Here, because the entire purpose of car immobilizers is theft protection, the thief is foreseeable and his crime does not supersede.
I’m a little troubled by your use of the word “asinine” in this context.
I’d be willing to guess you won’t use this word salad when describing sexual crimes.
If by "ripped out," you mean depressing a tab and then pulling it out.
No, but this statement implied Kia wasn't at fault because someone else committed the crime...
> I’ll take victim blaming for $200, Alex. Breaking into a house is easy as a rock through the window but we don’t sue homebuilders for not putting in stronger glass.
So sure, that was the first use of "only cause"; in the same way that "there was 1 light" and "there weren't multiple lights" aren't the same words; but they contain the same information.
Lots of people get sued for lots of things. Nowhere does it say that suits can succeed only if the defendant is the sole cause of the problem. See: Takata air bags. Huge liability, but in any given incident it wouldn’t be a problem unless someone else caused an accident. Yet Takata does not get to say “or defective product wouldn’t have been a problem if Mr. Doofus hadn’t rear-ended you”
Binary is great for computers, less good in legal thinking.