Issue

The central issue in Kim v. Budget Rent A Car Systems, Inc., 15 P.3d 1283 (2001), was whether Budget Rent A Car owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, Tae Kim, after one of its vehicles was stolen and later involved in a vehicular assault that injured the plaintiff. The case specifically explored whether Budget’s negligence in leaving the keys in the ignition of the vehicle created a foreseeable risk of harm that led to the plaintiff’s injuries.

Rule

In Washington State, for a negligence claim to be valid, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and that the breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. The existence of a duty is a question of law. Generally, there is no duty to prevent harm caused by the criminal acts of third parties unless there is a special relationship between the parties or a specific legal obligation exists.

Application

The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Budget Rent A Car, concluding that Budget did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. The Court held that:

1. Lack of Duty: The Court emphasized that a private entity typically does not have a duty to protect others from the criminal acts of third parties. In this case, there was no “special relationship” between Budget and the plaintiff or Budget and the criminal (Demicus Young) that would impose such a duty. Furthermore, there was no evidence of prior vehicle thefts from Budget’s administrative facility, making it unreasonable to impose a duty to prevent such an occurrence.
2. Proximate Cause: Even assuming that Budget had a duty to secure its vehicles, the Court held that the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries was not Budget’s negligence. The chain of events between the theft of the vehicle and the subsequent accident was too attenuated. Young’s criminal actions, which included sleeping, consuming alcohol, and fleeing from the police, were intervening acts that broke the chain of causation.
3. Statutory Interpretation: The Court also addressed RCW 46.61.600, which prohibits leaving keys in an unattended vehicle but determined that this statute applies only to vehicles on public highways, not on private property like Budget’s administrative lot.

Conclusion

The Court ultimately ruled that Budget Rent A Car did not owe a duty to the plaintiff under the circumstances, and even if a duty existed, Budget’s actions were not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The decision underscores the principle that liability for negligence cannot be imposed where the connection between the defendant’s act and the injury is too remote or where intervening criminal acts break the chain of causation.

Review our client resources here

Contact us anytime for your urgent legal needs.

About Blanford Law:

We are no-nonsense, relentless, fair, and honest. We are great listeners instead of fast talkers, that is just who we are. More than 20 years ago, Ken began practicing law with a deeply-seeded belief that every person has the right to the best legal representation available. He built his law firm on that belief. Another belief that he strongly adheres to is his fundamental belief that clients deserve respect, with no assumptions or preconceived notions.  If you or someone you know is accused of a crime or injured as a result of the negligence of another, please have them call us at 253-720-9304 or email us info@blanfordlaw.com