Man gets sued for taking his vehicle for an oil change

superchuck500 said

Yeah so that makes sense - the Jeep owner then has an action back against the dealership who employed the negligent driver for indemnity.

Now you have a situation where an employer likely has to pay for the negligence of its employee that it wouldn't have if the Michigan legislature hadn't come up with this strict liability system (that always screw things up). But I guess in the end, the estate gets more money and is better made whole . . . but the workers comp system was supposed to do that but hasnt' been adequately evolved and/or funded such that victims are always looking for tort recovery.

Click to expand...

All of your analysis is as usual correct. But, I will say from a policy point of view that I think Workers' Comp normally does make the plaintiff whole. It's just that our conception of what you get out of a law suit as a society is different than it once was. We used to think it was enough to get your wages and medical bills paid along with a little bit for pain and suffering. But now people in the general public tend to think that every suit is a lottery ticket that could hit big. And that attitude is pervasive in civil juries. Usually, nearly every juror in a venire hates corporation (insurance companies) and think that ringing up a big verdict for any plaintiff does no harm. (At least in Orleans Parish) I do think compensation from Workers' Comp needs to be increased, but plaintiff's will continue to look for loopholes since it will never be equal to potential jury verdicts in our current society.

It's probably mostly the fault of those who advertise big verdicts on TV and reporters sensationalizing things like the McDonald's Coffee verdict and not fully understanding what they are reporting on regarding legal cases.