What could go wrong at an oil change? You could get sued!

[azwjowner]

I have to amend my prior comments. Apparently the legislature is to blame, not the lawyer, as I finally figured out what is truly going on here. Michigan has a wacky law in which the owner of a vehicle is always liable for any injuries as long as he consented (expressly or impliedly) to the person driving it:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-257-401:

The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for an injury caused by the negligent operation of the motor vehicle whether the negligence consists of a violation of a statute of this state or the ordinary care standard required by common law. The owner is not liable unless the motor vehicle is being driven with his or her express or implied consent or knowledge. It is presumed that the motor vehicle is being driven with the knowledge and consent of the owner if it is driven at the time of the injury by his or her spouse, father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, or other immediate member of the family.

So, if I lived in Michigan, I wouldn't be taking my cars to the dealer. That's nuts. The intent was clearly if you lend a car to your no-good friend or family member who lacks insurance, etc., but it appears to cover anyone, including situations in which you let the dealership drive your car for an oil change.

Of course, other than the stress and expenses, in some sense it doesn't matter as you should always carry ample insurance because you could be the one who negligently kills someone while driving, so the risk is always there.

Sponsored

 

[YukonCornelius]

Please explain what you mean. As far as I know, there are no laws in California or elsewhere that would support the claim in this lawsuit. I would expect it to fail in all fifty states.

Only defendable by a progressive who believes they have a right to take what was earned by someone else.

 

[azwjowner]

Only defendable by a progressive who believes they have a right to take what was earned by someone else.

For what it's worth, I was wrong in my assessment because I didn't anticipate that Michigan's legislature specifically passed a law to create liability here. Otherwise, generally under the common law, there would be no liability.

 

[YukonCornelius]

Exactly. If blame was to be placed here, it’s on the dealership for allowing an unlicensed, inexperienced employee to unlawfully operate the vehicle. The owner has a reasonable expectation that simple rules would be followed when entering into a contract (the agreement for services rendered for a set price) with the business (the dealership)

Needing “liability” for monetary gain IS the problem.

 

[bohnster]

Definitely Crayon eaters at a minimum!

Semper Fi.

 

[bohnster]

That story just hit my MSN feed. Sorry for the family. Local laws aside, it's bad enough that kids these days can't drive a stick. (My girls know how.) It's even worse that you would own a business that requires employees to drive/move a stick but not train them to do so if they don't know how. Then there's the manager who probably said "Eff it, let him try it...". Sad.

 

[Packnbeer]

leaves me wondering how much wrong in this world can be traced to a lawyer somehow

that is exactly it. ridiculous and a complete joke that this is allowed to even continue

 

[4xFUN]

There are an awfully lot of attorneys that deserve to be at the bottom of a very deep river...And an awfully lot of politicians that should be keeping them company.

 

[TX_Ovrlnd]

Jeep owner should have reported the vehicle stolen and had the dead guy and kid charged as thieves, accidental death during theft of an auto. Then sue the family of the deceased and the unlicensed kid.

 

[Some Random Guy]

Michigan has the highest auto insurance rates in the country.
Our no-fault is there for a reason. It provides fast(er) payouts without waiting for litigation for victims than our previous legal framework.
Only 14 states are no-fault states.
Michigan also charges higher rates if your income is above a threshold.

These are just extra facts for some context. I am a MI resident living outside the state but maintain my domicile there (voting, auto insurance, vehicle registration etc). Our insurance makes me question my financial decision, as does stuff like this.

So the victim got $100k fast they wouldn’t have gotten pre-no-fault. This story defies common sense, probably suggesting why most states have at-fault insurance or at least an alternative to no-fault. To deal with the higher prices of no-fault, Michigan tries to scale cost with income making proper insurance more affordable for those with no assets and minimal income. Now the legal system has time to sort this out with the tools at their disposal, like indemnification as brought up earlier, to shift costs to the dealership.
It is what it is, most of the country doesn’t do things this way. I hope it works out in the end to find its way back to common sense.

 

[four low]

I agree with the old Klingon saying " What is one Lawyer at the bottom of the Ocean ? "
"A good start "

 

[AFD]

Keep in mind the dealership has been paying large worker's comp insurance premiums for years (decades) just for this sort of event..

Given this system, I can't blame the dealership, who has paid all their insurance premiums, from voluntarily offering more.

Hiring someone to operate a motor vehicle at a car dealership service facility that somehow doesn't know how a manual transmission even works is pure negligence. If he doesn't know how to properly operate a deadly 5,000lb piece of machinery, then he should have never been allowed anywhere near the controls (or hired in the first place) until properly trained.

I place 100% of the blame on the dealership for allowing this situation to occur, and the vehicle's owner and insurance company should have absolutely nothing to do with what happened. This is something a step beyond the normal purpose of worker's comp and such insurance shouldn't solely be responsible for covering willful negligence on the employer's part.

 

[Some Random Guy]

Any chance the unlicensed driver was just told to turn on the motor, not drive it? Those of us who drive manuals understand things other people have no concept for.
I would totally tell someone how to start my vehicle not thinking I’d have to explain neutral to them. It’s second nature and totally unconscious for me.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I know first hand of a case in Ohio where a motorcycle rider was hit by a car and seriously injured. The car driver had no insurance, so the motorcycle rider found a scumbag lawyer that helped him sue the motorcyclist's own employer for three million dollars, and it was cheaper for his employer to pay out (thru insurance) than to fight it in court. So the motorcyclist got 3 million from his own employer, for a motorcycle accident that happened on a weekend, that had nothing to do with his employment.

Scumbag lawyers know how to find "deep pockets" and how to go after them. Most big companies carry insurance and it's cheaper to settle than go to court, even when they are innocent. It's total BS.

Best,
-Tim

 

[roaniecowpony]

I know first hand of a case in Ohio where a motorcycle rider was hit by a car and seriously injured. The car driver had no insurance, so the motorcycle rider found a scumbag lawyer that helped him sue the motorcyclist's own employer for three million dollars, and it was cheaper for his employer to pay out (thru insurance) than to fight it in court. So the motorcyclist got 3 million from his own employer, for a motorcycle accident that happened on a weekend, that had nothing to do with his employment.

Scumbag lawyers know how to find "deep pockets" and how to go after them. Most big companies carry insurance and it's cheaper to settle than go to court, even when they are innocent. It's total BS.

Best,
-Tim

I agree, a large corporation can't afford the risk of loosing in open court in many cases. So, they just settle out of court. If the guy filed for $3M, they likely settled for a lot less, but still a lot.

Sponsored