Holding (and Judgment):The Court said that under the circumstances they found no persuasive authority and no impelling reasoning to hold as a matter of law that no actionable negligence can exist. (Affirmed).Pre-Existing Rules:If the injury resulting from negligence is foreseeable, then an intervening criminal action does not break the chain of causation.Reasoning:The Court reasoned that the statute is a public safety measure meant to protect the public from the foreseeable harm caused by leaving an unlocked, running car, unattended. They further stated that a violation of that statute could be classified as evidence of negligence per se.Dissents/Concurrences: Justice Hershey said the legislative intent was to prevent injuries caused by an unattended vehicle that is not properly secured from moving on its own and causing harm. He stated that the statue is not an antitheft statute. The Judge said that if an unattended vehicle is then set in motion by the willful and negligent act of a third party, then it is the third party’s negligence that is the proximate cause of the resulting injury.Analysis: I agree with the outcome in this case. I think the Taxi company should be held liable for the actions. If the driver had acted as a reasonable and prudent man would haveunder the circumstances, the situation would not have occurred. Does the plaintiff also have a case against the thief assuming he has insurance or assets?