City of Buffalo v. Hyundai

Multiple cities are suing car manufacturers because thieves stole cars in their cities. Those cities—including Buffalo, NYC, Yonkers, as well as places like Green Bay, Cleveland, and Baltimore—allege that the car manufacturers were obligated to put more or better anti-theft devices in their cars. They argue that the harm the cities incurred due to the thefts was foreseeable to the manufacturers and could have been prevented. The case started in the Ninth Circuit, but a question was sent to the New York Court of Appeals for an interpretation of New York law. 

The Manhattan Institute has filed a brief in support of the auto manufacturers. We argue that theories of tort liability like this one stretch the meaning of “harm” and “liability” to an unacceptable degree. The auto manufacturers complied with all federal safety regulations and of course included all standard anti-theft devices. But, more importantly, the harm here was caused by third parties (i.e. the thieves), not the auto manufacturers. Other policies, such as poor policing, could have contributed (although given the number of cities in the suit, the policing policies are very different). Moreover, a broad theory of tort liability for third-party actions could unleash countless lawsuits against all types of businesses and would harm commerce and prosperity in New York, one of the most important financial centers in the world. Maybe cars should have better anti-theft protections, but there are other ways to protect against auto theft, such as through legislation and regulation.

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. Follow him on Twitter here.

Trevor Burrus is a legal policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

John Ketcham is a legal policy fellow and director of Cities at the Manhattan Institute.

Photo: emma mason / iStock / Getty Images Plus