For the first time, automobile makers face potential liability for damage inflicted by joyriding car thieves.
In a September 16, 2025 decision, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the maker of Kia and Hyundai cars could have foreseen that their decision—spanning a period of 10 years—not to install common anti-theft deterrents would lead to a sharp rise in the number of auto thefts, increasing the potential for harming innocent victims of negligently driven stolen cars.
Interpreting Ohio's Product Liability Act, the appellate panel reversed a lower court's decision dismissing personal injury and wrongful death claims by two separate plaintiffs against the South Korean brands. The automakers moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaints for failure to state a claim on the grounds that plaintiffs could not, as a matter of law, establish proximate causation. The lower court granted the motions, relying on Ohio precedent that, "a car owner's failure to secure a car against theft does not render the owner liable for injuries caused by a thief's negligent driving." (p. 4)
But, in a 2–1 decision, Sixth Circuit Judges Rachel Bloomekatz and Stephanie Davis decided that "those cases do not control product liability claims against car manufacturers." (p. 2) Although not all of plaintiffs' claims survived appellate review, the majority ruled that the foreseeability of harm "through the eyes of a manufacturer" includes risks that the manufacturer, charged with special knowledge or expertise, should recognize. (p. 7) Here, that includes the risk of theft-related accidents.
Therefore, because "a jury could conclude that Kia and Hyundai, as regulated and sophisticated entities, knew or reasonably should have known about the connection between car theft and accidents," proximate causation is not lacking as a matter of law and plaintiffs' design defect claims may proceed. (p. 9) In reaching this conclusion, however, the majority limited the potential reach of its opinion by grounding it solidly in Ohio law—carefully parsing the language of the Ohio Product Liability Act and pointing out, for instance, that Ohio law "generally treats [foreseeability] as a jury question." (p. 5) Accordingly, similar claims arising in other states within the Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction will turn on that state's product liability statute and common-law proximate causation analysis.
Judge Eric Murphy dissented in a separate opinion based on Ohio's previous handling of claims arising from the negligent driving of car thieves, finding the thieves' negligence an "intervening cause." (pp. 15-25)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
