Ownership and Liability

The right to own property extends from the ownership of the self, yes? Indeed, one's property can be seen as an extension of oneself. The theft or destruction of a person's property is seen as an injury to that person. We all together up to this point?

Some here say that, if one's property is not in their immediate control, that injuries caused by means of that property cannot be the liability of the owner. But why ought this be? If damage to the property creates a liability to the owner, ought not damage from the property create a liability from the owner? After all, it is he, in a sense, doing the injury, though by accident in any case where he is not in direct control. Unless the owner's property rights have been violated, it is assumed that at all times, he is ultimate control of his property, which after all is just an extension of himself. If he allows control of that to someone else, ought he not do that at his own risk? That is to say, ought one not be liable for what another does with his property, so long as the control of that property was legitimately and voluntarily handed over. Actions taken with your property remain your actions, whether or not you've taken the risk of letting another have direct control. If another is controlling, any injury you cause is accidental, but as with any accident, liability can remain.

I don't think that is true.  If the property is not under my control and is misused by somene else, even if I allowed them to use that property, I don't think I can be held responsible for their actions.  For example, I let a friend borrow my car but he decides to stop off at the bar, get drunk, and then drive.  In the process he slams into another car seriously injuring the other driver.  I think my friend, the drunk, should be held liable for the accident.  There is no reason why I should be criminally prosecuted with it since I was not the one who got drunk and drove the car.  Yes, it is my property but I haven't committed any act of aggression -- my friend did.

Likewise, if I store dynamite in my garage and some neighborhood kid comes into my garage and messes about with that dynamite, it goes off and kills them I don't see how I could be held liable for anything.  The dynamite was in my garage so as long as everyone respected my property and not entered the garage without permission no one would be hurt.  But the kid would have tresspassed and entered my property illegally.  He then proceeded to mess about with my property without permission and blew himself up.  Not my fault.  He should have stayed away from my property.

kingmonkey:

I don't think that is true.  If the property is not under my control and is misused by somene else, even if I allowed them to use that property, I don't think I can be held responsible for their actions.  For example, I let a friend borrow my car but he decides to stop off at the bar, get drunk, and then drive.  In the process he slams into another car seriously injuring the other driver.  I think my friend, the drunk, should be held liable for the accident.  There is no reason why I should be criminally prosecuted with it since I was not the one who got drunk and drove the car.  Yes, it is my property but I haven't committed any act of aggression -- my friend did.

You shouldn't have let your drunkard friend borrow the car. The car, as your property, is an extension of you. It is your responsibility to be sure that anyone who controls it will use it responsibly.

kingmonkey:

Likewise, if I store dynamite in my garage and some neighborhood kid comes into my garage and messes about with that dynamite, it goes off and kills them I don't see how I could be held liable for anything.  The dynamite was in my garage so as long as everyone respected my property and not entered the garage without permission no one would be hurt.  But the kid would have tresspassed and entered my property illegally.  He then proceeded to mess about with my property without permission and blew himself up.  Not my fault.  He should have stayed away from my property.

As I qualified above, you only have liability if the other party has not violated your property rights to use the item. The kid tresspassed, so violated your property rights. You were the rightful owner, but he was using it against your will. That is a different situation. 

JCFolsom:

That is to say, ought one not be liable for what another does with his property, so long as the control of that property was legitimately and voluntarily handed over. Actions taken with your property remain your actions, whether or not you've taken the risk of letting another have direct control. If another is controlling, any injury you cause is accidental, but as with any accident, liability can remain.

JCFolsom:

It is your responsibility to be sure that anyone who controls it will use it responsibly.

I've only heard of 'property rights' not 'property responsibilities'.

Property is indeed an extension of the individual, however property rights can only be violated. Property cannot violate other property rights.

That's the beauty of ownership.

You speak of property as if were some sort of living entity connected to the owner by an umbilical cord.

You can trade control of your property (let someone drive your car, rent your apartment to someone) and as you are temporarily not in control of the resource you are absolved of all responsibility. Holding individuals responsible for other peoples' actions is a dangerous suggestion.

 In some cases the property owner can be liable for what someone does with their property even if it was not under their control. It all depends on the nature of the relationship between the owner and the controller. It all depends on who takes on what specific responsibilites in their relationship and they thereby are held liable for what duties they voluntarily agreed to be obligated to. Of course when it comes to less formal relationships like a drunken friend who wrecks your car, the facts are weighed and decided upon without recourse to a written contract.

Liability from management of property can be traded, as it often is in many contracts, but it has to be spelled out and it is rarely assumed.

Otherwise the property owner merely has another managed employee under their direction and control and not someone who has agreed to take responsibilty from them by declaring themselves an independent agent from their authority. And when they do declare themselves an independent agent and assume liability for what is under their control the property owner cannot then start to directly manage the area of authority that they have delegated to the independent agent. That means they cannot tell what the independent agent should do to better accomplish their job for otherwise they are violating the contract by stepping over their contractual jurisdictions that protect them from liability.

If the property owner does not relenquish the ability to manage when they limit their liability they are then engaged in a false contract which is fraudulant.

Liability and management go hand in hand but these two things need to be clearly stated when they are delegated because if they are not, the property owner is merely giving who they are supposed to manage (by contract) broad discretion in their job and they will be found liable if they fail to properly oversee the actions of their employee and/or make proper considerations for the accidents that might arise from their employee in the course of their job.

JCFolsom:

 

You shouldn't have let your drunkard friend borrow the car. The car, as your property, is an extension of you. It is your responsibility to be sure that anyone who controls it will use it responsibly.

I can't be held liable for the actions of another person even if that person should be using my property.  That's like suggesting I KNEW my friend was going to get drunk and drive and allowed him to take the vehicle anyway.  There is such a thing as "free will" and each person operates according to their will.  I loaned my car to my friend for his use but he is responsible for whatever actions he performs in it.  In no way can I be held liable for an act of aggression he committed.  Should I pay he speeding ticket if he is caught speeding in my car?  Should a rental car agency be held responsible if one of their customers should do the same thing?  If I let a friend borrow my lawn mower and he cuts off his hand with it am I responsible for that to? 

Please explain how I could ever be held responsible for the actions of another person.

JCFolsom:

Some here say that, if one's property is not in their immediate control, that injuries caused by means of that property cannot be the liability of the owner. But why ought this be? If damage to the property creates a liability to the owner, ought not damage from the property create a liability from the owner? After all, it is he, in a sense, doing the injury, though by accident in any case where he is not in direct control. Unless the owner's property rights have been violated,

Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand.  If you have the right to something, you have the responsibility for managing it properly, or else for the consequences of that right.  This can lead to some uncomfortable conclusions (and occasionally for some absurd conclusions) if followed, but I think if you go through the details of some particular issues, you'll start to see how it makes sense. 

Allowing someone else to drive your car does make you responsible in case of an accident, but at the same time, that other person also has a responsibility to you--they don't get off scot-free for an accident of their doing.  However, we are assuming human agents and human action.  If a tornado picks up your car and drops it onto someone else's house, I have difficulty seeing how you could be held responsible for that.

Deist covered some good points in his post.  I think, without government restrictions and regulations, insurance would assume a more important and more realistic place in our dealings with people, and insurance companies would have compelling reasons to help their clients to reduce their risks in various ways: education, support, contractual assistance, etc.  For example, the wildfires that occurred in the West, where insurance companies paid to have insured homes sprayed with fire-retarding materials. 

JCFolsom:

ought not damage from the property create a liability from the owner? After all, it is he, in a sense, doing the injury,

Property doesn't cause damage, actions do. Actions are always committed by some moral agent. Damage caused by no moral agency (hurricanes, for instance), cannot carry any measure of liability to anyone. The moral agent committing an action is responsible.

JCFolsom:

Unless the owner's property rights have been violated, it is assumed that at all times, he is ultimate control of his property,

Control can be over different aspects of property.  You implicitly acknowledge this with the term "ultimate control".  The responsibility is carried by the actions of the person using the property, not the property.  If I rent my car to someone, he is "owner" of the right to operate that car within a given time frame, and thus responsible for all effects of that aspect of using the property. I retain ownership over the aspects of sale, condition of the car, etc, and thus am responsible for the use under those aspects.  If he runs into a school bus because he fell asleep at the wheel, he is responsible.  If he does so because the brakes fail 30 seconds after driving it off the lot, I am responsible (for my action in allowing an unsafe car to be operated at all, representing it to him as safe enough to drive, etc.).

In the case that I knowingly allow my car to be operated by someone without moral agency, for instance an already drunk person, an insane person, or a chimpanzee, my actions are those of the most immediate moral agency, thus responsibility remains with me. In all cases, the basis for assigning responsibility is to determine the conscious actions that were the most immediate cause of the harm done. "Immediate" not meaning necessarily as in time, but in directness of the chain of causality.