Introduction A personal of Quality Pontiac (defendant), located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, took his assigned car for maintenances.

Quality Pontiac trained said person to leave the keys in the car while working. Although the Quality Pontiacs lot was surrounded by a fence, the main gate was not locked. A third person passed in the lot and checked out that car for anything to thieve. Discovering the keys in the car, the third person thus robbed the car. After fourteen hours, a police officer observed third person speeding and pursued him. During the pursuit, third person collided with a car occupied by Ruiz and Encinias (plaintiffs), killing one occupant and seriously injuring another. Herrera, the personal representative of Ruiz and Encinias (plaintiffs), filed suit against Quality Pontiac for wrongful death and personal injury. Quality Pontiac moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Herrera objected to the motion. Herrera submitted a sworn statement of a sociologist claiming that Albuquerque had the second-highest motor vehicle theft rate in the country at the time of the accident. The sworn statement also averred that the accident rate for stolen cars is about 200 times the accident rate for cars that have not been stolen. The trial court granted the motion. Herrera appealed. Evidently, the nature of this particular case represents an example of appealing from the dismissal with prejudice of a complaint against a car dealership for negligently enabling a car theft. The car dealership, in this case Quality Pontiac (defendant), left the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition of a car it was repairing. A thief stole the car and, while evading the police at high speed, killed one person and seriously injured another. Exposition The facts that this case presents are the following: Quality Pontiac (defendant) failed to lock the doors or to remove the keys from a customers car that was at Quality Pontiac for repairs. A third person entered Quality Pontiacs lot and stole the car. Fourteen hours later, the third person used the car to lead police on a high-speed chase. During the chase, the car struck a parked car head-on, killing one occupant and seriously injuring the other. The injured person (plaintiff) and the decedents personal representative (plaintiff) sued Quality Pontiac for negligence. The trial court granted Quality Pontiacs motion to dismiss, dismissing the case with prejudice, reasoning that Quality Pontiac did not owe a duty of ordinary care to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court supported by an affidavit of a sociologist.

Now, the issue found in this case is whether the owner or possessor of a car is, or not, obligated to a duty of ordinary care to persons injured in a car accident where the owner or possessor leaves the car unattended and unlocked, with its keys in the ignition, even if the criminal or negligent acts of a car thief directly caused the persons injuries.

The final decision was assertive insomuch as the owner or possessor of a car owes a duty of ordinary care to persons injured in a car accident where the owner or possessor not only leaves a car unattended but also the main gate was remained unlocked, with its keys in the ignition, even if the criminal or negligent acts of a car thief directly caused the persons injuries. Both the duty and the proximate-cause elements of a negligence claim require courts to consider foreseeability; the duty element pertains to a generic foreseeability that is a question of law for the court, whereas the foreseeability that underlies proximate cause relates to a specific plaintiff and is a question of fact for the jury. New Mexico has long followed the rule that a negligent actors duty extends only to foreseeable persons, not to the whole world. Negligent actors normally have no duty to protect persons from the intervening tortious or criminal acts of third persons. A negligent actors duty can include tortious or criminal acts of third persons, though, if the negligent actor knew or should have known that his negligence could reasonably create an opportunity for the third persons tortious or criminal acts to occur. Taking the complaint at face value, this case falls within that exception: The car dealer (defendant) in this case knew or should have known that its negligent protection of the car would create circumstances in which a third person could commit tortious or criminal acts resulting in the injuries that gave rise to this suit. This conclusion accords with public policy, given New Mexicos recent adoption of comparative fault in allocating liability between multiple offenders. Further, the issue of proximate cause should be reserved for the jury because the relationship between the car dealers (defendant) allegedly wrongful acts and the injuries is not so tenuous as to preclude, as a matter of law, a factual consideration of whether the car dealers acts proximately caused the injuries. The case was reserved. Hence, the owner of a car owes a duty of ordinary care to persons injured in a car accident where possessor, a personal trained by Quality Pontiac, leaves a car as well as the main establishments gate unattended and unlocked, its keys in the cars ignition, even of the criminal or negligent acts of a car thief directly caused the persons injuries. Analysis The plaintiffs representative, Herrera, enforces significantly more responsibilities on automotive traders in New Mexico both before and during litigation. Now, automotive traders must make greater efforts to discharge their duty of care in such situations in the first instance (presumably including documentation of those greater efforts). For negligence claims that still arise in such circumstances despite car dealers heightened exercise of care, the dealers also now face the substantial risk of unpredictable verdicts even where, as in Herrera, the causal connection between the alleged negligence and the alleged injuries is very vague. Conclusion This case will surely be a precedent for any next case with similar circumstances. One might ask which level of responsibility an individual could have under same circumstances as in Herrera v. Quality Pontiac; also if this precedent only impacted on automotive traders or for everyone. Despite of the failure of Quality Pontiac is clear, especially if the establishments main gate was unlocked, it is hard to believe that Herrera, cleverly, had to proof that Albuquerque had at that moment a high rate of car theft

because the decision of the Judges was that Quality Pontiac had no duty of care. Herrera appealed to social elements to proof the responsibility of the defendant; moreover, he used a sociologist to make more convincing his point (logos, ethos).