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.
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.
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.
The suit is being filed because the dead mechanic’s estate is looking for a deep pocket. The negligent actor, the age 19 technician, has no money. The jeep owner has insurance but his auto policy only pays for negligence reasonably connected to the policy owner. The owner did no negligent act as he had no connection with the technician. The only remedy is through the shop’s worker’s comp policy which will pay a death benefit as WC is basically no fault.
Guessing whomever got in the jeep didn’t know how to drive a manual trans and turned the key while the jeep was in gear causing the “lurch?”
“Vicariously liable for the negligent acts”
Wow...that’s a new one... or is it?
The drivers insurance company agreed to pay the policy limits of $100k and the plaintiffs agreed not to go after the owner.
This has some significant benefits for him and his insurance company.
His involvement in the lawsuit will be minimal, his insurance company won’t have to spend many thousands of dollars defending him.
On top of that, if there is a judgment against the owner that is in excess of the amount the dealership can pay, he has zero personal liability. Worse case scenario is the insurance company loses $100k, and that is only if there is any liability by the owner.
“Being sued” is different than being liable.