Man gets sued for taking his vehicle for an oil change (2 Viewers)

[faceman]

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?

I'll refer to our legal experts here, but I don't see how he is liable in either case

 

[efil4stnias]

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

I imagine its along the lines of "permissive use" - Unfortunately Michigan lawmakers didnt see FAR enough out to carve out the aspect of "service related" use.

So as the law is written, you hand your keys to ANYONE - person or business employee- you CAN be sued personally.

After being intrigued by this, Michigan is a "no-fault " state meaning normally the only time you can be sued ( by an injured 3rd party ), is if found "legally liable". And it just so happens that the current LAW, as its written, MAKES HIM LIABLE.

Its one of the most insane laws i think ive seen in my 27 years of commercial insurance.

 

[gboudx]

I wonder, did the dealership give the Jeep owner the option of driving/handling the vehicle throughout the entire oil change process? Or was the Jeep owner prohibited from driving/handling his vehicle inside the Service Center?

 

[kizzy821]

From now on, I'm placing my keys firmly on the desk and conspicuously pretend to dig through my purse when WHOEVER picks them up.

 

[St. Widge]

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.

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.

 

[St. Widge]

I imagine its along the lines of "permissive use" - Unfortunately Michigan lawmakers didnt see FAR enough out to carve out the aspect of "service related" use.

So as the law is written, you hand your keys to ANYONE - person or business employee- you CAN be sued personally.

After being intrigued by this, Michigan is a "no-fault " state meaning normally the only time you can be sued ( by an injured 3rd party ), is if found "legally liable". And it just so happens that the current LAW, as its written, MAKES HIM LIABLE.

Its one of the most insane laws i think ive seen in my 27 years of commercial insurance.

Remind me to never use valet parking if I'm ever in Michigan.

 

[St. Widge]

I wonder, did the dealership give the Jeep owner the option of driving/handling the vehicle throughout the entire oil change process? Or was the Jeep owner prohibited from driving/handling his vehicle inside the Service Center?

Ironically, I suspect their Garage Policy probably excludes coverage if they let someone other than an employee drive a car inside their garage. But Efil would know the ins and outs of that.

 

[Zooted]

I wonder, did the dealership give the Jeep owner the option of driving/handling the vehicle throughout the entire oil change process? Or was the Jeep owner prohibited from driving/handling his vehicle inside the Service Center?

I wonder, did the dealership give the Jeep owner the option of driving/handling the vehicle throughout the entire oil change process? Or was the Jeep owner prohibited from driving/handling his vehicle inside the Service Center?

Not at a dealership, customers always drop their keys off with the service writer

 

[faceman]

Ironically, I suspect their Garage Policy probably excludes coverage if they let someone other than an employee drive a car inside their garage. But Efil would know the ins and outs of that.

Can the owner challenge this stupid law in Federal court? I'm not a legal expert,but this law seems so stupid.

My wife used to get her oil changed at Walmart. She'd drop her keys off and go shopping. If a technician killed
someone while driving her car, how in the world would she be responsible for their death?