy is important. I’m arguing that the criminal’s bad act does not necessarily break the chain of causation that makes Kia liable. You’re projecting that I’m blaming the consumer.
No they are not. At best they are a minor contributor. If people want security latches and whatnot they can buy them and pay accordingly. An easy to steal care beats no car every day of the week.
I live in a not great part of what's arguably the bluest state in the nation (which is to say this isn't some dumb red state "tough on crime" thing) and I can't imagine someone being able to go around checking windows or car doors for very long without a free ride in a cop car. Windows here are unlatched from May to September. I bet a lot of those houses have Kias in the driveway that they've had no theft problems with as we only have about a dozen car thefts per year here.
Ford Superduties over a huge year range can be stolen much the same way (you also have to punch out a lock before taking a screwdriver to the column) until very recently as PATS was not standard on the higher GVW stuff but those are expensive trucks so shitting on them doesn't scratch the same "validate my $50k purchase of something else" itch that crapping on Kia does.
And yet we have laws that disallow things that the buyer could just avoid by not purchasing. Because, as a society, we find it unacceptable for vendors to do certain things. And we hold them at fault if the do bad things, even if the buyer had the option to not buy it in the first place.
That being said, how many people buying Kias _knew_ the problem existed? You can't make an educated choice if the information isn't really available to be educated about.
Anything political doesn't have to be only this reason or only that reason. "Both" is an option too.