Posted on 05/05/2022 1:32:59 PM PDT by gitmo
Absolutely. It is obvious that straight, white males are clearly the responsible party here.
One more step closer to making it a crime to own your own vehicle.
If there is justice the judge will throw it the claim against the owner.
Mechanic was anti-abortion and the Jeep was pro-abortion and the owner agreed with the Jeep.
He won’t be but in a law suit ya gotta name everybody involved.
How can the owner be sued when this occured while the vehicle was at the shop and under the sole control of the shop employees?
Why is the owner liable because the anti-theft system worked flawlessly?
Exactly! I suspect he’ll be removed from the suit as soon as
a judge makes all his pre-trial considerations.
I used to have a Jeep, (a commander), which had a ‘habit’ of lurching forward when I was stopped at a red light or a stop sign. I learned to keep the breaks down hard after a while whenever I had to make stops. That never happened with any other vehicle I owned. Still, the Commander was probably the nicest vehicle I ever owned, and that includes my current Lexus.
This never would have happened if it wasn’t gas powered.
He's not. It's legal maneuvering among insurance companies.
From the article:
“So in reality, the owner is going to be held responsible, but the dealership’s insurance company is paying,” Femminineo said, adding that they hope to be awarded a verdict in excess of $15 million.
Attorney David Femminineo, representing the estate of Hawkins, compared the owner’s responsibility in Hawkins’ death to when you lend your car to somebody so they can pick up lunch. If that person was to injure someone with your car, he told McClatchy News you would be liable for any negligent acts that occurred because you gave him or her permission to drive your car.
Lawyers fishing for the deepest pockets.
But the owner didn't "loan" the vehicle to anyone, he left it entrusted to a professional while in the course of performing his duties. So the owner's liability should be zero.
The dealership should be held vicariously liable due to providing insufficient training on the safe operation of manual transmission vehicles to their employee.
Incredible! The kid didn’t know how to operate a standard. He pops the clutch and crushes the other guy, and the owner, sipping coffee in the lounge, gets sued? Only in America.
Blatantly false testimony. Should be obvious to operators of stickshifts. No way either owner or dealership should be liable.
Any certified mechanic that doesn’t know how to run a clutch should have their cert pulled and be stuck cleaning the floors of the shop after hours...
If you’re working on a car, you have to be very careful what
anyone is doing around the vehicle.
Don’t let anyone inside. For sure don’t let them try to start
the vehicle unless you are in a place you can evacuate easily.
If you’re doing battery work, don’t let the wife behind the
wheel. That goes for your kids too.
No touching the car if you’re working under it. No ball
playing in the area.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
The kid didn't drive stick and in fact supposedly didn't even have a license, so it's really his fault and that of the dealership for creating a dangerous condition in their shop by not verifying his license and ability when hiring him for a job requiring him to drive. However, this is in Michigan and apparently you can't sue the employer in this kind of situation. I hope the jury doesn't find against the owner just out of a desire to hold SOMEBODY accountable, facts be damned.
“This never would have happened if it wasn’t gas powered”
Yeah an ev would’ve just spontaneously combusted and killed everybody in a 100 foot radius
You’re right! The real culprit here is the vehicle manufacturer for not just assuming nobody knows how to drive stick and continuing to build them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.