Should to owners of a coal plant be liable if it explodes and injures people living nearby? Even if they weren't the ones who were operating it at the time?
Again, realize that the tort system does not create the costs. Operation of dangerous things has inherent costs. Ownership of property implies the right to receive the benefits for that operation, so it should imply the obligation to bear the risks of that operation.
The gray area:
- if the owner could have known of the danger, how much effort do we think he should make to find out what the danger is?
- how high a risk increase can the owner let go? For example, if a 18 year old with a whiskey bottle in hand and a couple of obviously drunk friends wants to rent 'the fastest sports car you have', is it sufficient to check that the guy has a driver's license and does not look drunk or high? Would a check that he is not drunk be sufficient?
Well, it is that clear cut. As the article notes there is a law which unambiguously states that car rental agencies are not liable in this scenario: http://gregjohnson89.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/vicarious-liab...
As the article further notes, the only question is whether a loophole in the law's definition may cause Ms. Fong to not qualify as a car rental entity.
