Four years ago a woman's car broke down in a parking lot in Bourne,
Massachusetts. She called AAA for help. The tow truck driver told
her he couldn't tow her home for a few hours. In the meantime she
accepted a ride from a stranger, who murdered her. (See
<http://www.socialaw.com/sjcslip/sjcAug02o.html>.)

Her family sued AAA, for "wrongful death and negligence" according
to a newspaper article. The judge refused to dismiss the case,
holding that murder is a forseeable consequence of having to wait
for a tow.

Aside from the weak connection between cause and effect (I'd call
this a frivolous case), I wonder why a different legal theory wasn't
used to decide the case. Isn't there a rule that consequential
damages are not available in contract cases? Any duty of AAA
arises from their contract. Why is the remedy not limited to a
refund?

--
John Carr (jfc@mit.edu)

jfc@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote in message
news:<na32mv4shhqneq1c9h6hkj2la3s2jsd6po@4ax.com>... Four years ago a woman's car broke down in a parking lot in Bourne, Massachusetts. She called AAA for help. The tow truck driver told her he couldn't tow her home for a few hours. In the meantime she accepted a ride from a stranger, who murdered her. (See <http://www.socialaw.com/sjcslip/sjcAug02o.html>.) Her family sued AAA, for "wrongful death and negligence" according to a newspaper article. The judge refused to dismiss the case, holding that murder is a forseeable consequence of having to wait for a tow. Aside from the weak connection between cause and effect (I'd call this a frivolous case), I wonder why a different legal theory wasn't used to decide the case. Isn't there a rule that consequential damages are not available in contract cases? Any duty of AAA arises from their contract. Why is the remedy not limited to a refund?

I suppose because it need not be just a breach of contract case. AAA,
in marketing their towing service, induces people to rely on it in
emergencies. When they provide less-than-prompt, less-than-reliable
service, there are two questions: not just, did they fail to perform
the contract (breach of contract); but also, did they fail to conduct
their operations with the care that a reasonable person would have
(negligence).

Anyway, consequential damages are possible even in breach of contract
cases, so long as they are reasonably foreseeable and aren't
disclaimed by an enforceable disclaimer. The consequence of a AAA
customer being exposed to risk of life and limb when emergency road
service is not available for several hours is more than arguably
foreseeable, and I see no fault with the refusal to dismiss.

--
Not a lawyer,

Chris Green

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:31:52 -0400, lieffrens@hotmail.com (Lieffrens)
wrote:
Do you think the AAA was reasonable in not providing service for morethan four hours? They are, in effect, providing insurance againstbreakdown.

One problem I see is that the woman did not die because she waited for
AAA, but because she did NOT wait for AAA. If she had locked herself
in her car and waited, she would still be alive. She chose to leave
her car and get into the car of a stranger, and that is why she is
dead. Should AAA be liable for her decisions?


**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.