testtest

Jeep owner getting sued for mishap at dealership

Keystone19250 said:
Ok that’s just flat out disgusting and reprehensible to sue the owner of the vehicle when he wasn’t behind the wheel driving the vehicle.
This an attempt at a money grab. 🤬
Click to expand...
The owner of the vehicle is being sued because Michigan (like many other states) has horrible worker's compensation laws. Basically, an injured employee cannot sue their employer for negligence for an on-the-job injury in Michigan. The injured worker, or their family, can only be compensated under the Workers Compensation system, which awards money based on how much the employee was earning at the time of the injury/death. A consequence of this type of worker's compensation law is that employers have significantly less incentive to ensure the safety of their workers, and what little incentive they have shrinks if they employ low-wage workers.

While Michigan law protects business owners, it pretty much screws everyone else. In Michigan, the owner of a vehicle is liable for damages if anyone with permission to drive the vehicle causes damage. This law extends to valets, and anyone else you allow to drive your vehicle, even if that person is working for a third party at the time.

The only bright side is that the Jeep's owner can sue the dealership to recover any damages. If it is true that the dealership instructed an unlicensed driver, who didn't know how to operate a standard transmission, to move the Jeep, then the dealership should have to indemnify (i.e. reimburse) the Jeep's owner for any damages.

This is just another clear example that laws have consequences. While many people assume that Blue states have "Worker-Friendly" laws, that is not always the case. Many blue states have "Union-Friendly" laws, but do little or nothing to protect the average worker. Regardless of where you live, don't be surprised to find that big business gets significantly more protection than anyone else. This practice will continue until voters send a clear message to elected officials that it will not be tolerated.

As long as voters keep blindly electing whoever represents "their" party, without ever checking their work, the legal system will continue to operate this way. While lawyers are easy to hate, lawyers do not write the laws. Your elected officials write the laws, and appoint many of the judges who interpret those laws. Blaming lawyers for how those laws are applied is no different than blaming your mechanic for a poor engine design, or your gunsmith for a bad firearm design.
 
Ranger715 said:
Holy crap. The description of liability law there in Michigan is literally insane. It seems our capacity to pass ridiculous, unjust laws is without limit. And our civil lawsuit system....how do we survive at all?
Click to expand...
My guess is these laws have been on the books for decades and have not been challenged in court as in how unjust they are, until someone steps up and refuses to be a victim in this manner nothing will change.
 
The dealership is liable for who they hire, so it should fall on their hands! If you leave something inside your vehicle and the item gets stolen, they take no responsibility even if it's inside the building or inside gated fence. I take no chances when it comes down to that, even with local people!
 
personally i would fault the dealership in the hiring process.

"do you know how to drive a stick shift"?

"no you say"..??

"go look for work someplace else"

"NEXT applicant, please"

this is my disdain with the CDL students, that only want to drive automatics.

this puts them in a precarious situation when they lose that job, driving automatics only and as such, have a restriction on the CDL license.

they MUST go an get tested on a stick shift, and get the automatic restriction removed.

i can "see" a 19 year old not knowing how to drive a stick, really not as many around as there was 20-30 years ago.

but i can never see "passing the blame" onto the car owner, he gave his keys AS HE IS REQUIRED to do, when he arrives.

to me, that absolves him of any wrong doing.

sorry the mechanic was killed, i hope his family loses. scumbag lawyers for sure.
 
Sounds like a classic case of 'laws with unintended consequences'. It likely began as an effort to hold folks responsible who loan their vehicles out to less than reliable drivers (drinkers, young, inexperienced, etc) and was never addressed again. I say that because it seems to include even valets (and others) whom you would typically allow to drive your cars legally to park them even though you have no intention of them driving it any distance.

Another clue is the fact the dealership lost in a court to indemnify the vehicle owner. It's sad someone lost a life over this whole situation, and it should never have happened. Unfortunately through a whole unknown comedy of errors, someone did die. It's very possible the tech lied on his application and claimed he could in fact drive a stick shift, or maybe he actually could and his driving had nothing to do with it. The story said he was still standing with his left foot on the floor when he reached in the vehicle with his right foot on the clutch pedal. That's a pretty precarious position to be in while starting a stick shift vehicle under any circumstance, but he probably was in a hurry and thought he could do it. He may have though it was in neutral before all this even started. And the possibilities go on and on. BTW, I don't know of any dealerships who give driving tests to most of their potential employees, especially a "Lube Technician". Delivery drivers, mechanics, service writers, etc, but not usually a TAB man of 19 years old.

Also unfortunately, the lawyers are only doing what lawyers do, that's reacting to the 'wording' of the law whether that wording describes the 'spirit' of the law or not. The actual 'wording' is the only thing the law can be based on. If everyone was allowed to make his/her own interpretation of the 'spirit' of the law regardless of the wording, think what a mess we'd be in.

I'm not in any way making excuses for the poor law as it appears, just offering other possibilities for this outcome.
 
Old_Me said:
personally i would fault the dealership in the hiring process.

"do you know how to drive a stick shift"?

"no you say"..??

"go look for work someplace else"

"NEXT applicant, please"

this is my disdain with the CDL students, that only want to drive automatics.

this puts them in a precarious situation when they lose that job, driving automatics only and as such, have a restriction on the CDL license.

they MUST go an get tested on a stick shift, and get the automatic restriction removed.

i can "see" a 19 year old not knowing how to drive a stick, really not as many around as there was 20-30 years ago.

but i can never see "passing the blame" onto the car owner, he gave his keys AS HE IS REQUIRED to do, when he arrives.

to me, that absolves him of any wrong doing.

sorry the mechanic was killed, i hope his family loses. scumbag lawyers for sure.
Click to expand...
Well at least they restrict them. They used to be grandfathered. Heck, I'm grandfathered. A couple buddies of mine have had theirs so long they are both grandfathered exempt from the DOT physical. Nowadays you have to test in what you're going to drive. Pintle hitch, automatic, etc.
 
Bassbob said:
Well at least they restrict them. They used to be grandfathered. Heck, I'm grandfathered. A couple buddies of mine have had theirs so long they are both grandfathered exempt from the DOT physical. Nowadays you have to test in what you're going to drive. Pintle hitch, automatic, etc.
Click to expand...
That's different than Texas on class A or B. Combo w/air brakes, then you test in that type. 5th wheel or pintle makes no difference as long as it's for weight rating. Tanker on a cab and chassis and no combo endorsement, then test in that type of vehicle. Endorsements can be added without driving, just a written test if you already have a cdl or currently taking a cdl test. Other states I don't know.
 
TEXASforLIFE said:
That's different than Texas on class A or B. Combo w/air brakes, then you test in that type. 5th wheel or pintle makes no difference as long as it's for weight rating. Tanker on a cab and chassis and no combo endorsement, then test in that type of vehicle. Endorsements can be added without driving, just a written test if you already have a cdl or currently taking a cdl test. Other states I don't know.
Click to expand...
I drove in a Freightliner M2 ( auto trans) pulling a 24' trailer ( pintle) with a backhoe on it. I am class A (with X endorsement) with every endorsement except bus driver. HazMat, doubles and triples, Combo, air brakes, tanker. No restrictions.

Other than Air brakes which is tested on the "Pre-Trip" all endorsements were written tests.
 
That is by far the dumbest thing I have ever heard, but not surprised now a days for a big payout.
I was in construction for forty plus years as a supervisor and what I used to do to keep from being sued if another trade wanted to borrow tools such as a ladder I had many bill of sale forms and I would sell the ladder or tool as is to them for $1.00 and then buy it back at the end of the day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top