Bouldin v. Sategna

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the instruction on independent intervening cause comes up when there is a “question of whether the causal connection between defendant’s negligence and the injury was ... interrupted”
• deciding that, as a matter of law, an automobile owner cannot reasonably foresee car theft, and therefore his negligence in leaving his keys in the car is not the proximate cause of subsequent negligent driving by the thief
• \We do not perceive theft of a car as a natural event to be foreseen by a person who is negligent in leaving his car unattended with the key in the ignition.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).