George v. Breising

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that injuries to a pedestrian struck by a car stolen from a private automobile repair shop were proximately caused by the. negligence of the thief, and that shop owner’s negligence was a remote cause
• implying that car repair shop may have been liable to owner of vehicle that was left with keys in ignition and was subsequently stolen, but upholding summary judgment against individual who was injured in an accident with thief
• affirming summary judgment for defendant; defendant owner of auto repair shop who left key in ignition of car parked on premises when he left for dinner not liable for subsequent negligent acts by thieves or their successor
• “If the original actor should have reasonably foreseen and anticipated the intervening act causing injury in the light of the attendant circumstances, his act of negligence would be a proximate cause of the injury.”
• Even though an action may be an essential first step in a series of events leading to the result, that action may be a remote cause if there are intervening acts directly necessary for the result.
• Even though an action may be an essential first step in a series of events leading to the result, that action may be a remote cause if there are intervening acts directly necessary for the result.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).