"Loss of or damage to your car arising from theft when ignition keys are left in or on your car".
What you just read is an "exclusion" in most motor insurer's policies. It's in the small print. So you were saying about who's to blame if something valuable is left unlocked?
sw
You are REALLY trying to argue the law based on insurance company policies?
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I had my car stolen wityh the keys in the ignition once. I din't get $$$ from the insurance company, but the punk that did time for the theft paid me.
You think the judge dropped the grand theft auto charges based on what was written on my insurance policy?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Irrelevant. Luis was referring to the issue of criminal liability, not ability to recover on an insurance policy.
Here's what Luis actually wrote: "The case being tried is the murder of Danielle van Dam, not any criminal charges against the van Dams. Think about it for a second, even if you leave your car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, the person who takes it gets arrested for theft.
Even if the van Dams are found to be negligent by not checking on Danielle, or even for inviting Westerfield into the house, the killer is still 100% responsible for the murder."
If you're debating whether the van Dams can recover on their daughter's life insurance policy, then your point is well taken. But if you're discussing criminal liability for car theft in Luis' hypothetical or murder in this case, then Luis' statements are correct. Auto theft and murder are crimes. Contributory negligence is a civil tort law concept and has no applicability to criminal law.