In case you need another reason not to take your car to the dealership for maintenance

[dank69]

Why a Jeep owner is sued after dealership employee was killed during oil change

A man who took his Jeep to a dealership for an oil change is being sued for millions of dollars after an employee died. Here's why the family is suing the owner and not the dealership.

www.fox2detroit.com

Do any legal experts want to prognosticate how this suit will go? I imagine his insurance will be on the hook and will just settle? Seems fucked up though.

 

[nakedfrog]

His insurance already paid out $100k and the family still wants the other $14.9 million, per the article.

The unnamed Jeep owner could be held liable for millions of dollars in damages because, under Michigan law, if someone is injured or killed and a vehicle is involved, the owner of the car is responsible.

That means if you let your friend drive your car and they hit someone or something, and that victim sues, they would be suing you and your insurance.

It's almost like passing laws that are very vague in application lead to unintended consequences (I mean, I presume this scenario was not intended by the law when it was passed).

In Michigan, an injured coworker cannot sue the boss because of the boss' negligence. According to FOX 2's Charlie Langton, in this case, the boss is negligent because they hired someone who didn't know how to drive a stick and didn't even have a driver's license.

So even though the boss was negligent is hiring someone who shouldn't have been driving, the victim's family cannot hold the boss responsible.

The vibe I'm getting here is "Fuck Michigan", but I was already mostly on that team.

 

[Torn Mind]

The owner's liability statute is an example of "strict liability". Damages get pinned on your head.

Understanding Owner Liability in Auto Accidents | Giroux Trial Attorneys

If someone else takes a joyride in your car, it could cost you big. Here’s everything you need to know about owner liability in Michigan.

www.greatmiattorneys.com

.

Some states adopt that for dog bites, but Michigan has adopted it for cars.

Oftentimes in legal matters such as this, the lawyer will always officially sue for the legal maximum, and I guess 15 million might be that in the appropriate court in Michigan.

Looks like later in the article, it mentions that the dealer has been order to indemnify the owner in a separate suit but the dealer has appealed, so the final result is going to have to wait for that.

I think the owner will get off the hook, but as the laws are arranged, he still has to spend the time to deal with a lawyer. Personal injury cases are contingency fee though, so he hasn't lost anything out of pocket. Judges can be flaky at times though, so the until the results are in, it is a "who knows".

 

[StinkyPinky]

This is a waste of everyones time. Any sane judge is going to throw this out.

Then again, not all judges seem to be sane these days.

 

[pete6032]

F*** that dealer for appealing the indemnification suit. How do you hire someone whose primary work function is to drive cars and that person doesn't even have a license?

 

[Torn Mind]

This is a waste of everyones time. Any sane judge is going to throw this out.

Then again, not all judges seem to be sane these days.

Actually no, not a waste of time intellectually, although it is for the owner.

This is how laws establishing "defaults" can result in an unexpected conundrums. Strict liability exists so that a way of weaseling out of liability is eliminated. If an owner's friend or family gets in an accident, the other party may not be able to sue anyone with the law in place. But when laws are made, lawmakers can't see every possible contingency that arise that would justify an exception to the axiom on the books.

Laws are not what voters think they are.

 

[brianmanahan]

michigan auto insurance laws are horrible. almost as bad as pennsylvania's.

i had to write code to deal with both and it was awful. the no-fault accidents and residual liability made it clear as to why the premiums for MI and PA were double those in surrounding states.

 

[Torn Mind]

F*** that dealer for appealing the indemnification suit. How do you hire someone whose primary work function is to drive cars and that person doesn't even have a license?

If that guy was a tire swapper fresh out of high school taking public transportation, then I could see him not needing a license.

Laws get put on books, but they are not enforcing them with an all-seeing eye in every location. If the actvitiy is out of sight, it is de facto legal. I mean, someone with a giant 40 acre estate could drive a truck with no tags all over the place because the cops are not going to be looking there.

 

[pete6032]

michigan auto insurance laws are horrible. almost as bad as pennsylvania's.

i had to write code to deal with both and it was awful. the no-fault accidents and residual liability made it clear as to why the premiums for MI and PA were double those in surrounding states.

The system in Michigan has a lot of abuse. That being said, the system is also was one of the most comprehensive in the nation. If you suffer a traumatic brain injury in Michigan you will basically be taken care of for life while if you suffer the same same injury in another state you likely won't have enough of a payout to cover all your current and future costs. The legislature changed the laws recently in an effort to decrease costs and it has really upended some peoples' lives. Very sad honestly.

Collision Course Part 1: The Konstantinov Story

Vladimir Konstantinov was a ferocious hockey defenseman with a Stanley Cup under his belt and a bright future in the NHL. Then, a horrible car crash changed his life forever. For nearly 25 years, the extensive care he needs has been covered by Michigan's no-fault auto insurance. But soon, that...

www.michiganradio.org

Collision Course Part 2: A Fault of Our Own

Red Wings hockey legend, Vladimir Konstantinov, could lose his life-saving care in a matter of weeks due to changes in Michigan's auto no-fault law. How did those changes came about? A 46-year-long political battle that left drivers stuck in the crossfire.

www.michiganradio.org

 

[nakedfrog]

If that guy was a tire swapper fresh out of high school taking public transportation, then I could see him not needing a license.

Laws get put on books, but they are not enforcing them with an all-seeing eye in every location. If the actvitiy is out of sight, it is de facto legal. I mean, someone with a giant 40 acre estate could drive a truck with no tags all over the place because the cops are not going to be looking there.

I mean if it's not on a public road, they wouldn't need to have tags anyway, I think.

 

[Thump553]

This is a waste of everyones time. Any sane judge is going to throw this out.

Then again, not all judges seem to be sane these days.

So under your theory a sane judge is one who ignores the clear statute controlling the situation and instead substitutes his personal judgment?

the owner should have purchased more coverage and most prudently, umbrella coverage. Perhaps the owner has some cause of action against his insurance agent for not advising the owner properly. But to say a judge should simply disregard the controlling law is a really stupid policy to advocate.

 

[BoomerD]

Sounds to me, the thread title should be more like, "In case you need another reason not to live in Michigan."

 

[brianmanahan]

the owner should have purchased more coverage and most prudently, umbrella coverage. Perhaps the owner has some cause of action against his insurance agent for not advising the owner properly. But to say a judge should simply disregard the controlling law is a really stupid policy to advocate.

lol, nobody's gonna have anywhere close to 15$m in auto liability even with an umbrella, except for probably people who are worth over that amount

the only thing the owner should be at fault for is living in michigan which is terrible for liability

 

[Torn Mind]

So under your theory a sane judge is one who ignores the clear statute controlling the situation and instead substitutes his personal judgment?

the owner should have purchased more coverage and most prudently, umbrella coverage. Perhaps the owner has some cause of action against his insurance agent for not advising the owner properly. But to say a judge should simply disregard the controlling law is a really stupid policy to advocate.

Why should the owner piss money on a situation that is borderline unfathomable and he doesn't have to pay a lawyer anything upfront because this is personal injury. Better off dealing with court than paying premiums for something that should be pinned on the dealership in some way.

 

[Red Squirrel]

That's a messed up law that they can just put the blame on the owner for something not even remotely his fault. When I read the headline I assumed it was because the owner may have modded the vehicle and they were trying to blame that, but this is 100% the fault of the dealership. They should have had someone that knows how to drive stick to move it.

Messed up that they can just blame the owner of the vehicle for something that is completely out of their control. Every time you bring your car to the shop you're basically rolling the dice on getting sued for millions if an incident happens. I guess it's a good case to learn to work on your own car.