Demelus v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an automobile dealership which kept its cars locked in a secured lot did not create a foreseeable zone of risk of third-party criminal conduct by a juvenile gang that stole vehicles from the lot, one of which collided with another vehicle and injured the driver
• noting that defendant car dealership “was not complicit” in theft that resulted in plaintiffs injury and it “did not make [car] keys available to the thieves who caused” the injury
• “Foreseeability as it relates to duty in negligence cases is a question of law.”
• “Foreseeability as it relates to duty in negligence cases is a question of law.”
• “To impose a duty, it is not enough that a risk merely exists or that a particular risk is foreseeable; rather, the defendant’s conduct must create or control the risk before liability may be imposed”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).