Car Owner Sued For Dealership Employee's Death

[Doc]

So a guy took his Jeep to a dealership to get the oil changed.  A 19 year old employee accidentally ended-up killing his fellow 42-year old employee when he started the Jeep after the oil change to check for leaks and the car lurched forward.  The owner is being sued because under Michigan law, an employee (or his/her estate) cannot sue an employer for negligence.  This is crazy.

 

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article261117932.html

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

I haven't worked on vehicles to any great extent the last few years, but it's odd that by the 2019 model year that an interlock hasn't been fitted for MT equipped vehicles.  I did roughly the same thing as the lube tech did in 1976, at the service station where I worked.  You only make that mistake once. 

[TBBills]

Owner gets sued over an employee's mistake... such a ***** thing to have. The Owner should have the right to sue the employee that caused it.

[snafu]

The 19 year old didn’t know to put his feet on the clutch and brake when starting the car?

 

Anyhow, the article is clickbait. The dealership has been ordered to indemnify the vehicle owner if the owner is found liable.  This is the last paragraph from the article:

 

“But, Femminineo said, the Rochester Hills Chrysler Jeep Dodge dealership where the incident occurred has been ordered by the court to indemnify Jeep owner Diaz-Navarro if he is found liable of negligence. This is confirmed in a summary filed in court on March 1.”

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Must have been a stick.  I thought new cars, last 30 years wouldn't start without foot on clutch? Even Jeeps.

 

 

2 hours ago, TBBills said:

Owner gets sued over an employee's mistake... such a ***** thing to have. The Owner should have the right to sue the employee that caused it.

Wrong.  What if the owner modified it.  Bypassed the safety features built into today's vehicles. 

 

I noticed one thing... My domestic vehicles (automatics) start without foot on brake. My imports, gotta have foot on brake.  Very annoying in my Tacoma... Reaching in, won't start.  Even the Ford Escape, 2018 rental I had started without brake pedal depressed. 

 

2014 MINI is a stick... That needs clutch in to start.  It won't jump, lurch, attempt to start without clutch depress (in gear or not). It has a 2 second "hill assist" anti-roll too...

[TBBills]

1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Must have been a stick.  I thought new cars, last 30 years wouldn't start without foot on clutch? Even Jeeps.

 

 

Wrong.  What if the owner modified it.  Bypassed the safety features built into today's vehicles. 

 

I noticed one thing... My domestic vehicles (automatics) start without foot on brake. My imports, gotta have foot on brake.  Very annoying in my Tacoma... Reaching in, won't start.  Even the Ford Escape, 2018 rental I had started without brake pedal depressed. 

 

2014 MINI is a stick... That needs clutch in to start.  It won't jump, lurch, attempt to start without clutch depress (in gear or not). It has a 2 second "hill assist" anti-roll too...

Not wrong actually... of course if he did something to it then yes but I doubt that was the case here. You can't say wrong b.c of something you made up, of course I wasn't talking about if he modified it. 

[NoSaint]

4 hours ago, TBBills said:

Not wrong actually... of course if he did something to it then yes but I doubt that was the case here. You can't say wrong b.c of something you made up, of course I wasn't talking about if he modified it. 

to be fair, you don’t seem to understand the underlying legal claim either. 
 

 

[TBBills]

31 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

to be fair, you don’t seem to understand the underlying legal claim either. 
 

 

Yea but I didn't think I had to put that other part in... which is funny b.c I was editing the post when I made it to include that but was like "who would say something like that..." forgot where I was. 

Edited May 8, 2022 by TBBills

[Augie]

10 hours ago, Doc said:

So a guy took his Jeep to a dealership to get the oil changed.  A 19 year old employee accidentally ended-up killing his fellow 42-year old employee when he started the Jeep after the oil change to check for leaks and the car lurched forward.  The owner is being sued because under Michigan law, an employee (or his/her estate) cannot sue an employer for negligence.  This is crazy.

 

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article261117932.html

 

If I take my car to a dealership, anything that happens until I pick it back up and sign off is on THEM. What am I missing? I’m serious. I think I must have missed something here. 

[NoSaint]

50 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

If I take my car to a dealership, anything that happens until I pick it back up and sign off is on THEM. What am I missing? I’m serious. I think I must have missed something here. 

that they are using a liability loophole to circumvent workmans companies limitations. I don’t know this states rules but say a couple hundred grand cap based on the guys salary - but by backsliding it they are still effectively going after the shop as the shop indemnified the guy but now it’s not subject to the comp caps (is the theory at play)

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

that they are using a liability loophole to circumvent workmans companies limitations. I don’t know this states rules but say a couple hundred grand cap based on the guys salary - but by backsliding it they are still effectively going after the shop as the shop indemnified the guy but now it’s not subject to the comp caps (is the theory at play)

 

I have a buddy who had a wild teenage son. I highly suggest a healthy umbrella policy. It’s not expensive, but IF you NEED it, it’s coverage nice to have. 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, NoSaint said:

that they are using a liability loophole to circumvent workmans companies limitations. I don’t know this states rules but say a couple hundred grand cap based on the guys salary - but by backsliding it they are still effectively going after the shop as the shop indemnified the guy but now it’s not subject to the comp caps (is the theory at play)

 

Yeah but the argument that the owner is as liable as if he had loaned the car to a friend is silly.  There is an expectation that a car repair shop, especially a dealership, is an expert in car safety. 

[mead107]

Stupid at it’s best. 
the person going after the owner should be going after the manufacture and the government 

 

 

🥸🙃

[Just Jack]

26 minutes ago, mead107 said:

Stupid at it’s best. 
the person going after the owner should be going after the manufacture and the government 

 

 

🥸🙃

 

Nah.  Go after their Drivers Ed instructor.