[ethbr1]

We're talking about different things.

If your car gets stolen, that's your problem.

If suddenly a massive number of cars are stolen, that's the government's problem. (As now police forces have to deal with criminals trivially obtaining getaway cars)

So it seems reasonable that the manufacturer in question should be sued for the cost of the additional police resources required.

[grecy]

> If suddenly a massive number of cars are stolen, that's the government's problem.

I have no idea why you jump to that conclusion.

The problem is clearly the person breaking the law.

But anyway, going with what you said...

> So it seems reasonable that the manufacturer in question should be sued

Wait, if it's the government's problem, then THEY should be sued for not requiring manufacturers to have these anti-theft devices (as the Canadian government does). The auto manufacturer is building cars precisely as the US government mandated them to.

It seems like you're trying to bend logic to blame anyone and everyone other than the people who are breaking the law.

[ethbr1]

I'm not sure where you're reading that the thief shouldn't also be charged. That's obvious, but if you need me to spell it out: yes.

What I'm talking about is how companies should bear liability for the social consequences of their choices.

[MichaelZuo]

According to what legal theory?

[ethbr1]

Negligence

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort#Negligence

[MichaelZuo]

The linked page doesn’t define ‘social consequences of their choices’ nor do any of the linked or cited texts, and most don’t even touch on the issue of differences between ‘companies’ making a choice and individuals within the companies making a choice.

Is there a more credible source?