Lawyers, man

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I really hope - although it’s not practicable probably - that the lawyers who named the car owner as a defendant are disbarred.

Michigan car owner sued after Jeep kills mechanic during oil change

A Michigan man who left his car at a dealership for an oil change and tire rotation is being sued after his vehicle killed a mechanic.

www.foxnews.com

 

[larsIU]

Insurance follows the vehicle so the owner of the vehicle will always be included in a suit. However, I’m certain the owners carrier has already denied liability/coverage for the loss. Although that doesn’t really have bearing on the suit. The garage keepers policy will be primary but, depending on the policy language and state regs, the owners carrier could possibly be excess. In this situation because there is a death there will likely be an excess verdict. Again, assuming it doesn’t settle (spoiler it will settle).

Then of course there’s the whole work comp angle. God insurance is great.

 

[Jg48]

Does anyone know if any summary judgments were filed in this case? I’d be curious to see them.

 

[Lucy01]

Whale sperm comes to mind!

 

[Bowlmania]

I feel, of course, for the victim and his family, but also for the kid behind the wheel. Tragic on so many levels.

This is definitely not your typical "vicarious liability" fact pattern, but there's already been a determination that the dealership will indemnify the car owner.

 

[Lucy01]

Cars kill more people than guns!

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I really hope - although it’s not practicable probably - that the lawyers who named the car owner as a defendant are disbarred.

Michigan car owner sued after Jeep kills mechanic during oil change

A Michigan man who left his car at a dealership for an oil change and tire rotation is being sued after his vehicle killed a mechanic.

www.foxnews.com

Paintiff is trying to get around workers comp limits. Unless the Jeep owner made modifications or otherwise knew of a problem and didn't provide a warning, I don't see how the jeep owner can be liable.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Whale sperm comes to mind!

All the time, or just in this instance?

 

[Lucy01]

All the time, or just in this instance?

You've heard the joke about lawyer's.

 

[bawlmer]

Whale sperm comes to mind!

WtF?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Insurance follows the vehicle so the owner of the vehicle will always be included in a suit. However, I’m certain the owners carrier has already denied liability/coverage for the loss. Although that doesn’t really have bearing on the suit. The garage keepers policy will be primary but, depending on the policy language and state regs, the owners carrier could possibly be excess. In this situation because there is a death there will likely be an excess verdict. Again, assuming it doesn’t settle (spoiler it will settle).

Then of course there’s the whole work comp angle. God insurance is great.

It’s insane that the owner or his insurance can be named in the suit. To me it’s clearly a transfer of agency to the dealer once you drop it off for service. But I’m not a lawyer.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Insurance follows the vehicle so the owner of the vehicle will always be included in a suit. However, I’m certain the owners carrier has already denied liability/coverage for the loss. Although that doesn’t really have bearing on the suit. The garage keepers policy will be primary but, depending on the policy language and state regs, the owners carrier could possibly be excess. In this situation because there is a death there will likely be an excess verdict. Again, assuming it doesn’t settle (spoiler it will settle).

Then of course there’s the whole work comp angle. God insurance is great.

Used to do insurance claims. You are right. Also, injury attorneys tend to throw out as wide a net as possible, particularly with death claims.

 

[larsIU]

It’s insane that the owner or his insurance can be named in the suit. To me it’s clearly a transfer of agency to the dealer once you drop it off for service. But I’m not a lawyer.

Yep but you’d be amazed what insurance companies get drug into.

You ever talk to defense counsel for an insurance company. That’s a circle of hell all it’s own.

 

[Lucy01]

WtF?

Whats lower than Whale sperm? Answer, A lawyer. And we know Whale sperm is at the bottom of the sea.

 

[UncleMark]

Insurance follows the vehicle so the owner of the vehicle will always be included in a suit. However, I’m certain the owners carrier has already denied liability/coverage for the loss. Although that doesn’t really have bearing on the suit. The garage keepers policy will be primary but, depending on the policy language and state regs, the owners carrier could possibly be excess. In this situation because there is a death there will likely be an excess verdict. Again, assuming it doesn’t settle (spoiler it will settle).

Then of course there’s the whole work comp angle. God insurance is great.

So this is routine and Fox News is just spewing out sensational shit, right?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Paintiff is trying to get around workers comp limits. Unless the Jeep owner made modifications or otherwise knew of a problem and didn't provide a warning, I don't see how the jeep owner can be liable.

Bingo. This is usually just comp. has to be third party independent negligence. Equipment was defective. Possibly a crazy driver. Depends. Something. Some states' laws changed where you can make a third party case against the negligent coworker. No guarantee company or insurance will indemnify the other employee

 

[Lucy01]

So this is routine and Fox News is just spewing out sensational shit, right?

No, this is Fox News spewing injustice for the car owner.

 

[larsIU]

So this is routine and Fox News is just spewing out sensational shit, right?

Pretty much yeah.

 

[Jg48]

Bingo. This is usually just comp. has to be third party independent negligence. Equipment was defective. Something. Some states' laws changed where you can make a third party case against the negligent coworker. No guarantee company or insurance will indemnify the other employee

Car insurance covers a third party for negligence while using the car with the owner's consent. The owner, himself, would only be liable only if you could prove negligent entrustment (There are also a couple of separate theories that don't apply). No question the attorney is trying to put the dealership in a bind (and is) by suing the customer who dropped off his car. There would be a cross-claim by the owner against the dealership or, to avoid a cross-claim, the dealership just agreed to indemnify the the customer.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Car insurance covers a third party for negligence while using the car with the owner's consent. The owner, himself, would only be liable only if you could prove negligent entrustment (There are also a couple of separate theories that don't apply). No question the attorney is trying to put the dealership in a bind (and is) by suing the customer who dropped off his car. There would be a cross-claim by the owner against the dealership or, to avoid a cross-claim, the dealership just agreed to indemnify the the customer.

Car insurance covers a third party for negligence while using the car with the owner's consent. The owner, himself, would only be liable only if you could prove negligent entrustment (There are also a couple of separate theories that don't apply). No question the attorney is trying to put the dealership in a bind (and is) by suing the customer who dropped off his car. There would be a cross-claim by the owner against the dealership or, to avoid a cross-claim, the dealership just agreed to indemnify the the customer.

Question is what that state allows for third party negligence outside of comp as wc is typically an exclusive remedy

 

[iuwclurker]

Damn!

 

[Jg48]

Question is what that state allows for third party negligence outside of comp as wc is typically an exclusive remedy

Yes, but it is seems like an incredible stretch to go after the vehicle owner. The report (story) itself is part of the problem. It doesn't give a enough information to get the complete picture. I would have thought the claim against the car owner would have been dropped-kicked out of court long ago. I'm curious as to why it hasn't been.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Yes, but it is seems like an incredible stretch to go after the vehicle owner. The report (story) itself is part of the problem. It doesn't give a enough information to get the complete picture. I would have thought the claim against the car owner would have been dropped-kicked out of court long ago. I'm curious as to why it hasn't been.

I hear ya but who knows. It could just be riding a docket for years with nothin happening. Just depends on how the county rolls. Fla you had to pretend to do something once a year. Propound discovery. Something. I think after a year of nothing you could get it dumped for failure to prosecute or something. I can't remember what they call it. But other places it can sit for years with nothing done and no consequence. The parties could be talking. Who knows

 

[Jg48]

I hear ya but who knows. It could just be riding a docket for years with nothin happening. Just depends on how the county rolls. Fla you had to pretend to do something once a year. Propound discovery. Something. I think after a year of nothing you could get it dumped for failure to prosecute or something. I can't remember what they call it. But other places it can sit for years with nothing done and no consequence. The parties could be talking. Who knows

I'm told the docket is extremely backed up in Harris County, Tx. A friend who practices in San Antonio had her March 2020 case continued until February 2023. She was something like the 100 case on the docket. Apparently, Covid took a tremendous toll. Glad to be retired.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Legislators, man


"The attorney also said the dealership cannot be sued because of a legal standard preventing an employee from suing their boss for negligence",

 

[mcmurtry66]

I'm told the docket is extremely backed up in Harris County, Tx. A friend who practices in San Antonio had her March 2020 case continued until February 2023. She was something like the 100 case on the docket. Apparently, Covid took a tremendous toll. Glad to be retired.

Jesus. I can't imagine how awful it must be dealing with clients and delays like that. It's awful under the best of circumstances.

Enjoy retirement!

 

[mcmurtry66]

Legislators, man


"The attorney also said the dealership cannot be sued because of a legal standard preventing an employee from suing their boss for negligence",

Right. That's worker's comp. no fault

 

[i'vegotwinners]

is insurance more costly on a manual transmission than an automatic?

if not, it should be.

manuals are more dangerous than automatics, both to the operator and all the other cars and pedestrians and cyclists around them.

and especially to anyone the owner hands the car off to for any reason, and all around them.


don't even get me going on manuals. bwg

the fact that some idiots want to drive a manual forces me to have to pay for a tach even on my automatic, not to mention the reality said tach which i don't want or need, but have to pay for anyway, totally f's up the instrument cluster setup.

and not even manuals should have tachs anyway.

if the operator can't drive a manual by feel, they shouldn't be driving a manual.

if the operator is watching the tach, they aren't watching the road.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Right. That's worker's comp. no fault

that came from legislators.

 

[mcmurtry66]

that came from legislators.

Yes they've created a law. That protects employees who are injured or become disabled on the job. And eliminated the need for litigation to receive compensation. You don't have to prove anyone was at fault. Only that the injury occurred during the course and scope of employment So what is your issue with this one?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Yes they've created a law. That protects employees who are injured or become disabled on the job. And eliminated the need for litigation to receive compensation. You don't have to prove anyone was at fault. Only that the injury occurred during the course and scope of employment So what is your issue with this one?

a lawsuit by the estate of deceased against the owner for negligence, if allowed by Mich law, i would think could be much more equitable than accepting a workman's comp claim.

if Mich law protects the owner from the deceased's estate choosing to sue the owner instead of accepting a worker's comp settlement, then i would think that prohibition was done to benefit owners/employers, not workers, and not an equal trade off between ownership and workers imo from what i can see, and done by Mich legislators.

perhaps you or someone else can convince me otherwise, but at this point, i'm not convinced said prohibition is an equal trade off thing on the part of Mich legislators.

and i'm guessing said prohibition was pushed by ownership, not labor.

i am out of my element here though, so if there is something i'm missing here, i am open to being set straight if i am seeing things incorrectly thus far.

 

[Crayfish57]

WTF are you blathering about? I can stop a manual without using the brakes if i really need to . How in the hell do you think people that really know how to drive makes your insurance rates go up?

 

[Crayfish57]

is insurance more costly on a manual transmission than an automatic?

if not, it should be.

manuals are more dangerous than automatics, both to the operator and all the other cars and pedestrians and cyclists around them.

and especially to anyone the owner hands the car off to for any reason, and all around them.


don't even get me going on manuals. bwg

the fact that some idiots want to drive a manual forces me to have to pay for a tach even on my automatic, not to mention the reality said tach which i don't want or need, but have to pay for anyway, totally f's up the instrument cluster setup.

and not even manuals should have tachs anyway.

if the operator can't drive a manual by feel, they shouldn't be driving a manual.

if the operator is watching the tach, they aren't watching the road.

WTF are you blathering about? I can stop a manual without even using the brakes if I needed to. Had a brake line blow out on a automatic and you are pretty much screwed. Do you actually have a brain and attempt to use it once in a while? I never look at the Tach to drive if you are really that stupid and dont know how to drive and have a feel for the road you should probably hire a taxi

 

[Jg48]

is insurance more costly on a manual transmission than an automatic?

if not, it should be.

manuals are more dangerous than automatics, both to the operator and all the other cars and pedestrians and cyclists around them.

and especially to anyone the owner hands the car off to for any reason, and all around them.


don't even get me going on manuals. bwg

the fact that some idiots want to drive a manual forces me to have to pay for a tach even on my automatic, not to mention the reality said tach which i don't want or need, but have to pay for anyway, totally f's up the instrument cluster setup.

and not even manuals should have tachs anyway.

if the operator can't drive a manual by feel, they shouldn't be driving a manual.

if the operator is watching the tach, they aren't watching the road.

I read your post to my wife. Her comment was,"Obviously, he shouldn't be driving a manual." She drove various stick shift (manual) vehicles for years. M4 BMW, Porshe, Honda. To be honest, I was somewhat intimidated by her skill. She shifts like silk. She took my 427 Cobra out for the first time and drove it like a pro (the clutch is a bitch). She also said, "An electric mixer is dangerous in the hands of man."

 

[mcmurtry66]

I read your post to my wife. Her comment was,"Obviously, he shouldn't be driving a manual." She drove various stick shift (manual) vehicles for years. M4 BMW, Porshe, Honda. To be honest, I was somewhat intimidated by her skill. She shifts like silk. She took my 427 Cobra out for the first time and drove it like a pro (the clutch is a bitch). She also said, "An electric mixer is dangerous in the hands of man."

Porsche or M4. Which did you like better?

 

[Jg48]

Porsche or M4. Which did you like better?

No contest, the Porshe.

 

[mcmurtry66]

No contest, the Porshe.

911?

 

[Hank Reardon]

is insurance more costly on a manual transmission than an automatic?

if not, it should be.

manuals are more dangerous than automatics, both to the operator and all the other cars and pedestrians and cyclists around them.

and especially to anyone the owner hands the car off to for any reason, and all around them.


don't even get me going on manuals. bwg

the fact that some idiots want to drive a manual forces me to have to pay for a tach even on my automatic, not to mention the reality said tach which i don't want or need, but have to pay for anyway, totally f's up the instrument cluster setup.

and not even manuals should have tachs anyway.

if the operator can't drive a manual by feel, they shouldn't be driving a manual.

if the operator is watching the tach, they aren't watching the road.

Jesus. What is your issue? I'd wager that the average driver of a vehicle with manual transmission is far more engaged with the process of operating the car that the average bone head in an automatic. The very mechanism of operation require constant engagement. You're really more concerned about to fiftyish dude in a manual than a someone in a CRV?

And who watches a tach to know when to shift?

 

[Jg48]

911?

Yes, it was a great little car. It went around curves like it was on rails.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Yes, it was a great little car. It went around curves like it was on rails.

Yeah super fun. My old boss was on the Porsche racing team. His partner was the great Lorenzo Lamos. He had a fleet of them. He'd take me out in them to show off what they can do. There's an art to driving them. Back then anyway