Man gets sued for taking his vehicle for an oil change (1 Viewer)

[Eeyore]

Car owner who left Jeep at dealership gets sued after worker dies during oil change

FOX 2: "You're suing the owner of the car who's getting his oil changed who did nothing in this case?" "I have to do that," Femminineo said.

www.fox2detroit.com

 

[Madmarsha]

There can't be any precedent for that. Can there? So I guess it's novel. And what about Workers' Comp?

 

[Sailorsaint]

This goes through and it’s a death knell for shops everywhere.

 

[superchuck500]

Okay so let's interpret what is really happening - because the writer and editor of this news piece are clearly ignorant of it and don't want to spend half an hour to figure it out.

Man brings his vehicle, with a stick shift, to dealership to get serviced.
Employee A is 19 and doesn't know how to drive a stick shift.
Employee A attempts to drive the vehicle and lurches forward and hits Employee B and kills him.

Employee B's estate (and survivors/heirs/etc.) cannot sue Employee A because under the workers comp regime, a workers comp claim is the exclusive remedy for a workplace injury or death, even if caused by a co-employee. So this means there's no action against the co-employee. For the same reason, Employee B's estate cannot sue the employer (the dealership) for hiring or failing to train Employee A - also barred by workers comp.

So Employee B's estate will have full recovery of death benefits under Michigan's workers compensation system. But that's usually not considered enough so they're looking for someone else to sue. So lawyer for Employee B comes up with the idea to sue the car owner for this accident. This is likely a waste of time because winning on that claim would require that the accident was caused by a defect in the vehicle that the owner knew about and failed to warn the service people at dealership about . . . which is almost certainly not the case.

Unless there's some evidence that there was such a defect, this is unfortunately one of those situations where an overly aggressive lawyer is wasting his time and making the system look stupid.

Edit: one wrinkle to this explained below

 

[efil4stnias]

Here is a bit better explanation of what is going on

Why a Jeep owner is sued after dealership employee was killed during oil change

A man who took his Jeep to a dealership for an oil change is being sued for millions of dollars after an employee died. Here's why the family is suing the owner and not the dealership.

www.fox2detroit.com

 

[efil4stnias]

Okay so let's interpret what is really happening - because the writer and editor of this news piece are clearly ignorant of it and don't want to spend half an hour to figure it out.

Man brings his vehicle, with a stick shift, to dealership to get serviced.
Employee A is 19 and doesn't know how to drive a stick shift.
Employee A attempts to drive the vehicle and lurches forward and hits Employee B and kills him.

Employee B's estate (and survivors/heirs/etc.) cannot sue Employee A because under the workers comp regime, a workers comp claim is the exclusive remedy for a workplace injury or death, even if caused by a co-employee. So this means there's no action against the co-employee. For the same reason, Employee B's estate cannot sue the employer (the dealership) for hiring or failing to train Employee A - also barred by workers comp.

So Employee B's estate will have full recovery of death benefits under Michigan's workers compensation system. But that's usually not considered enough so they're looking for someone else to sue. So lawyer for Employee B comes up with the idea to sue the car owner for this accident. This is likely a waste of time because winning on that claim would require that the accident was caused by a defect in the vehicle that the owner knew about and failed to warn the service people at dealership about . . . which is almost certainly not the case.

Unless there's some evidence that there was such a defect, this is unfortunately one of those situations where an overly aggressive lawyer is wasting his time and making the system look stupid.

I don't even know how the jeep owner isn't protected by the Garage Liability under the Care, Custody and Control aspect of the policy.

Sad part is jeep owner carrier has already paid 100k, seeking indemnification from dealer, and work comp carrier has put lien if dealer found to indemnify jeep owner.

What a freaking mess. 4 different attorneys involved for something that is clearly workers comp and nothing more. Shoot part 2 , Employer Liability should respond but not at all familiar with Mich work comp insurance

 

[superchuck500]

Here is a bit better explanation of what is going on

Why a Jeep owner is sued after dealership employee was killed during oil change

A man who took his Jeep to a dealership for an oil change is being sued for millions of dollars after an employee died. Here's why the family is suing the owner and not the dealership.

www.fox2detroit.com

So it appears that under Michigan law, if you let someone else drive your car (even if its a valet or person at a dealership), you're responsible for that person's negligence.

Well holy hell what a stupid-arse law that is. Are MI insurance premiums abnormally high? That's asinine that they didn't carve out an exception for when the person that assumes control of the car is a car-related business, e.g. a service location or a valet.

 

[superchuck500]

I don't even know how the jeep owner isn't protected by the Garage Liability under the Care, Custody and Control aspect of the policy.

Sad part is jeep owner carrier has already paid 100k, seeking indemnification from dealer, and work comp carrier has put lien if dealer found to indemnify jeep owner.

What a freaking mess. 4 different attorneys involved for something that is clearly workers comp and nothing more. Shoot part 2 , Employer Liability should respond but not at all familiar with Mich work comp insurance

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.

 

[efil4stnias]

So it appears that under Michigan law, if you let someone else drive your car (even if its a valet or person at a dealership), you're responsible for that person's negligence.

Well holy hell what a stupid-arse law that is. Are MI insurance premiums abnormally high? That's asinine that they didn't carve out an exception for when the person that assumes control of the car is a car-related business, e.g. a service location or a valet.

Yeah which now involves 4 different legal defenses all pointing fingers at one another.
I can't believe it either that not one lawmaker thought to say "hold up a second..."

The whole purpose of Garage Liability is for the garage to protect itself from BI or PD losses when utilizing customer vehicle.
Yet according to this law, the dang garage doesn't need ...only garagekeepers. I'm still trying to wrap brain around how it all works. Lol

 

[superchuck500]

Yeah which now involves 4 different legal defenses all pointing fingers at one another.
I can't believe it either that not one lawmaker thought to say "hold up a second..."

The whole purpose of Garage Liability is for the garage to protect itself from BI or PD losses when utilizing customer vehicle.
Yet according to this law, the dang garage doesn't need ...only garagekeepers. I'm still trying to wrap brain around how it all works. Lol

I retract my comments about the estate’s lawyer. He’s just operating in this silly environment created by the state law.

 

[efil4stnias]

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.

Yep a really dumb law.

 

[efil4stnias]

I retract my comments about the estate’s lawyer. He’s just operating in this silly environment created by the state law.

Yeah and Garage Liability must be dirt cheap in Michigan. Lol

 

[Sailorsaint]

I see a loophole…the owner probably didn’t give the keys to the teenager but to the service desk. The guy at the service desk gave the keys to him. Sue the guy at the service desk, but if you can’t, too bad, because he is the one that handed over the keys.

 

[faceman]

I see a loophole…the owner probably didn’t give the keys to the teenager but to the service desk. The guy at the service desk gave the keys to him. Sue the guy at the service desk, but if you can’t, too bad, because he is the one that handed over the keys.

agreed, that's pretty much how it goes. You turn your keys over to the service desk. I use take 5 oil and stay in my car for
the entire change.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

IDK how the owner could be liable, even with that stupid law! Did the owner give the keys to the kid that killed his co-worker or did he get the key from their check-in desk?


edit: Nvmd, I didn't finish the thread and I see someone else asked the same question