This is beyond ridiculous. No way should the owner of the vehicle be on the hook. I understand that if you loan your car to someone you're liable, but he didn't loan his car to the dealer. They were employed to work on his car and they put an unlicensed driver behind the wheel.
@@sjuas690 That’s not correct, legally they gave the mechanic consent to use the vehicle. If you give someone consent to use your vehicle, they can then give ANYONE consent to use your car and you can be completely liable for an unknown person’s actions with your vehicle…
This is a miscarriage of justice. The owner should in no way be held liable for something they had no involvement. In addition he should be compensated not only for the damage to his car but also the harassment from frivolous legal claims.
This is ridiculous. As a lifelong auto shop owner (nearly 45 years) As soon as the customer signed the repair order, and handed the keys over to the shop, he gave them " Care, custody and control" of that vehicle, and he in no way has liability. The shop is on the hook for this. Workman's comp has the first liability, and then the deceased mans family sues the shop for damages. And they have a large insurance policy to start covering this.
@@CytoplasmicGoo perhaps you are right about who they are suing, perhaps not, but it was not the car that killed, accidental or not, it was the person inside the car who's responsible, and by extension, the people who allowed said person into the car.
@@theldraspneumonoultramicro405 yeah, that's true. But, like the youtube guy said, the lawyer had to sue. They're just looking for all the ways the family can get paid and of course themselves as well.
@@82ndAbnVet Could be true, but they don't get to decide who the decedent's estate sues. In other words, the decedent's estate SHOULD sue the dealership, IMO. IANAL
This is absolutely absurd! There's no way any sane person could agree that the owner of the vehicle is responsible for this accident, when the vehicle owner did nothing but drop off the vehicle for service at a dealership. This law needs to be fixed pronto.
@@mikepalmer2219 Gun manufacturers were granted immunity from a variety of liabilities, by Congress, in 2005. So they're safe to let their customers do anything they want.
As a former mechanic myself I can tell you there are such things as possession laws. Once the dealership takes control of the car it's in their hands until handed back to the customer. This is done for many reasons but mostly is so the dealership can hold the car in lean if the customer doesn't pay their bill. This sounds like a bad lawyer didn't research MI law enough. Also you don't sue the boss you sue the company. Two very different things there. I can see the boss not being on the hook for every action of his employees, but the business owner is responsible to have proper insurance. The law you cited is about bosses being sued not companies. So you can't sue the shop supervisor but you can sue the shop owner.
Sue everybody. The HR person, the supervisor, the department head, the owner, the Shop, the kid operating the car and as many insurance policies as possible. And ask for lawyer fees on top of settlements.
Spot on analysis, as this case is beyond ridiculous! I don't think the 19 year old, should have been working there anyway. No driver's license, no experience driving a car, which one would assume it is needed, as he works at a dealership. I think the 19 year old should also be charged with manslaughter, as he knowingly got in the Jeep, as he was aware that he had no knowledge of how to operate the vehicle, also knowingly that he could put fellow employees in harms way. Anyone else like this would be in a cell right now.
@@Christopher-li6gg you are insane. The teen should not be charged for this. There is no reasonable or rational reason to charge the kid. The argument you make is petty. If your argument was to succeed then new drivers would never be allowed on the road period. Never mind that you don't need a license to operate ANY vehicle on private property. Does not matter if it's a small scooter or a large excavator. At the end of the day, the kid can't be held responsible for the incident outside of a civil suite and even then he should not be held responsible for an ACCIDENT. There is a difference between the intent to (in all likelihood) cycle the engine to move the new oil through it, and actively working to take the car for a joyride. The kid probably wasn't authorized to move the vehicles and was just asked to turn the jeep on. The kid not being instructed on how a manual worked in all likelihood accidentally had it in 1st and let go of the clutch crushing his mentor. This is the hallmark of a workplace accident where no single individual would or could be liable except for the person that forgot to tell the kid to keep it in neutral and the parking break on.
Often there are DIFFERENT laws for doing something in a PROFESSIONAL capacity than doing something socially with friends or family. For example, you need a LICENSE to be a massage therapist but you do NOT need a license to rub your wife's shoulders to help her relax after a long day. You need a LICENSE to run a restaurant but you do NOT need one to invite friends over for dinner. In places where it is legal (like parts of Nevada) there are legal procedures for being a prostitute but a regular relationship does not have them (just basics like having to be consensual and over 18) Well maybe there needs to be a legal provision invented that differentiates between turning your car over to PROFESSIONALS (I would count a "valet" who parks the car or a mechanic shop doing work on it or a cop that commandeers the car for an emergency) that in THAT SITUATION the professional is the one responsible but keep the OTHER law for when you loan your car to your friend or an adult lets their teen drive the car. That kind of thing. The law needs to treat professional and non professional situations DIFFERENTLY like my 3 examples above.
@@Zurround Most people don’t realize that a majority of states have a lower age requirement then 18 for consensual sex. Typically 16 to 18. In my state it’s 17. I was first told by my cop friend as a teen. There’s one state that’s 14 or 15. That’s ridiculous.
So the person who has the very least to do with this, is being sued. This says something about how out of touch our legal system and laws have become. I am old, and frankly quite happy I won't have to see this get too much worse. It is mind numbing.
You are reading way tpo much into this. Cars are dangerous, and have insurance. The insurance company is not surprised at all that a claim is being made. No one is suggesting that the owner is responsible. I would like to know if the insurance company will accept that the car killed someone or if they will fight the claim. I am not an atty but I suspect that since the car killed someone they will end up being forced to pay the claim.
@@kentbetts The dealership should have insurance. When they wrecked my car, guess who paid... the dealer's insurance. That state has some poor laws, or the lawyer is wrong.
@@kentbetts " I would like to know if the insurance company will accept that the car killed someone" let me stop you right there. The car didn't kill somebody, the driver did. The car did not move on it's own. This is the same shoddy logic people have been trying to apply to guns for years trying to blame the gun or the manufacturers of the guns for the actions of people. Now this begs the question, if the car say, fell off the lift and killed a worker, would that be the car's fault or the lifts fault for failing to hold the car? What about the lift manufacturer? This whole thing is a slippery slope regarding liability and I want to see where this goes.
The dealership was obviously NEGLIGENT in allowing an unqualified person operate the car. I didn't think negligence could be waived by any agreement or contract.
I worked there from 2015 to 2018 as a lube tech. I worked with Jeff, he really was a great guy. I only found out about his death from the news. I will say this, it was not a good place to work, as I’m sure many places are. I’m not shocked they had such an individual working in the shop was not qualified to be there whatsoever. I could write a book on the shit that happed just in the short time I worked there. If this accident involves the individuals I directly worked with I will not be shocked, and I’ll be ever more pissed than I already am. They were racist, incompetent, lazy, no standards were upheld. Management fired me when I blew the whistle. That dealership is at fault 100% in my opinion. When I worked there a kid lost his license and he was fired. He was employed in the body shop though, obviously that was managed better at the time. I’m still working on messaging the people I worked with to find out what I can.
Nothing better than a disgruntled employee. Why would you stay 3 years at a job with your words racist incompetent lazy no standards upheld dealership. Get a new job within 8 hours if it was that bad Genius Judge Judy will teach u alot
25 years ago I had a summer job at an oil change business. One Saturday the topic of driver's licenses came up and who actually had one (like one that wasn't suspended / revoked). Out of seven employees there that day, I was the only one who had a legit license. Very interesting crowd. They definitely fed my motivation to stay in school.
@@splice247 Guess I forgot to mention that they all drove to work on those public roads each day. They would also take your Porsche / Corvette for a 'smokey tire burnout' down the back of the building after doing the oil change. But it was private property I suppose.
This is 100% why they're trying to sue the owner. The company doesn't want to admit the liability for having someone not trained to perform a job function having to do that job function. Because that opens them up to an infinite number of lawsuits.
The employer somehow being indemnified of responsibility in this incident when they did not properly train or certify the young mechanic, giving him tasks he was not qualified to do is extremely bizarre to me.
@@mkuhnactual every article about the story says it. RUclips deletes my comment when I link it. Just search jeep dealership death and you'll find it. The jalopnik article shows up first for me and it mentions it
@@MikeKing001 I did thanks. He also left out that the dealership is appealing the indemnity and somehow worker's comp has a lein against the judgement so regardless of how the appeal shakes out, if a judgement is awarded worker's comp gets reimbursed.
Thank you for posting this. For me it cements the fact that our legal system is a sham as well as a scam. Five years ago I was injured when a brain surgeon cut a nerve and I list the function of my dominant arm. It was a known risk and I had no recourse -- in spit of losing a thirty-year-long career. Five years later, I'm $58,000 in debt because my new career just didn't work. I went to the doctor for a checkup but left with an incredibly painful injury that ultimately caused the loss of my job. This is a well documented injury yet, again, I have NO recourse. Attorneys tell me that I have a really good case yet cannot get representation. I've been searching for months. I'm 61, injured and cannot work due to an injury that was caused by another. That person is out earning a living and enjoying her life. Meanwhile, my life has been relegated to sitting on the couch watching Lehto's Law. Our country's legal system is a sham. Americans can get all the justice that they can afford.
That's terrible! I am so sorry that happened to you. 😢 I wish you the best, and I hope you are able to find someone to get justice for you. Just because it was a known risk doesn't mean the surgeon is blameless for making a mistake.
This is a blatant Workplace Health and Safety violation. The Employer (the dealership) is fully responsible for the unsafe actions of the Employees (the worker driving the car). The lawyer going after the owner in this case clearly needs to read up on Workplace Health and Safety as well as Occupational Health and Safety laws.
@@TheBooban you are required by law to know and follow Among these, at least wherever i've looked, you need to ensure that employees are qualified/able to operate any machinery you put them on Aside from that, i've also yet to see an insurance company that covers damage from unqualified operators of equipment or machinery. Edit: just wanna say ianal, i've run jobshops and am a manufacturing startup consultant, that's where i got this from.
@@TheBooban The employer hired someone without a driver’s license and didn’t know how to drive a stick shift to move vehicles around inside their facility and service them. The dealership and the inexperienced employee are both at fault. Edit: Car people call a manual transmission a millennial anti-theft device for good reason.
@@TheBooban Training, and, in particular, safety training, is part of the employer's responsibility. Employer will have to provide the records of the training he gave the employees
There is no phrase that makes my blood boil quicker than “no fault insurance” the whole concept that you can be held liable when you did absolutely nothing wrong drives me nuts.
It doesn't matter if it's no fault or not in a lot of ways when you really think about it I was hit in 2019 by a guy who was driving suspended and had been caught five previous times within the last 2 years doing so he literally barreled right into me without looking I'm out 6,500 damage because I only had liability coverage and his insurance wouldn't pay because he was driving suspended
The Pitman shaft sheared on my Dodge Day Van at low speed causing me to hit a parked car. Who was at fault? Me as the driver and owner? My mechanic? The guy who fitted the part? The factory that made the component? The designer? The steel mill?
Almost happened to me back in 1971, I was 16 years old working servicing cars in a small garage, I had the hood up and my hands were down near the engine, another 16 year old trainee got in the car for some unknown reason and after a few seconds the engine unexpectedly started and revved right up, I jumped back slightly injured by the engine driven fan which struck my hand then the car revving madly started to move and I instinctively threw myself to the side as the car with wheels spinning violently accelerated forwards into a wall about 2 meters behind me and smashed the front of the car in. I was only slightly hurt fortunately and the 16 year old trainee who didn't have a licence to drive could not explain why he did what he did, it was a remarkable example of how utterly stupid some young men can be and I was lucky to have survived
As a former mechanic who spent of his time in a shop as a lube tech I can’t begin to tell you how negligent the dealership was for this to happen I’m glad I don’t live in a no fault state
Won't just apply to a dealership, any mechanic will have the same legal loophole, in fact probably any business where an employee or member of the public is injured by equipment being repaired on behalf of the owner could fall into this mess.
The car owner never authorized the non-driver to start up the car, the supervisor did. - Does this mean that the car owner must now sue the dealer for his losses if any in this lawsuit? - How can these absurd laws be reminded?
The Jeep owner already sued the dealership for indemnity going forward and won. But the dealership is planning on appealing the judge's decision (not sure on what grounds). The actual real reason we are here is because of a framework of laws that exist in every state that says in case of an accident at work, employees can't sue co-workers or their employers for negligence. These laws exist to prevent the massive amount of fraud that would occur between co-workers looking for a massive pay day to injure each other. If you know what I am saying. Cases like this are eye openers that will hopefully bring change to some laws. The dealership was absolutely grossly negligent here and absolutely should be responsible for this tragedy. There needs to be oversight of accidents of this magnitude, and rulings handed down that allow exemptions to the law in place to prevent fraud in cases of extreme negligence of a company such as this. That would prevent these type of "I have to sue this guy, its the only recourse for my client" cases.
They know a 19 year old has no money... Lawyer said but the insurance company does. That 19 year old better been held criminally responsible. Today's young uns take no responsibility. I'll beat he was posting on TikTok his "crazy day at work yo yo " ..... Laws need to made or unmade to not allow this bulkshite again.
I agree. Bad things happen and we are increasingly looking to pin it on someone else. I would say the employer should/could be liable for hiring/allowing someone who has no driving ability to work in a position that cleary needs it as part of the job, but accidents happen and often the victim of the accident is partly to blame. I blame the 42 y.o. for 1. Standing in front of a starting vehicle. I know this sounds silly, but in a repair shop it is not I don't want my kids anywhere near the outside of my own car when it is running. I know of people who have run over their own kids in their driveway. Taking dangerous things for granted because they usually don't cause problems is the number one cause if workplace deaths. 2. Not having life insurance (I am assuming, hence the suit. If they are suing aboveqnd beyond, that' even more disgusting). Every single person who has a family/children should have life insurance, full stop. It is the cheapest insurance, and a no brainer, and it can cover you when there is no ability/cause to sue for wrongful death. The just because insurance is there "in case" someone gets sued, doesn't mean you should. This is a big part of the reason why insurance (car and medical) is getting ridiculously expensive.
Bad memories. In 1967 my dad was the guy hit in an almost identical situation. Wasn't killed but was splashed with gasoline just as a bare bulb work worklight broke. 2 months in hospital and his garage left a smoking ruin. Thank God for shop insurance and Workers Comp. 6 yr old me, seeing the smoke billowing from the garage as we walked home from school, then hearing "you dad got hurt, your mom needs you at home" left me with some pretty sleepless nights for years.
A perfect example of why every elected representative, regardless of party affiliation, in Michigan, along with the governor should be sued for gross incompetence in office.
I’ve worked in automotive for 30 years at a variety of shops and dealerships. The number 1 rule when hiring is if you’re going to be operating vehicles you have to have a valid drivers license and have to meet guidelines to be covered by the company insurance. I’ve had some apprentices without drivers license due to age and I would show them how to do stuff and they would ride with me on test drives, but anything to do with operating a vehicle (even starting it) had to be done by someone with a license.
My dad is a mechanic and has been for 40+ years and he said something similar. Any life or death situation he has someone he trusts and knows what they are doing watching his back.
Absolutely ridiculous. To operate a Dealership you must need Garage Insurance Policy. That covers plenty of situations including Care, Custody and Control. Customer should bring Dealership into the legal case because of Absolute NEGLIGENCE.
The law is bad law but the owner himself isn't really the target of the suit. It's the insurance company. The owners car insurance company will likely sue the garage. The family of the victim can sue the 19 yo worker.
This accident was caused by employee incompetence and should be covered by workers compensation. No License and does not know how to drive a manual - does not sound as he was competent to be working on a manual car. Should not have been employed as a mechanic. At the age of 19, was he a fully qualified mechanic or working as an apprentice? This is why having full car insurance is so important.
The ONLY way the vehicle owner could, in my mind, be at all culpable is if the vehicle was statutorily unsafe when it was dropped off. This case seems like a damned fishing expedition, and the plaintiff's lawyer is looking for everyone the law will allow them to sue who might have money. - Michigan law is morally and rationally wrong on this matter.
Considering it was at a mechanic shop I don't even know how a car falling apart at the seams would make the owner liable considering this is a place where the car may be fixed. Unless the car exploded or otherwise did something very abnormal because of a modification the owner had made, but even then workplace safety standards should prevent this kind of accident, things like "don't stand infront of a car the new guy is moving". The lawyer bringing this case is just after someone to sue and is so used to wining ambulance chasing like this he forgot the jury isn't ruling "big bad company vs poor dead guy" this time but "uninvolved party vs dead guy" so it shouldn't take a particularly good wordsmith to make clear this suit is bogus.
I was a mechanic at a dealership in the mid 90s. I saw stuff that convinced me to this day to not carry my vehicles to dealerships for anything. I do all the regular maintenance on my family's cars and have a trusted independent mechanic for anything bigger.
I took my car to one once. I got charged for a new drain plug, I got charged for a new dip stick. I asked why and they said they cross threaded the drain plug and had to tap it and install a bigger one and that was my cost, and they said the dip stick was to stained to read. I've never been back to a stealership since
How would you handle a recall notice on any of your vehicles? I think recall work has to be completed by an authorized dealership. Not sure if that's true. Anyway, what a crazy story. I can't imagine taking my car into a dealership for something like an airbag recall and getting sued because the defective airbag explodes and injures the mechanic. That law is stupid
@@stormisuedonym4599 No i didnt get the bank to do a charge back, I sure as hell asked, sadly I had to pay the theives before they'd give me my keys. But dealerships are scum of the earth, low rent uneducated, clueless mechanics who likely don't know what a lifter's function is, or that cars brake systems operate on hydrolics.
Well, I’m sorry to hear that, but the customer had nothing to do with it. The attorney and family should be sanctioned by the court and the case thrown out with prejudice.
@@Nobddy No, the point of the lawsuit is to get something for the family that just lost half, if not all, of it's income. Not to mention the emotional damages. The lawyer is doing right for the family. Michigan law is the reason the vehicle owner is getting potentially screwed over.
@@RebelTvShka Then the mechanic shop/dealership should be held liable, not the customer who turned over their vehicle to "trained professionals" in good faith.
Myself if I was the owner, I would start by investigation into suit against the dealership for putting an untrained, i.e. not knowing how to operate a manual transmission working as a mechanic, unlicensed individual into my vehicle. Sounds kind of negligent to me. Probably check to see if the individual is legally allowed to be in the country. Because something about this not going after the person behind the wheel don't feel right to me. Then there is damages to my vehicle, while in the possession of the dealership. They'd better not be sending me a bill.
I doubt very seriously if that 19 year old was working as a mechanic. That just doesn’t happen at big three dealerships. He may have been an apprentice, or barely a lube tech.
@@ralfie8801 I was a mechanic at an Volkswagen dealership when I was 19, but I was also driving a '58 transporter truck and a '59 transporter camper van and a '61 canvas sunroof Beatle, The old white cover idiots guide to Volkswagens was the Bible.
How much money are they getting out of a 19 year old? In 10 years they would be lucky to get 100 grand as for the jeep owner and his insurance its a different story $$$$
@@mudduck754 If you’re like me - old, tired of pulling heavy iron as a railroad machinist, and ready to retire, I just feel the need to ask in which part of the last century were you performing mechanic duties in?
@@ralfie8801 I was 19 in 1978, I'm just a youngster, I'm only retired due to the heart attack and strokes, but I can still twist a wrench with the best of them, need a little longer cheater bar on some things these days and for some unknown reason I'm working more retired what they called disabled, on people's vehicles than I was when I had the shop open. But now I'm taking barter, chickens and goats plus the optional cash donations, The Ex got a hold of me last week after not hearing from her for a year, because she needs a car fixed I'm pretty sure we can work something out in trade. if I can pencil her in, I still have a brake job on a 3/4 ton Chevy pickup truck to do plus the alternator on a 2001 Nissan Sentra and the head gaskets on a Chevy 350 for this week.
Saw the title and remembered a time a customer brought his car in to have a car stereo installed at a shop I worked at. I drove it into the shop only to find it had no brakes. Took some quick thinking but I managed to get it stopped. I stormed into the waiting room and ripped that kid a new one. Could have killed someone, could have killed me. Car shouldn’t have even been on the road in that state. Still makes me angry thinking about it. As for this case, frivolous lawsuit. It’s going to get tossed out.
my buddy bought a brand new ford f150 with his army sign on bonus that weekend we went to the flea market to get a JBL sound system installed. After the install was complete we left made it to the interstate and the electronics started flickering and then the truck died. My buddy and I walked back to the flea market to discuss what they did to his truck. When confronted the owner pointed to a sign in the back that said essential they were not responsible if they messed up you car, obviously this wasn't what my friend wanted to hear. Cops and security were called as the man hid in his office. While LE was sympathetic especially after seeing the days old title they basically told him because the notification on the back wall that it was a civil matter and out of there hands. We ended up towing the truck back to the dealer, he lost the 10k down payment but they didnt hit his credit with a default.
These crazy-A$$ laws are so disgusting. It literally makes me sick to go after an innocent person, who had nothing to do with the incident. And how the dealership or Employee, who killed the man, arent currently being pursued. Utterly insane!!
Toward the end Steve said that they can sue the employee. I think the reason they aren't, is because the employee is a 19 year old kid who doesn't have any worthwhile assets or an insurance policy which could cover it. The laws making it impossible to sue the dealership, which in theory has insurance and assets which would pay for the required compensation, are the real problem. This appears to give the lawyer no choice but to go after the vehicle owner who has insurance on the vehicle, which is in theory what they're hoping to get paid from. This whole situation is tragic, absurd, and sadly it was preventable as well. My heart goes out to the family of the man who was killed, especially for that baby who will never know their dad. That's so sad.
@@candle86 And then you go to prison... Good move! Also, if you're going to have any accidents, its best not to give advanced notice of possible accidents, that's pre-meditated vehicular homicide.
@@jakegarrett8109 I wouldn't allow a lawyer to bully me, if he wants to bully he can get hit in the face or worse. Steve is one of the few lawyers I'd consider a decent person, most I've met and I've met plenty when I drove uber are scum. I have no qualms about hitting a lawyer, what are they gonna do sue me? Good luck I'm judgement proof.
@@candle86 Seems like a dumb thing to do. Typically violence doesn't prove your point or solve problems, if its necessary the last thing you'd tell your enemies is your plans.
This is absurd! Absolutely ridiculous! The vehicle was in the care of the dealership, not the vehicle owner. Any reputable shop should have first confirmed their mechanic has a license to operate a motor vehicle, as they need to take the vehicle on the road for test drives. Furthermore, with manual transmissions still being a thing, the mechanic should know how to operate them. As a mechanic myself, I wouldn't hire anyone without a license or the know how to drive a manual. Anyway, back to the topic, the owner should have zero responsibility for any of this, and should be suing the dealership for negligence and for the damages to property. This finger pointing needs to end. The dealership and the offending mechanic are in the wrong, nobody else.
Would he be able to go into court, and say that yes that might be the law, but the law is wrong..... because this is insane. As a juror, i would never be able to find him at fault regardless of the law
I understand why you would say that but in that case you should definitely not be allowed on a jury. Take your statement to its logical conclusion. Laws become meaningless.
I found an article that says in Michigan you can’t sue an employer for recklessness causing death or injury. Apparently in Michigan worker’s compensation law you have to prove that there was an intentional effort to harm the worker. This could be the result of the Michigan legislature going too far to create a “business friendly environment. I don’t live in Michigan
Interesting you mention workers compensation law - so Michigan has a workers compensation program? If do it makes sense the employee cannot sue - similarly in Ontario - you may have the choice to sue the at fault person (in certain circumstances) or get workers compensation but not both. I drive for a living - was in an "at work" accident and had to choose whether to sue the driver's insurance or apply for workers compensation.
The purpose of worker's compensation is to compensate an injured employee no matter who is a fault. Before worker's compensation existed a worker might have to file a lawsuit and the employer would argue that the worker was at fault and the worker might not be compensated. It is a trade off, the worker gets his hospital bills paid and is payed for timed missed no matter who is at fault, but he/she gives up the right to file a lawsuit.
@@jamesodell3064 Uh, like thanks for stating the obvious. Apparently most states still allow lawsuits if the error by the employer rises to the level of recklessness. Supposedly Michigan has an even higher standard
@@LightStorm. I mean you could argue gross negligence... aka the dealer was grossly neglect by hiring, placing & allowing a unlicensed & untrained individual start or move the vehicle. also the dealer's negligence allowing a unlicensed & untrained individual behind the wheel resulted in damage to a customers vehicle.
Geeze! I worked tires and brakes for SEARS automotive and even the stockroom workers had to have a valid driver's license. How an auto dealership could hire an employee without a valid driver's license is insane - after all, even the workers who just wash the cars on the lot MIGHT have to move a car sometime during their employment.
@@KameraShy Bingo! A license is not required to drive on private property, still a good idea for a business that regularly does work on a car to require all employees have a valid license though.
Apparently all the stories get suggested by viewers. I don’t think he spends much time researching, I am sure it takes more effort browsing through his inbox and choosing what’s worth covering. Ten minutes videos don’t take long to record especially if one is well organized as Steve seems to be. There’s hobbies that take up more time.
Reminds me when I read the article of the guy being held liable for the damages and injury of the person who car jacked / robbed him following a deadly crash after running from police. The owner / victim was successfully sued by the robber / car jacker for injuries sustained when car jacker ran a read light while being chased by police, and killed the family in the other car. SICK
@@darkmantlestudios what makes it worse, in florida if you draw your gun you are REQUIRED to attempt to use it to kill, even if just the presence has already defused the situation, such as if the theoretical attacker backs down, shooting a warning shot or not firing a shot at all could result in jail time, but killing the attacker would be deemed self defense, its so backwards that you can be punished for deciding not to harm someone because the ceased to be a threat, the laws really need to be rewritten badly so that you can't be sued for the actions of a criminal and can't be punished for choosing a less violent solution to a dangerous situation
No state requires you to use your firearm once the suspect no longer poses a threat! As for warning shots, this ain’t TV if deadly force is authorized and you are justified YOU USE DEADLY FORCE PERIOD!
@@bigtuna9529 youre wrong this is a combination of things leading to this. First bringing out your weapon and pointing it at someone I a felony it is aggravated assault. 2 if you have time to do a warning shot it is often argued the threat wasn't immediate same with brandishing a weapon. 3 it might end up being your word against his and some state side with the criminal, in California for instance you are held liable for any injuries a burglar sustains while breaking into your property. A burglar broke into a skylight and fell on the kitchen counter on top of a knife and sued the family successfully.
Moral of this story is get a written, signed and dated waiver from your car dealer that resolves you of responsibility while your vehicle is on the dealership property and an employee is driving it in & around the shop.
The guy driving was doing his job, if he killed someone doing his job the employer is at fault for lack of safety and/or training. IMO the dealership should be 100% at fault. Also, what are you gonna get suing a 19 year old oil change tech? Seems crazy they cant go after the dealership.
Glad you covered this. I sent an email and tweet late about this before I saw this. RUclips is not notifying me of any of your new videos. I will search them out under your channel from now on.
I always thought the signature the auto shops took was almost a change of possession for the period of work and the payment was the release. Wow. This is beyond absurd
It is an authorization to do the work on your vehicle. I just looked at one in my glove box and it does not state release of liability if the car is damaged at a stealership.
Damn, I didn't realize No-Fault car accident & insurance laws would make a car owner the first respondent in a case where a business/car dealer servicing the car got into an accident while performing said service. it's pretty awful Michigan's laws are written that way, I wonder if it's the same for all no-fault states. I feel so sad for the the victim's family, so tragic.
That's not how no-fault normally works. Usually no-fault is aka "personal injury protection" because it covers medical expenses and lost wages of the driver and passengers, regardless of fault, and liability coverage is a separate issue. I have PIP no-fault through my car insurance, so if I'm a pedestrian and get hit by a bus my own insurance covers my medical expenses and lost wages, up to my coverage limits, and the bus' liability insurance will pay for bills beyond my limits, and for pain and suffering. OTOH, if I hit a bus full of people my no-fault (again) pays my bills, but does absolutely nothing for the people on the bus. The driver and passengers look to the bus' no-fault, and can go after my liability insurance for excess bills and pain and suffering. Either way, the owner's insurance is responsible regardless of who's driving.
@@suedenim9208 but theres also the element of permission to use vehicle- obviously when bring car for service you give permission to drive it for the purpose of repair - do you give permission for a dealer employee to race it on the street? or here to let an unlicensed driver operate it?
This is insane!!!!! As far as I know, possession is 9/10 of the law, and if you hand your keys over to a legitimate shop, it is now their responsibility. I hope this guy sues the crap out of the dealership and everyone else for the harassment and stress associated with someone basically driving his car without permission (stealing?!) and killing someone. As for the dealership, they should be ashamed of themselves for hiring people incapable of doing a job properly. It is literally the fault of the hiring manager that this person was even able to get in a vehicle they could not drive properly. I'd also like to know how the kid who caused the accident feels about all this. He's probably devastated. It's actually not his fault, because someone obviously told him to get in the car and move it when they probably knew he couldn't drive a stick. On a side note, I've noticed lately that there are reports of many valet parking situations where they cannot park stick shift cars because no one on staff knows how to drive them! They never should have gotten rid of driver's ed in high school.
A young man I know got a valet job when he was about 19-20 years old, having grown up in a household that never owned a car. He may have already known how to work a motorcycle with a manual transmission, but I think he basically learned to drive a car and learned to operate a manual transmission car WHILE driving customer cars at his valet job. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the person who asked the young man to move the jeep at the jeep dealership, didn't realize the young guy didn't know how to drive. But they SHOULD ensure employees either stay out of the driver's seat, or actually know how to operate the car in question.
Just sad and ridiculous, the company's insurance should be on the hook for letting a tech without a license and no manual driving experience drive a car. The company is 100% responsible for this its sick, they push the blame on the customer.
Responsibility lies directly on the dealership. The lawyer for the plaintiff needs to be replaced immediately. The family of the man killed needs justice.
All very good points and considerations. The main takeaway would be to avoid it if at all possible, and when you must stand or walk in front or back of running vehicles, do it with caution and watchfulness. As a sidenote though, NEVER stand in front of or around vehicles disabled or crashed on roadways or freeways before emergency vehicles arrive. Many additional tragic fatalities have occurred that way.
If I was the victims wife, I would be upset with my lawyer if the 19 year old driver won the lottery and the lawyer hadn't bothered to get a judgement against him.
"Why are you sueing the car owner?" ...... "Because I HAVE too." That's BS. You don't HAVE to sue someone. That's a choice. You can choose to just not take the case because there is no one worthy of sueing, and I don't mean financially worthy, I mean the only person you can technically sue is the one person who everyone would agree doesn't deserve to be sued so you don't sue!
So, 2 lives are over (guy who died and the car owner). In a best case, the owner wins his suit against the dealer and still owes almost $5 million (30% contingency on 15 million) for the percentage attorney fees. Normal non attorneys generally do not earn $5 million in a lifetime. He will be in unaffordable debt, and homeless, for the rest of his life. That lawyer can feel good that he destroyed another life.
The purpose of both owner liability and no-fault (which are separate issues) is to ensure that injured people are protected. I can't imagine any reason a business isn't liable for damages caused by an employee.
He wasn't on a public road driving, and doesn't seem to have been doing anything obviously reckless, so I don't think there is a basis for criminal charges. Maybe someone in the business could get some charge involving negligence. The business will be in trouble for safety violations.
Years ago I received a letter from an attorney in Kentucky about an accident and we (husband and I) are being sued for a person's medical bills. I had absolutely no idea what the attorney was talking about. I called the attorney and he didn't want to talk to me, but I told him we weren't involved in any accident in Kentucky and we didn't know the other person that was also being sued. It took a bit but we found out that the car involved did once be.ong to us, but we sold it to a junk yard. I remembered the date it was sold and the junk yard owner had made a copy of the title. We faxed it to the attorney who was suing us because that was the only person knew to send it to. A few weeks later we got a letter from the judge absolving us from any libility relating to the lawsuit.
The way that Lawyer answered those questions and went about this makes me think there is a chance they hate the way the law is setup so are pushing it beyond its logical limit to present a case were the court finds and exception were they can add the driver and potentially the person who hired him and the dealership.
This is why I hate how vague our laws are. Every single possible scenario should be considered when making a law. Also if government officials ever break laws that they themselves passed then any laws that this same person is involved with passing and voting for should be invalid.
@@michaelsommers2356 that doesn't make sense. That was reckless negligence, being co-workers should allow an exception. So if the victim was a visitor they could have sued. But luckily to the dealer they're just a disposable employee. Otherwise I though employees sue their employers even for minor injuries.
@@tonymouannes It will vary by state, but the laws are broadly similar. Workers' comp is a compromise: the employee gets some compensation, without having to litigate who was at fault. With WC, you get compensated even if the accident were entirely your fault. Who, other than you, says there was recklessness involved? The employee may have lied to the employer about having a license and knowing how to use a manual transmission.
So if an employee at the dealership takes the car for a "test" drive and also happens to run over a couple of his in-laws that he hates, then the owner of the car can be sued. Wow what a great get out of jail free card!
Wouldn't work unless the inlaws also worked for the dealership... Issue is workman's comp law bars suing the dealership as both the deceased and the responsible 19y/o were employees... Victims family can only file against workman's comp and the vehicle owner (who can and has sued the dealership resulting in a judge ordering the dealer to indemnify the vehicle owner)
I left my LAND ROVER DISCOVERY at a shop to get the wheels balanced before I went to work, the technician got in lost control hit another vehicle then rammed it through the drive in door. Destroyed my rover, shop owner wouldn't pay to fix either vehicle, the other car owner put a claim on their insurance which went against me even though I WAS NEVER THERE! Now I have a vehicle that nobody will pay to fix and a 100% at FAULT COLLISION on my RECORD.
That is completely unbelieveable. That would be like if I leave my weedwhacker with a mechanic to fix it, and in the process of working on it he takes it outside to test and ends up weedwacking the face of some random passing toddler in a stroller, and they come after ME for it.
It sounds like they wanted to put in place a 'Sue Happy' State....the Family of the Deceased Sues the Car Owner, the Car owner then turns around and sues the Person behind the Wheel, the person behind the wheel then turns around and sues the Company that allowed him to Drive Cars without a License....All the while the only ones making money are LAWYERS!! Can you say Cluster&*ck!!
4 years ago. I was in an accident involving a large municipal dump truck that I was helping someone repair it. The truck rolled and crushed me under it. It left me with some pretty severe injuries. But here in Pennsylvania, the insurance of the vehicle that I used to drive to the scene of the accident was used to pay about 65% of my medical bills and subsequent recovery and therapy. The other 35% was my personal medical insurance. The insurance of the truck was not even involved.
When Michigan's no fault insurance was first introduced, they painted it as a wonderful solution to a problem I never fully believed or understood. Fresh out of driver's Ed, no fault was announced to our class of soon to be new drivers. I think I was the only one to raise my hand to question it. Several "shushes" later my classmates just wanted to get it over with and receive their learners. As an aside; I deliver to auto dealerships on a daily basis. One such dealer was extremely packed with cars with a younger staff shuttling cars every which way. I never cave it a second thought. But I will now. Thanks.
The below is from a different article. “However, a lawyer for the Hawkins family noted that the Jeep owner, who has not been publicly named, will be defended and indemnified by the dealership. Rochester Hills Chrysler's insurance will ultimately have to foot the monetary damages and legal fees.”
Do you really want to be represented by an attorney, who is trying to protect the dealership? The dealer will throw the car owner under the bus, to protect themselves.
@@robertheinkel6225 "Do you really want to be represented by an attorney, who is trying to protect the dealership?", given by the sound of it there is an agreement to idemnify, defending the car owner is defending the dealership in such a case and an idemnification agreement binds the two concepts together. If the dealership's defense counsel loses the case for the car driver, the dealership would be on the hook for what the judgement is under the indemnification.
I love the statement "I have to do this I have no choice." You're making a deliberate choice to sue a person who you acknowledge is not actually at fault. It's not punitive. It's not teach the guy who did it lesson. It's a naked money grab. "I'm an American and something bad happens so I'm entitled to money. And this is where I can get it".
Авто/Мото
This is beyond ridiculous. No way should the owner of the vehicle be on the hook. I understand that if you loan your car to someone you're liable, but he didn't loan his car to the dealer. They were employed to work on his car and they put an unlicensed driver behind the wheel.
Absolutely frightening.
The same doesn't hold true for gun manufacturers, unfortunately.
EDIT: So many people don't understand my comment lol
@@nukepuke932If you can't tell the difference between loaning a gun, something designed Only to Kill, with a car you need to go back to logic 101.
@@sjuas690 Actually, they likely did have the owner's consent. Read the fine print when you drop off your car.
@@sjuas690 That’s not correct, legally they gave the mechanic consent to use the vehicle. If you give someone consent to use your vehicle, they can then give ANYONE consent to use your car and you can be completely liable for an unknown person’s actions with your vehicle…
This is a miscarriage of justice. The owner should in no way be held liable for something they had no involvement. In addition he should be compensated not only for the damage to his car but also the harassment from frivolous legal claims.
I'd definitely be filing a large countersuit if I was the owner.
And for the criminal use of his car
@@ctom4932 so I haven’t watched the video yet so had the owner of the vehicle been arrested?
@@LightStorm. for what?
@@SonsOfLorgar I assumed it was guy driving it from the lot to the the lift
This is ridiculous. As a lifelong auto shop owner (nearly 45 years) As soon as the customer signed the repair order, and handed the keys over to the shop, he gave them " Care, custody and control" of that vehicle, and he in no way has liability. The shop is on the hook for this. Workman's comp has the first liability, and then the deceased mans family sues the shop for damages. And they have a large insurance policy to start covering this.
The car owner should be able to COUNTERSUE for damages (the stress they caused him) even AFTER this case it thrown out (it will be).
what does say about the dealership may be people need to know the dealership name and put this co out of Biz for ever !!
@@Zurround I wonder if in this case the car owner HAS to turn around and sue the dealership for damages due to the way the laws are set up.
@@johnversluis3084 they need to be named
@@ClockworkWyrm he should sue for damage from hitting the guy
this is just absurd, i can not for the life of me imagine how anyone in their right mind could think its right to sue the owner in this case.
It’s the insurance company that is being sued. It was the insured car that killed the mechanic and not the owner.
@@CytoplasmicGoo perhaps you are right about who they are suing, perhaps not, but it was not the car that killed, accidental or not, it was the person inside the car who's responsible, and by extension, the people who allowed said person into the car.
@@theldraspneumonoultramicro405 yeah, that's true. But, like the youtube guy said, the lawyer had to sue. They're just looking for all the ways the family can get paid and of course themselves as well.
The family of the man killed needs the money
@@FriendlyNeighborhoodNitpicker Try this one.. hippoponstrosesquippedaliophobia
Sounds like a workplace accident and should be handled as such.
Sounds like the dealership is trying to keep their insurance and worker's comp premiums down by not taking liability of the accident.
@@82ndAbnVet Could be true, but they don't get to decide who the decedent's estate sues. In other words, the decedent's estate SHOULD sue the dealership, IMO. IANAL
I'd bet the Jeep owner is being sued in addition to the worker's comp payments the worker's family is receiving.
@@82ndAbnVet Liability is decided by laws and courts, not insurance companies and business owners.
@@AlanBurnham yup and didn't the deceased have life insurance? everyone with a family should have that .
This is absolutely absurd! There's no way any sane person could agree that the owner of the vehicle is responsible for this accident, when the vehicle owner did nothing but drop off the vehicle for service at a dealership. This law needs to be fixed pronto.
Well they also want to hold gun manufactures responsible for murders. So it’s not a stretch to see where all this leads to.
no doubt, theese type of people are insane.
@@678friedbed yep
No one ever said the law was intelligent.
@@mikepalmer2219 Gun manufacturers were granted immunity from a variety of liabilities, by Congress, in 2005. So they're safe to let their customers do anything they want.
As a former mechanic myself I can tell you there are such things as possession laws. Once the dealership takes control of the car it's in their hands until handed back to the customer. This is done for many reasons but mostly is so the dealership can hold the car in lean if the customer doesn't pay their bill. This sounds like a bad lawyer didn't research MI law enough. Also you don't sue the boss you sue the company. Two very different things there. I can see the boss not being on the hook for every action of his employees, but the business owner is responsible to have proper insurance. The law you cited is about bosses being sued not companies. So you can't sue the shop supervisor but you can sue the shop owner.
Sue everybody. The HR person, the supervisor, the department head, the owner, the Shop, the kid operating the car and as many insurance policies as possible. And ask for lawyer fees on top of settlements.
In tort cases you sue everyone with money {"deep pockets").
Spot on analysis, as this case is beyond ridiculous! I don't think the 19 year old, should have been working there anyway. No driver's license, no experience driving a car, which one would assume it is needed, as he works at a dealership. I think the 19 year old should also be charged with manslaughter, as he knowingly got in the Jeep, as he was aware that he had no knowledge of how to operate the vehicle, also knowingly that he could put fellow employees in harms way. Anyone else like this would be in a cell right now.
@@Christopher-li6gg I've been 19. 19 year olds are aware of little.
@@Christopher-li6gg you are insane. The teen should not be charged for this. There is no reasonable or rational reason to charge the kid. The argument you make is petty. If your argument was to succeed then new drivers would never be allowed on the road period. Never mind that you don't need a license to operate ANY vehicle on private property. Does not matter if it's a small scooter or a large excavator. At the end of the day, the kid can't be held responsible for the incident outside of a civil suite and even then he should not be held responsible for an ACCIDENT.
There is a difference between the intent to (in all likelihood) cycle the engine to move the new oil through it, and actively working to take the car for a joyride. The kid probably wasn't authorized to move the vehicles and was just asked to turn the jeep on. The kid not being instructed on how a manual worked in all likelihood accidentally had it in 1st and let go of the clutch crushing his mentor. This is the hallmark of a workplace accident where no single individual would or could be liable except for the person that forgot to tell the kid to keep it in neutral and the parking break on.
This makes you rethink ever dropping your car off at the dealership or a valet. You as the owner now have way more to worry about.
only potentially in Michigan.
Often there are DIFFERENT laws for doing something in a PROFESSIONAL capacity than doing something socially with friends or family.
For example, you need a LICENSE to be a massage therapist but you do NOT need a license to rub your wife's shoulders to help her relax after a long day.
You need a LICENSE to run a restaurant but you do NOT need one to invite friends over for dinner.
In places where it is legal (like parts of Nevada) there are legal procedures for being a prostitute but a regular relationship does not have them (just basics like having to be consensual and over 18)
Well maybe there needs to be a legal provision invented that differentiates between turning your car over to PROFESSIONALS (I would count a "valet" who parks the car or a mechanic shop doing work on it or a cop that commandeers the car for an emergency) that in THAT SITUATION the professional is the one responsible but keep the OTHER law for when you loan your car to your friend or an adult lets their teen drive the car. That kind of thing. The law needs to treat professional and non professional situations DIFFERENTLY like my 3 examples above.
@@Zurround Most people don’t realize that a majority of states have a lower age requirement then 18 for consensual sex. Typically 16 to 18. In my state it’s 17. I was first told by my cop friend as a teen. There’s one state that’s 14 or 15. That’s ridiculous.
@@rafaeltorre1643 True but I was making a point. Did it not make sense?
So the person who has the very least to do with this, is being sued. This says something about how out of touch our legal system and laws have become. I am old, and frankly quite happy I won't have to see this get too much worse. It is mind numbing.
You are reading way tpo much into this. Cars are dangerous, and have insurance. The insurance company is not surprised at all that a claim is being made. No one is suggesting that the owner is responsible. I would like to know if the insurance company will accept that the car killed someone or if they will fight the claim. I am not an atty but I suspect that since the car killed someone they will end up being forced to pay the claim.
@@kentbetts The dealership should have insurance. When they wrecked my car, guess who paid... the dealer's insurance. That state has some poor laws, or the lawyer is wrong.
@@kentbetts it's not the owners insurances responsibility. This is ridiculous.
@@kentbetts " I would like to know if the insurance company will accept that the car killed someone" let me stop you right there. The car didn't kill somebody, the driver did. The car did not move on it's own. This is the same shoddy logic people have been trying to apply to guns for years trying to blame the gun or the manufacturers of the guns for the actions of people.
Now this begs the question, if the car say, fell off the lift and killed a worker, would that be the car's fault or the lifts fault for failing to hold the car? What about the lift manufacturer? This whole thing is a slippery slope regarding liability and I want to see where this goes.
My point is that the car owner should not be part of this at all and any law that involves him in this has some basic problems.
The dealership was obviously NEGLIGENT in allowing an unqualified person operate the car. I didn't think negligence could be waived by any agreement or contract.
I thought companies had liability insurance just for cases like this. How are they going to get money from a random guy? Something doesnt make sense.
Negligence is exactly what gets waived with a typical waiver, but who ever heard of a repair shop requiring a waiver?
@@tubester4567 The "random guy" presumably has car insurance. I'd think the dealership has at least as much insurance, and possibly more.
Take it too a jury and the jury will find not guilty.
@@trvman1 Maybe, but who is going to cover the owners legal fees?
I worked there from 2015 to 2018 as a lube tech. I worked with Jeff, he really was a great guy. I only found out about his death from the news. I will say this, it was not a good place to work, as I’m sure many places are. I’m not shocked they had such an individual working in the shop was not qualified to be there whatsoever. I could write a book on the shit that happed just in the short time I worked there. If this accident involves the individuals I directly worked with I will not be shocked, and I’ll be ever more pissed than I already am. They were racist, incompetent, lazy, no standards were upheld. Management fired me when I blew the whistle. That dealership is at fault 100% in my opinion. When I worked there a kid lost his license and he was fired. He was employed in the body shop though, obviously that was managed better at the time. I’m still working on messaging the people I worked with to find out what I can.
Call up the law firm handling the case / Jeff's family.
Nothing better than a disgruntled employee. Why would you stay 3 years at a job with your words racist incompetent lazy no standards upheld dealership. Get a new job within 8 hours if it was that bad Genius Judge Judy will teach u alot
@@johnnydodge you wouldn’t have done a goddamn thing. Stfu
Yikes! Please keep us posted. What a sad situation for everyone.
25 years ago I had a summer job at an oil change business. One Saturday the topic of driver's licenses came up and who actually had one (like one that wasn't suspended / revoked). Out of seven employees there that day, I was the only one who had a legit license. Very interesting crowd. They definitely fed my motivation to stay in school.
Legally speaking, as long as they stay on private property they dont need a license. License is for public roads.
@@splice247 Guess I forgot to mention that they all drove to work on those public roads each day. They would also take your Porsche / Corvette for a 'smokey tire burnout' down the back of the building after doing the oil change. But it was private property I suppose.
This is 100% why they're trying to sue the owner. The company doesn't want to admit the liability for having someone not trained to perform a job function having to do that job function. Because that opens them up to an infinite number of lawsuits.
Then why did they hire them?
@@LightStorm. probably because they were cheap labor.
Probably why, doesnt of course mean that it ended up being a good reason.
@@LightStorm. that’s like asking why companies hire illegals.
I agree, I think the exact same thing.
AS IT SHOULD
The employer somehow being indemnified of responsibility in this incident when they did not properly train or certify the young mechanic, giving him tasks he was not qualified to do is extremely bizarre to me.
The car owner won an indemnity lawsuit so right now the dealership would be on the hook for any judgement against the owner.
Sounds like a state that cow tows to fat corps instead of the majority of its residents
@@MikeKing001 source please?
@@mkuhnactual every article about the story says it. RUclips deletes my comment when I link it. Just search jeep dealership death and you'll find it. The jalopnik article shows up first for me and it mentions it
@@MikeKing001 I did thanks. He also left out that the dealership is appealing the indemnity and somehow worker's comp has a lein against the judgement so regardless of how the appeal shakes out, if a judgement is awarded worker's comp gets reimbursed.
Thank you for posting this. For me it cements the fact that our legal system is a sham as well as a scam.
Five years ago I was injured when a brain surgeon cut a nerve and I list the function of my dominant arm. It was a known risk and I had no recourse -- in spit of losing a thirty-year-long career.
Five years later, I'm $58,000 in debt because my new career just didn't work. I went to the doctor for a checkup but left with an incredibly painful injury that ultimately caused the loss of my job. This is a well documented injury yet, again, I have NO recourse. Attorneys tell me that I have a really good case yet cannot get representation. I've been searching for months.
I'm 61, injured and cannot work due to an injury that was caused by another. That person is out earning a living and enjoying her life. Meanwhile, my life has been relegated to sitting on the couch watching Lehto's Law.
Our country's legal system is a sham. Americans can get all the justice that they can afford.
That's terrible! I am so sorry that happened to you. 😢 I wish you the best, and I hope you are able to find someone to get justice for you. Just because it was a known risk doesn't mean the surgeon is blameless for making a mistake.
The lawyer needs to charged for malpractice and for filling a lawsuit like this.
This is a blatant Workplace Health and Safety violation. The Employer (the dealership) is fully responsible for the unsafe actions of the Employees (the worker driving the car). The lawyer going after the owner in this case clearly needs to read up on Workplace Health and Safety as well as Occupational Health and Safety laws.
@@TheBooban you are required by law to know and follow
Among these, at least wherever i've looked, you need to ensure that employees are qualified/able to operate any machinery you put them on
Aside from that, i've also yet to see an insurance company that covers damage from unqualified operators of equipment or machinery.
Edit: just wanna say ianal, i've run jobshops and am a manufacturing startup consultant, that's where i got this from.
@@TheBooban the employer chose to have an unlicensed and untrained person move the car.
@@TheBooban
The employer hired someone without a driver’s license and didn’t know how to drive a stick shift to move vehicles around inside their facility and service them. The dealership and the inexperienced employee are both at fault.
Edit: Car people call a manual transmission a millennial anti-theft device for good reason.
@@TheBooban Training, and, in particular, safety training, is part of the employer's responsibility. Employer will have to provide the records of the training he gave the employees
@@TheBooban The Employer is responsible for ensuring the workplace and everyone within is safe. That's how workplace health and safety laws work.
There is no phrase that makes my blood boil quicker than “no fault insurance” the whole concept that you can be held liable when you did absolutely nothing wrong drives me nuts.
ant to top it off, it is 3x the cost of normal insurance.
Thats to pay for all the illegals driving around without insurance
It doesn't matter if it's no fault or not in a lot of ways when you really think about it I was hit in 2019 by a guy who was driving suspended and had been caught five previous times within the last 2 years doing so he literally barreled right into me without looking I'm out 6,500 damage because I only had liability coverage and his insurance wouldn't pay because he was driving suspended
@@wormer66 That is the risk you take not having full coverage.
The Pitman shaft sheared on my Dodge Day Van at low speed causing me to hit a parked car. Who was at fault? Me as the driver and owner? My mechanic? The guy who fitted the part? The factory that made the component? The designer? The steel mill?
Almost happened to me back in 1971, I was 16 years old working servicing cars in a small garage, I had the hood up and my hands were down near the engine, another 16 year old trainee got in the car for some unknown reason and after a few seconds the engine unexpectedly started and revved right up, I jumped back slightly injured by the engine driven fan which struck my hand then the car revving madly started to move and I instinctively threw myself to the side as the car with wheels spinning violently accelerated forwards into a wall about 2 meters behind me and smashed the front of the car in. I was only slightly hurt fortunately and the 16 year old trainee who didn't have a licence to drive could not explain why he did what he did, it was a remarkable example of how utterly stupid some young men can be and I was lucky to have survived
The lawyers who brought the suit should be sued, ruled against for their entire net worth and disbarred.
As a former mechanic who spent of his time in a shop as a lube tech I can’t begin to tell you how negligent the dealership was for this to happen I’m glad I don’t live in a no fault state
Punctuation is your friend.
@@johnp139 This is youtube and the guy is not writing an English essay. get over it.
@@hellshade2 punctuation is still your friend
@@jiaan100 Whatever, Mr. Punctuation Nazi....
@@hellshade2 Punctuation is still, in fact, your friend.
Wow, note to self: NEVER let a dealership work on my vehicle in Michigan
I was just thinking Michigan based mechanics would be loosing lots of business over this article. Especially from manual transmission owners.
Won't just apply to a dealership, any mechanic will have the same legal loophole, in fact probably any business where an employee or member of the public is injured by equipment being repaired on behalf of the owner could fall into this mess.
The car owner never authorized the non-driver to start up the car, the supervisor did.
- Does this mean that the car owner must now sue the dealer for his losses if any in this lawsuit?
- How can these absurd laws be reminded?
The Jeep owner already sued the dealership for indemnity going forward and won. But the dealership is planning on appealing the judge's decision (not sure on what grounds).
The actual real reason we are here is because of a framework of laws that exist in every state that says in case of an accident at work, employees can't sue co-workers or their employers for negligence. These laws exist to prevent the massive amount of fraud that would occur between co-workers looking for a massive pay day to injure each other. If you know what I am saying.
Cases like this are eye openers that will hopefully bring change to some laws. The dealership was absolutely grossly negligent here and absolutely should be responsible for this tragedy. There needs to be oversight of accidents of this magnitude, and rulings handed down that allow exemptions to the law in place to prevent fraud in cases of extreme negligence of a company such as this. That would prevent these type of "I have to sue this guy, its the only recourse for my client" cases.
this is ridiculous, this is the kind of crap that gives lawyers a bad name the dealer is clearly responsible for this
The owner of the car needs to sue the dealership
That's disgusting, whether it's legal or not. Whatever sympathy I had for the victims family just evaporated.
Yup, I dont give two shits if they had a kid now.
They know a 19 year old has no money... Lawyer said but the insurance company does.
That 19 year old better been held criminally responsible. Today's young uns take no responsibility. I'll beat he was posting on TikTok his "crazy day at work yo yo " .....
Laws need to made or unmade to not allow this bulkshite again.
@@rickstorm4198 I don't think it would be fair to hold the kid responsible either unless he was doing something criminally negligent.
Agreed, no sympathy
I agree. Bad things happen and we are increasingly looking to pin it on someone else. I would say the employer should/could be liable for hiring/allowing someone who has no driving ability to work in a position that cleary needs it as part of the job, but accidents happen and often the victim of the accident is partly to blame.
I blame the 42 y.o. for
1. Standing in front of a starting vehicle. I know this sounds silly, but in a repair shop it is not
I don't want my kids anywhere near the outside of my own car when it is running. I know of people who have run over their own kids in their driveway. Taking dangerous things for granted because they usually don't cause problems is the number one cause if workplace deaths.
2. Not having life insurance (I am assuming, hence the suit. If they are suing aboveqnd beyond, that' even more disgusting).
Every single person who has a family/children should have life insurance, full stop. It is the cheapest insurance, and a no brainer, and it can cover you when there is no ability/cause to sue for wrongful death.
The just because insurance is there "in case" someone gets sued, doesn't mean you should.
This is a big part of the reason why insurance (car and medical) is getting ridiculously expensive.
this dealership is ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE!!!!!!! Damn the insurance 'regulations'!!!
The owner of the vehicle had NOTHING to do with it. The 19 year old is an adult. He is 100% responsible.
The owner did not specifically give this unlicensed employee permission to drive his Jeep. The dealership gave the mechanic permission.
Many repair orders, when signed by the customer, give the shop permission to operate the vehicle.
@@Ebooger Yes, he undoubtedly gave the shop permission but in no way was he involved in who from the shop would drive his Jeep.
Bad memories. In 1967 my dad was the guy hit in an almost identical situation. Wasn't killed but was splashed with gasoline just as a bare bulb work worklight broke. 2 months in hospital and his garage left a smoking ruin. Thank God for shop insurance and Workers Comp. 6 yr old me, seeing the smoke billowing from the garage as we walked home from school, then hearing "you dad got hurt, your mom needs you at home" left me with some pretty sleepless nights for years.
Oh, gosh, sorry to hear that and thanks a lot for sharing. That must've been very difficult to 'grow up' so soon like that.
A perfect example of why every elected representative, regardless of party affiliation, in Michigan, along with the governor should be sued for gross incompetence in office.
All I can say is if I was on a jury hearing this case it would not turn out well for the plaintiff.
Sounds like this is a problem with Michigan law.
Same here in MA with our no- fault law
I’ve worked in automotive for 30 years at a variety of shops and dealerships. The number 1 rule when hiring is if you’re going to be operating vehicles you have to have a valid drivers license and have to meet guidelines to be covered by the company insurance. I’ve had some apprentices without drivers license due to age and I would show them how to do stuff and they would ride with me on test drives, but anything to do with operating a vehicle (even starting it) had to be done by someone with a license.
My dad is a mechanic and has been for 40+ years and he said something similar. Any life or death situation he has someone he trusts and knows what they are doing watching his back.
dont hire mechanics who cant drive stick in this instance
It's private property. You don't need a license to drive a vehicle on private property.
@@tigreactivo517 some states have different laws. Even if the property is private but open to the public may require a state license
@@tigreactivo517 You do if your corporate insurance company says "you do or we won't cover you"
This is what happens when you pass absurd laws to protect business from liability when they're grossly negligent.
Absolutely ridiculous. To operate a Dealership you must need Garage Insurance Policy. That covers plenty of situations including Care, Custody and Control. Customer should bring Dealership into the legal case because of Absolute NEGLIGENCE.
the judge needs to throw out the case and charge the suer with misuse of...whatever it's called
Plaintiff
material misrepresentations
The law is bad law but the owner himself isn't really the target of the suit.
It's the insurance company.
The owners car insurance company will likely sue the garage.
The family of the victim can sue the 19 yo worker.
@@wayneegli8379 There isn't any material misrepresentation here.
@@corssecurity The family of the victim is specifically NOT suing the 19yo worker.
A huge problem with the law being this way is it gives dealership no incentive to make sure employees are qualified or to supervise them adequately.
Any judge accepting a case like this needs to be removed from the bench...
This accident was caused by employee incompetence and should be covered by workers compensation. No License and does not know how to drive a manual - does not sound as he was competent to be working on a manual car. Should not have been employed as a mechanic. At the age of 19, was he a fully qualified mechanic or working as an apprentice? This is why having full car insurance is so important.
The ONLY way the vehicle owner could, in my mind, be at all culpable is if the vehicle was statutorily unsafe when it was dropped off.
This case seems like a damned fishing expedition, and the plaintiff's lawyer is looking for everyone the law will allow them to sue who might have money.
-
Michigan law is morally and rationally wrong on this matter.
They are likely banking on the fact that the owner's auto insurance will likely settle rather than to risk a trial.
Considering it was at a mechanic shop I don't even know how a car falling apart at the seams would make the owner liable considering this is a place where the car may be fixed.
Unless the car exploded or otherwise did something very abnormal because of a modification the owner had made, but even then workplace safety standards should prevent this kind of accident, things like "don't stand infront of a car the new guy is moving".
The lawyer bringing this case is just after someone to sue and is so used to wining ambulance chasing like this he forgot the jury isn't ruling "big bad company vs poor dead guy" this time but "uninvolved party vs dead guy" so it shouldn't take a particularly good wordsmith to make clear this suit is bogus.
Even if the car was unsafe it was taken to a mechanic
So how should that be the owners fault?
Well, it WAS a manual transmission - there’s a REASON those are jokingly called millennial anti-theft devices! 🤣
Even if the car is unsafe. That's the entire point it goes to a shop in the first place
I was a mechanic at a dealership in the mid 90s. I saw stuff that convinced me to this day to not carry my vehicles to dealerships for anything. I do all the regular maintenance on my family's cars and have a trusted independent mechanic for anything bigger.
I took my car to one once. I got charged for a new drain plug, I got charged for a new dip stick. I asked why and they said they cross threaded the drain plug and had to tap it and install a bigger one and that was my cost, and they said the dip stick was to stained to read. I've never been back to a stealership since
Maybe drive them instead of carrying them??
How would you handle a recall notice on any of your vehicles? I think recall work has to be completed by an authorized dealership. Not sure if that's true. Anyway, what a crazy story. I can't imagine taking my car into a dealership for something like an airbag recall and getting sued because the defective airbag explodes and injures the mechanic. That law is stupid
@@candle86 So they broke something, and demanded you pay for it?
Lie to me and tell me you got the charge struck from the bill.
@@stormisuedonym4599 No i didnt get the bank to do a charge back, I sure as hell asked, sadly I had to pay the theives before they'd give me my keys. But dealerships are scum of the earth, low rent uneducated, clueless mechanics who likely don't know what a lifter's function is, or that cars brake systems operate on hydrolics.
Years ago I had a lady fired from the DMV inspection center after she stalled my car 3 times because she had no idea how to drive a stick shift.
🤣🤣🤣 That's epic!
Regrettably, the real victim in this will be the family of the deceased because the company wont except responsibility.
Well, I’m sorry to hear that, but the customer had nothing to do with it. The attorney and family should be sanctioned by the court and the case thrown out with prejudice.
@Bohemoth1 ?
Whether the customer had anything to do with it isn't the point. It's either this or nothing.
@@RebelTvShka yeah it really is the point, actually
@@Nobddy No, the point of the lawsuit is to get something for the family that just lost half, if not all, of it's income. Not to mention the emotional damages.
The lawyer is doing right for the family. Michigan law is the reason the vehicle owner is getting potentially screwed over.
@@RebelTvShka Then the mechanic shop/dealership should be held liable, not the customer who turned over their vehicle to "trained professionals" in good faith.
Myself if I was the owner, I would start by investigation into suit against the dealership for putting an untrained, i.e. not knowing how to operate a manual transmission working as a mechanic, unlicensed individual into my vehicle. Sounds kind of negligent to me. Probably check to see if the individual is legally allowed to be in the country. Because something about this not going after the person behind the wheel don't feel right to me. Then there is damages to my vehicle, while in the possession of the dealership. They'd better not be sending me a bill.
I doubt very seriously if that 19 year old was working as a mechanic. That just doesn’t happen at big three dealerships. He may have been an apprentice, or barely a lube tech.
@@ralfie8801 I was a mechanic at an Volkswagen dealership when I was 19, but I was also driving a '58 transporter truck and a '59 transporter camper van and a '61 canvas sunroof Beatle, The old white cover idiots guide to Volkswagens was the Bible.
How much money are they getting out of a 19 year old? In 10 years they would be lucky to get 100 grand as for the jeep owner and his insurance its a different story $$$$
@@mudduck754
If you’re like me - old, tired of pulling heavy iron as a railroad machinist, and ready to retire, I just feel the need to ask in which part of the last century were you performing mechanic duties in?
@@ralfie8801 I was 19 in 1978, I'm just a youngster, I'm only retired due to the heart attack and strokes, but I can still twist a wrench with the best of them, need a little longer cheater bar on some things these days and for some unknown reason I'm working more retired what they called disabled, on people's vehicles than I was when I had the shop open.
But now I'm taking barter, chickens and goats plus the optional cash donations, The Ex got a hold of me last week after not hearing from her for a year, because she needs a car fixed I'm pretty sure we can work something out in trade. if I can pencil her in, I still have a brake job on a 3/4 ton Chevy pickup truck to do plus the alternator on a 2001 Nissan Sentra and the head gaskets on a Chevy 350 for this week.
Steve. I was getting ready to send this your way but came on here to double check to see if you've covered this yet. So glad you did!
Absolutely insane case. Thanks for the great info
Saw the title and remembered a time a customer brought his car in to have a car stereo installed at a shop I worked at. I drove it into the shop only to find it had no brakes. Took some quick thinking but I managed to get it stopped. I stormed into the waiting room and ripped that kid a new one. Could have killed someone, could have killed me. Car shouldn’t have even been on the road in that state. Still makes me angry thinking about it.
As for this case, frivolous lawsuit. It’s going to get tossed out.
my buddy bought a brand new ford f150 with his army sign on bonus that weekend we went to the flea market to get a JBL sound system installed. After the install was complete we left made it to the interstate and the electronics started flickering and then the truck died. My buddy and I walked back to the flea market to discuss what they did to his truck. When confronted the owner pointed to a sign in the back that said essential they were not responsible if they messed up you car, obviously this wasn't what my friend wanted to hear. Cops and security were called as the man hid in his office. While LE was sympathetic especially after seeing the days old title they basically told him because the notification on the back wall that it was a civil matter and out of there hands. We ended up towing the truck back to the dealer, he lost the 10k down payment but they didnt hit his credit with a default.
These crazy-A$$ laws are so disgusting. It literally makes me sick to go after an innocent person, who had nothing to do with the incident. And how the dealership or Employee, who killed the man, arent currently being pursued. Utterly insane!!
Toward the end Steve said that they can sue the employee. I think the reason they aren't, is because the employee is a 19 year old kid who doesn't have any worthwhile assets or an insurance policy which could cover it. The laws making it impossible to sue the dealership, which in theory has insurance and assets which would pay for the required compensation, are the real problem. This appears to give the lawyer no choice but to go after the vehicle owner who has insurance on the vehicle, which is in theory what they're hoping to get paid from.
This whole situation is tragic, absurd, and sadly it was preventable as well. My heart goes out to the family of the man who was killed, especially for that baby who will never know their dad. That's so sad.
@@Krankie_V Just tell the lawyer if he keeps it up you might decide to test how deadly the jeep is on him
@@candle86 And then you go to prison... Good move!
Also, if you're going to have any accidents, its best not to give advanced notice of possible accidents, that's pre-meditated vehicular homicide.
@@jakegarrett8109 I wouldn't allow a lawyer to bully me, if he wants to bully he can get hit in the face or worse. Steve is one of the few lawyers I'd consider a decent person, most I've met and I've met plenty when I drove uber are scum. I have no qualms about hitting a lawyer, what are they gonna do sue me? Good luck I'm judgement proof.
@@candle86 Seems like a dumb thing to do. Typically violence doesn't prove your point or solve problems, if its necessary the last thing you'd tell your enemies is your plans.
This is absurd! Absolutely ridiculous! The vehicle was in the care of the dealership, not the vehicle owner. Any reputable shop should have first confirmed their mechanic has a license to operate a motor vehicle, as they need to take the vehicle on the road for test drives. Furthermore, with manual transmissions still being a thing, the mechanic should know how to operate them. As a mechanic myself, I wouldn't hire anyone without a license or the know how to drive a manual. Anyway, back to the topic, the owner should have zero responsibility for any of this, and should be suing the dealership for negligence and for the damages to property. This finger pointing needs to end. The dealership and the offending mechanic are in the wrong, nobody else.
Would he be able to go into court, and say that yes that might be the law, but the law is wrong..... because this is insane.
As a juror, i would never be able to find him at fault regardless of the law
Jury nullification!
I understand why you would say that but in that case you should definitely not be allowed on a jury. Take your statement to its logical conclusion. Laws become meaningless.
I found an article that says in Michigan you can’t sue an employer for recklessness causing death or injury. Apparently in Michigan worker’s compensation law you have to prove that there was an intentional effort to harm the worker. This could be the result of the Michigan legislature going too far to create a “business friendly environment. I don’t live in Michigan
There was a intentional effort he wasn’t allowed to do what they did
Interesting you mention workers compensation law - so Michigan has a workers compensation program?
If do it makes sense the employee cannot sue - similarly in Ontario - you may have the choice to sue the at fault person (in certain circumstances) or get workers compensation but not both.
I drive for a living - was in an "at work" accident and had to choose whether to sue the driver's insurance or apply for workers compensation.
The purpose of worker's compensation is to compensate an injured employee no matter who is a fault. Before worker's compensation existed a worker might have to file a lawsuit and the employer would argue that the worker was at fault and the worker might not be compensated. It is a trade off, the worker gets his hospital bills paid and is payed for timed missed no matter who is at fault, but he/she gives up the right to file a lawsuit.
@@jamesodell3064 Uh, like thanks for stating the obvious. Apparently most states still allow lawsuits if the error by the employer rises to the level of recklessness. Supposedly Michigan has an even higher standard
@@LightStorm. I mean you could argue gross negligence... aka the dealer was grossly neglect by hiring, placing & allowing a unlicensed & untrained individual start or move the vehicle. also the dealer's negligence allowing a unlicensed & untrained individual behind the wheel resulted in damage to a customers vehicle.
Geeze! I worked tires and brakes for SEARS automotive and even the stockroom workers had to have a valid driver's license. How an auto dealership could hire an employee without a valid driver's license is insane - after all, even the workers who just wash the cars on the lot MIGHT have to move a car sometime during their employment.
@@KameraShy Bingo! A license is not required to drive on private property, still a good idea for a business that regularly does work on a car to require all employees have a valid license though.
@Jonathan Seagal former sears auto employee here too...
I believe they are called Illegals.
Maybe they hired an illegal ... those guys never have a license
@@ZeldagigafanMatthew and a business should do more than the bare legal minimum if they don't want to be liable fur worker injury
Certainly is a crazy one. Thanks for looking into this hopefully we will learn more.
In no way is the owner responsible for this. Any judge who would rule against him needs to be removed from the bench.
Idk how this man makes all these videos and runs a law firm at the same time, thanks Steve
By making money from folks like yourself watching these informative video's.😁
It helps that he gets money for it.
Apparently all the stories get suggested by viewers. I don’t think he spends much time researching, I am sure it takes more effort browsing through his inbox and choosing what’s worth covering. Ten minutes videos don’t take long to record especially if one is well organized as Steve seems to be. There’s hobbies that take up more time.
Excellent question.
It doesn't take much time to read your fan mail on camera, lmao
Reminds me when I read the article of the guy being held liable for the damages and injury of the person who car jacked / robbed him following a deadly crash after running from police. The owner / victim was successfully sued by the robber / car jacker for injuries sustained when car jacker ran a read light while being chased by police, and killed the family in the other car. SICK
Thats why if you have a gun you should use it effectively ...wink wink
@@nickmalone3143 it's disgusting that your laws encourage such violence and injustice
@@darkmantlestudios what makes it worse, in florida if you draw your gun you are REQUIRED to attempt to use it to kill, even if just the presence has already defused the situation, such as if the theoretical attacker backs down, shooting a warning shot or not firing a shot at all could result in jail time, but killing the attacker would be deemed self defense, its so backwards that you can be punished for deciding not to harm someone because the ceased to be a threat, the laws really need to be rewritten badly so that you can't be sued for the actions of a criminal and can't be punished for choosing a less violent solution to a dangerous situation
No state requires you to use your firearm once the suspect no longer poses a threat! As for warning shots, this ain’t TV if deadly force is authorized and you are justified YOU USE DEADLY FORCE PERIOD!
@@bigtuna9529 youre wrong this is a combination of things leading to this. First bringing out your weapon and pointing it at someone I a felony it is aggravated assault. 2 if you have time to do a warning shot it is often argued the threat wasn't immediate same with brandishing a weapon. 3 it might end up being your word against his and some state side with the criminal, in California for instance you are held liable for any injuries a burglar sustains while breaking into your property. A burglar broke into a skylight and fell on the kitchen counter on top of a knife and sued the family successfully.
It's stories like this that make you realize that our court system often ignores common sense.
Moral of this story is get a written, signed and dated waiver from your car dealer that resolves you of responsibility while your vehicle is on the dealership property and an employee is driving it in & around the shop.
The guy driving was doing his job, if he killed someone doing his job the employer is at fault for lack of safety and/or training. IMO the dealership should be 100% at fault. Also, what are you gonna get suing a 19 year old oil change tech? Seems crazy they cant go after the dealership.
of course they can - they were negligent in failng to hire qualified people
This should be on the dealership.
I believe all this on the dealership for their negligence in hiring an unqualified person to operate a motor vehicle.
depends on WHERE it happens. If it happened in MA, the story would be the same. The owner of the car or his insurance co would be paying out.
Glad you covered this. I sent an email and tweet late about this before I saw this. RUclips is not notifying me of any of your new videos. I will search them out under your channel from now on.
That's absolutely insane.
I always thought the signature the auto shops took was almost a change of possession for the period of work and the payment was the release. Wow. This is beyond absurd
It is an authorization to do the work on your vehicle. I just looked at one in my glove box and it does not state release of liability if the car is damaged at a stealership.
Damn, I didn't realize No-Fault car accident & insurance laws would make a car owner the first respondent in a case where a business/car dealer servicing the car got into an accident while performing said service. it's pretty awful Michigan's laws are written that way, I wonder if it's the same for all no-fault states. I feel so sad for the the victim's family, so tragic.
the auto insurance would then get repaid from the dealers insurance
This seems to be standard in states with a large poor population...
That's not how no-fault normally works. Usually no-fault is aka "personal injury protection" because it covers medical expenses and lost wages of the driver and passengers, regardless of fault, and liability coverage is a separate issue. I have PIP no-fault through my car insurance, so if I'm a pedestrian and get hit by a bus my own insurance covers my medical expenses and lost wages, up to my coverage limits, and the bus' liability insurance will pay for bills beyond my limits, and for pain and suffering. OTOH, if I hit a bus full of people my no-fault (again) pays my bills, but does absolutely nothing for the people on the bus. The driver and passengers look to the bus' no-fault, and can go after my liability insurance for excess bills and pain and suffering. Either way, the owner's insurance is responsible regardless of who's driving.
@@suedenim9208 but theres also the element of permission to use vehicle- obviously when bring car for service you give permission to drive it for the purpose of repair - do you give permission for a dealer employee to race it on the street? or here to let an unlicensed driver operate it?
It doesn't, people are misinterpreting the laws. The owner of the Jeep wont face anything.
This is insane!!!!! As far as I know, possession is 9/10 of the law, and if you hand your keys over to a legitimate shop, it is now their responsibility.
I hope this guy sues the crap out of the dealership and everyone else for the harassment and stress associated with someone basically driving his car without permission (stealing?!) and killing someone.
As for the dealership, they should be ashamed of themselves for hiring people incapable of doing a job properly. It is literally the fault of the hiring manager that this person was even able to get in a vehicle they could not drive properly.
I'd also like to know how the kid who caused the accident feels about all this. He's probably devastated. It's actually not his fault, because someone obviously told him to get in the car and move it when they probably knew he couldn't drive a stick.
On a side note, I've noticed lately that there are reports of many valet parking situations where they cannot park stick shift cars because no one on staff knows how to drive them!
They never should have gotten rid of driver's ed in high school.
A young man I know got a valet job when he was about 19-20 years old, having grown up in a household that never owned a car. He may have already known how to work a motorcycle with a manual transmission, but I think he basically learned to drive a car and learned to operate a manual transmission car WHILE driving customer cars at his valet job.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the person who asked the young man to move the jeep at the jeep dealership, didn't realize the young guy didn't know how to drive. But they SHOULD ensure employees either stay out of the driver's seat, or actually know how to operate the car in question.
What lawyer would even take this case? This is absurd
Steve, keep us posted on how this progresses through the courts (and likely appeal). So many legal questions that overlap here?
Can you pin this?
Just sad and ridiculous, the company's insurance should be on the hook for letting a tech without a license and no manual driving experience drive a car. The company is 100% responsible for this its sick, they push the blame on the customer.
The lawyer that filed that lawsuit needs to be shunned from polite society. I would kick him out of my business if he walked in.
Responsibility lies directly on the dealership. The lawyer for the plaintiff needs to be replaced immediately. The family of the man killed needs justice.
Never stand in front of or behind a car when the engine is running, or if someone is at the wheel even if it's off. Ever.
Pinch points, never put yourself in that position. 🤔🍻
IE never go across a crosswalk, never check where that ticking noise is coming from with the engine running, never . . . oh welll you get the point
Uh. Let's not go fucking crazy here dude. I'm pretty damn sure it's safe to stand near the car when it's off...
All very good points and considerations. The main takeaway would be to avoid it if at all possible, and when you must stand or walk in front or back of running vehicles, do it with caution and watchfulness.
As a sidenote though, NEVER stand in front of or around vehicles disabled or crashed on roadways or freeways before emergency vehicles arrive. Many additional tragic fatalities have occurred that way.
@@jamesduncan6729 No, when someone is behind the wheel, they can start it up with the car in gear and crush you in an instant.
"Law" and "justice" are two different words for a reason.
Perfectly said
True, but both are stull very subjective. Everyone's idea of justice is different, and laws reflect the needs and morals of the time they are made.
@@dragons_red And the greed of the pols that rote the law,
We never get justice against a democrat
Sounds like a case for jury nullification
Almost had this same thing happen to us at my dealership.
The technician jumped out of the way and only an oil bucket got hit.
If I was the victims wife, I would be upset with my lawyer if the 19 year old driver won the lottery and the lawyer hadn't bothered to get a judgement against him.
The 19yo is an employee with zero liability.
"Why are you sueing the car owner?" ...... "Because I HAVE too."
That's BS. You don't HAVE to sue someone. That's a choice. You can choose to just not take the case because there is no one worthy of sueing, and I don't mean financially worthy, I mean the only person you can technically sue is the one person who everyone would agree doesn't deserve to be sued so you don't sue!
If he wants to keep his job and continue working in his profession, he does. He's following the law.
The dealership should be the one held liable. The family of the man who died should be ashamed of themselves for going through with the lawsuit.
So, 2 lives are over (guy who died and the car owner). In a best case, the owner wins his suit against the dealer and still owes almost $5 million (30% contingency on 15 million) for the percentage attorney fees. Normal non attorneys generally do not earn $5 million in a lifetime. He will be in unaffordable debt, and homeless, for the rest of his life. That lawyer can feel good that he destroyed another life.
So the rich business owners and the rich lawyers have managed to create laws that benefit both of them? What a shock.
The purpose of both owner liability and no-fault (which are separate issues) is to ensure that injured people are protected. I can't imagine any reason a business isn't liable for damages caused by an employee.
I'm curious if the 19 year old employee is criminally charged with manslaughter, or any of its many variations.
I wonder if he still works there.
He wasn't on a public road driving, and doesn't seem to have been doing anything obviously reckless, so I don't think there is a basis for criminal charges. Maybe someone in the business could get some charge involving negligence. The business will be in trouble for safety violations.
This is messed up. As someone whos worked in a bay as an auto technician. This makes me furious. What a travesty.
Years ago I received a letter from an attorney in Kentucky about an accident and we (husband and I) are being sued for a person's medical bills. I had absolutely no idea what the attorney was talking about. I called the attorney and he didn't want to talk to me, but I told him we weren't involved in any accident in Kentucky and we didn't know the other person that was also being sued. It took a bit but we found out that the car involved did once be.ong to us, but we sold it to a junk yard. I remembered the date it was sold and the junk yard owner had made a copy of the title. We faxed it to the attorney who was suing us because that was the only person knew to send it to. A few weeks later we got a letter from the judge absolving us from any libility relating to the lawsuit.
The way that Lawyer answered those questions and went about this makes me think there is a chance they hate the way the law is setup so are pushing it beyond its logical limit to present a case were the court finds and exception were they can add the driver and potentially the person who hired him and the dealership.
I hope you are correct.
This is why I hate how vague our laws are. Every single possible scenario should be considered when making a law. Also if government officials ever break laws that they themselves passed then any laws that this same person is involved with passing and voting for should be invalid.
Just sounds like proof that the law and justice are seldom served at the same time, to me.
I just saw this and was going to send it to you, but decided to check on whether or not you already posted on this case.
It'll be a cold day in Hell before I accept liability for *SOMEONE ELSE'S ACTIONS.*
Seems like the dealership would be the one with the deep pockets and also has most of the fault. Strange story.
If Michigan's workers' comp law is like those in other states, you can't sue fellow workers or your employer.
@@michaelsommers2356 that doesn't make sense. That was reckless negligence, being co-workers should allow an exception. So if the victim was a visitor they could have sued. But luckily to the dealer they're just a disposable employee.
Otherwise I though employees sue their employers even for minor injuries.
@@michaelsommers2356 but he wasn’t allowed to work there in the first place
@@tonymouannes It will vary by state, but the laws are broadly similar. Workers' comp is a compromise: the employee gets some compensation, without having to litigate who was at fault. With WC, you get compensated even if the accident were entirely your fault.
Who, other than you, says there was recklessness involved? The employee may have lied to the employer about having a license and knowing how to use a manual transmission.
@@LightStorm. Who says he wasn't allowed to work there? Anyway, he did work there, and that is all that matters.
So if an employee at the dealership takes the car for a "test" drive and also happens to run over a couple of his in-laws that he hates, then the owner of the car can be sued.
Wow what a great get out of jail free card!
Wouldn't work unless the inlaws also worked for the dealership... Issue is workman's comp law bars suing the dealership as both the deceased and the responsible 19y/o were employees... Victims family can only file against workman's comp and the vehicle owner (who can and has sued the dealership resulting in a judge ordering the dealer to indemnify the vehicle owner)
The unlicensed driver who is the car porter that crashed the car should be charged with a felony.
I left my LAND ROVER DISCOVERY at a shop to get the wheels balanced before I went to work, the technician got in lost control hit another vehicle then rammed it through the drive in door. Destroyed my rover, shop owner wouldn't pay to fix either vehicle, the other car owner put a claim on their insurance which went against me even though I WAS NEVER THERE! Now I have a vehicle that nobody will pay to fix and a 100% at FAULT COLLISION on my RECORD.
That is completely unbelieveable. That would be like if I leave my weedwhacker with a mechanic to fix it, and in the process of working on it he takes it outside to test and ends up weedwacking the face of some random passing toddler in a stroller, and they come after ME for it.
It sounds like they wanted to put in place a 'Sue Happy' State....the Family of the Deceased Sues the Car Owner, the Car owner then turns around and sues the Person behind the Wheel, the person behind the wheel then turns around and sues the Company that allowed him to Drive Cars without a License....All the while the only ones making money are LAWYERS!!
Can you say Cluster&*ck!!
4 years ago. I was in an accident involving a large municipal dump truck that I was helping someone repair it.
The truck rolled and crushed me under it. It left me with some pretty severe injuries. But here in Pennsylvania, the insurance of the vehicle that I used to drive to the scene of the accident was used to pay about 65% of my medical bills and subsequent recovery and therapy. The other 35% was my personal medical insurance. The insurance of the truck was not even involved.
In other words its a loophole to let the irresponsible rich people off the hook.
When Michigan's no fault insurance was first introduced, they painted it as a wonderful solution to a problem I never fully believed or understood. Fresh out of driver's Ed, no fault was announced to our class of soon to be new drivers. I think I was the only one to raise my hand to question it. Several "shushes" later my classmates just wanted to get it over with and receive their learners.
As an aside; I deliver to auto dealerships on a daily basis. One such dealer was extremely packed with cars with a younger staff shuttling cars every which way. I never cave it a second thought. But I will now. Thanks.
The below is from a different article.
“However, a lawyer for the Hawkins family noted that the Jeep owner, who has not been publicly named, will be defended and indemnified by the dealership.
Rochester Hills Chrysler's insurance will ultimately have to foot the monetary damages and legal fees.”
Sounds like a good place to buy a car from. They are at least taking responsibility when they legally did not have to .
Are you sure about that?
Do you really want to be represented by an attorney, who is trying to protect the dealership? The dealer will throw the car owner under the bus, to protect themselves.
@@robertheinkel6225 "Do you really want to be represented by an attorney, who is trying to protect the dealership?", given by the sound of it there is an agreement to idemnify, defending the car owner is defending the dealership in such a case and an idemnification agreement binds the two concepts together. If the dealership's defense counsel loses the case for the car driver, the dealership would be on the hook for what the judgement is under the indemnification.
@@LightStorm. linked article on the fox2 site... It's a court ruling in the Jeep owners suit against the dealership...
I love the statement "I have to do this I have no choice." You're making a deliberate choice to sue a person who you acknowledge is not actually at fault. It's not punitive. It's not teach the guy who did it lesson. It's a naked money grab. "I'm an American and something bad happens so I'm entitled to money. And this is where I can get it".
So if the customer gets sue than the customer sues the dealership for 10 x for stupidity.