Jump to content

Car owner sued for vehicle he left at dealership for oil change after one employee runs over other employee with car.


crash_davis

Recommended Posts

file this under what the fuck is wrong with America.

TLDR: car owner drops off his manual transmission jeep at dealership for oil change. 19 yr old tech who doesn't 1. have a license and 2. know how to drive a stick attempts to move it, runs over and kills another technician. family of dead technician sues the car owner, because America, fuck yea.

https://www.fox13news.com/news/car-owner-who-left-jeep-at-dealership-gets-sued-after-worker-dies-during-oil-change

Quote

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

By Charlie Langton and David Komer online producer
Published May 4, 2022 7:49PM
 

Owner of car he left at dealer for oil change is sued after tragic accident

On March 13, 2020, a customer needed an oil change. He took this car to the dealership- waited, and a young 19-year-old mechanic attempted to change the oil. But something terrible happened.

MOUNT CLEMENS, Mich. (FOX 2) - A man takes his car for an oil change and gets sued - after his car was involved in a deadly accident killing a worker while at the dealership.

On March 13, 2020, the customer took his car to the Rochester Hills Chrysler Jeep Dodge dealership and a young 19-year-old mechanic attempted to change the oil.  But something terrible happened.

"He starts the car, removes his foot from the clutch, and you know what happens? The Jeep jumps and kills my client," said attorney David Femminineo.

The vehicle hit and killed employee Jeffrey Hawkins, a married 42-year-old, father of four, and a lifelong mechanic.

"He was an excellent man," Femminineo said. "The 2-year-old who was about 1 at the time of the accident, the time of the death, he'll never know his father."

Mr. Hawkins died instantly in the accident.

FOX 2: "Did the 19-year-old know how to drive a stick?"

"He didn't know how to drive a stick, and he had no license," the attorney said.

FOX 2: "Why did the dealership hire him?"

"That's what I'd like to know," Femminineo said.

But hold on one minute -

FOX 2: "You must be suing the dealership?"

"We can't because of a legal standard that is involved," the lawyer said.

Jeff-Hawkins.jpg

Jeff Hawkins died in the tragic accident.

That's because the accident happened at work and involved two employees and you can't sue the boss in that situation.

RELATED: Here's why a Jeep owner was sued after a dealership employee was killed during oil change

But attorney David Femminineo claims that the person responsible is the owner of the car.

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.

That's the law.  FOX 2 reached out to the car owner's attorney - but he had no comment on pending litigation, other than to say he's going to fight this case in a trial at the end of May.  

"When you hand your car over to anybody including the valet or the person at the service desk at your local dealership, you better be able to trust that person," the attorney said.

 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

"When you hand your car over to anybody including the valet or the person at the service desk at your local dealership, you better be able to trust that person," the attorney said.

 

Bd_E8D.gif

 

seems pretty fucked up that they cannot go after the service company.  Are you liable if you take your gun to the repair shot and either by accident or malice two employees were involved with a shooting?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gyroprotagonist said:

Bd_E8D.gif

 

seems pretty fucked up that they cannot go after the service company.  Are you liable if you take your gun to the repair shot and either by accident or malice two employees were involved with a shooting?

That's pretty much how workman's comp works:  an employee injured or killed on the job can't sue the employer, s/he has to go through workman's comp.

The vicarious liability thing where a vehicle owner is automatically liable for the negligence of a driver, is kind of fucked up.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's pretty much how workman's comp works:  an employee injured or killed on the job can't sue the employer, s/he has to go through workman's comp.

The vicarious liability thing where a vehicle owner is automatically liable for the negligence of a driver, is kind of fucked up.

This.  I get why you'd have such a law (if you give the keys to your car to your idiot drunk brother in law, maybe you should be on the hook), but it seems to be overkill when a negligent entrustment claim would do.  And to have such a law without a carve-out for leaving the car with a professional (like a certified mechanic is just some poor legislation writing.  But, wouldn't be the first poorly written law I've read.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't workman's comp pay off at least several hundred K if not a mil or more?  I haven't seen a workman's comp policy in a bit, but I sure seem to remember that the limits were in the millions.  Jeep owner must have deep pockets.  There's a sentence you don't hear often. 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the main underlying issue with this whole incident. (full disclosure I already watched the Steve Leto video), is Michigan has a no fault law on the books for all auto accidents.

It literally doesnt matter if Billy the town drunk with 20 DUI arrests, who blows a .25 after plowing into your parked car in your own private driveway.  Your car is still at fault for being in that spot that could be hit.

So you have to file with your own insurance company in that situation to get your car repaired.   you might be able to go after the clown in a civil suit afterwards to get your deductible and increased insurance fees back, but its a fucked up law.

 

BTW, Steve was thinking that maybe the insurance coverage for the dealership is pretty murky because A) we dont know who hired the kid, B) who was supposedly supervising them, and C) if either of those people includes the dead guy, it causes a major legal headache.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

But attorney David Femminineo claims that the person responsible is the owner of the car.

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.

Fuck this guy. You don't have to sue to owner of the car.....you choose to because the family of the deceased is willing to pay you out if you can find someone to recover damages from. For those that dont notice, you can link to this article from the text above which is a more detailed  explanation of the legal basis. 

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/why-a-jeep-owner-is-sued-after-dealership-employee-was-killed-during-oil-change

It sounds like the owner sued the dealership for indemnity and the original decision is in favor of the owner of the car, meaning the dealership is liable for $15 million, but that is on appeal as well. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, shakahorn said:

Jeep owner must have deep pockets.  There's a sentence you don't hear often. 😆

They have deep pockets there just ain’t shit in them because they are always buying Jeep parts. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, shakahorn said:

Wouldn't workman's comp pay off at least several hundred K if not a mil or more?  I haven't seen a workman's comp policy in a bit, but I sure seem to remember that the limits were in the millions.  Jeep owner must have deep pockets.  There's a sentence you don't hear often. 😆

Depends on the state.  Texas' death benefit is like 75% of wages to spouse until remarriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Blotto said:

Fuck this guy. You don't have to sue to owner of the car.....you choose to because the family of the deceased is willing to pay you out if you can find someone to recover damages from. For those that dont notice, you can link to this article from the text above which is a more detailed  explanation of the legal basis. 

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/why-a-jeep-owner-is-sued-after-dealership-employee-was-killed-during-oil-change

It sounds like the owner sued the dealership for indemnity and the original decision is in favor of the owner of the car, meaning the dealership is liable for $15 million, but that is on appeal as well. 

 

I don't read it that way at all.

The plaintiff can't sue the dealership because employer/workman's comp.

They can sue the vehicle owner because Michigan law is fucked up.

Apparently, the vehicle owner CAN sue the actually negligent parties (the dealership and its employee).

So, the plaintiff here can either eat workman's comp or take advantage of Michigan law pretty clearly written to favor the situation.

It's not like they're suing the owner under some overcooked cause of action just to get at an insurance policy.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't read it that way at all.

The plaintiff can't sue the dealership because employer/workman's comp.

They can sue the vehicle owner because Michigan law is fucked up.

Apparently, the vehicle owner CAN sue the actually negligent parties (the dealership and its employee).

So, the plaintiff here can either eat workman's comp or take advantage of Michigan law pretty clearly written to favor the situation.

It's not like they're suing the owner under some overcooked cause of action just to get at an insurance policy.

The lawyer and family don't have to sue the driver. Anybody with a brain knows he had nothing to do with the employees death. Yet they sue anyway because they would rather get paid by fucking over someone thats innocent, than not get paid. I'm fairly certain it was the lawyer who figured out the angle, not the family. Its a shit course of action by a fucking scumbag lawyer. Its why ambulance chasers have the reputation they do. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't read it that way at all.

The plaintiff can't sue the dealership because employer/workman's comp.

They can sue the vehicle owner because Michigan law is fucked up.

Apparently, the vehicle owner CAN sue the actually negligent parties (the dealership and its employee).

So, the plaintiff here can either eat workman's comp or take advantage of Michigan law pretty clearly written to favor the situation.

It's not like they're suing the owner under some overcooked cause of action just to get at an insurance policy.

Yeah. This. Also, normally something like this can actually workout for the car's owner. Basically, both the owner and the family will end up splitting a pot from the dealership, assuming the car's owner hires a competent attorney (or his insurance company does). It is not unlike a bad faith claim against an insurer when an excess judgement exists.

Just now, freyguy said:

does the same legal risk apply in Texas?

No, not really. I mean, negligent entrustment exists, but I don't think negligence law is going to support a claim here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Blotto said:

The lawyer and family don't have to sue the driver. Anybody with a brain knows he had nothing to do with the employees death. Yet they sue anyway because they would rather get paid by fucking over someone thats innocent, than not get paid. I'm fairly certain it was the lawyer who figured out the angle, not the family. Its a shit course of action by a fucking scumbag lawyer. Its why ambulance chasers have the reputation they do. 

This is wrong. I'm sorry, it just is. Again, both the owner and the family will likely get paid here. This is a workaround a bad Michigan law so that the actual responsible party has to pay. I can almost guarantee you that the owner's attorney and the family's attorney will end up working together.

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Blotto said:

The lawyer and family don't have to sue the driver. Anybody with a brain knows he had nothing to do with the employees death. Yet they sue anyway because they would rather get paid by fucking over someone thats innocent, than not get paid. I'm fairly certain it was the lawyer who figured out the angle, not the family. Its a shit course of action by a fucking scumbag lawyer. Its why ambulance chasers have the reputation they do. 

No, MIchigan places a "respondeat superior" type of liability on vehicle owners for any action that causes injury or death.

They're also a no-fault state, I believe, and everything related to vehicular liability is fubar, as noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

What can the Jeep owner do? 

Separately from the lawsuit from the Hawkins family, the owner of the Jeep has some options too. He can and has sued the dealership for indemnity.

Indemnity means that, if the judge rules against the car owner, the dealership would pay the balance. 

In that separate lawsuit, a judge has ruled that the dealership must provide indemnity for the Jeep owner. But even that is tricky. 

Now that the dealership has been ordered to provide indemnity, the attorney for the dealership is representing the Jeep owner in the trial. 

The dealership is going to appeal the indemnity ruling.

What if that appeal is successful? Maybe the chances are slim, but if the dealership's appeal is successful, it seems to me that the owner of the car gets proper fucked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Blotto said:

What if that appeal is successful? Maybe the chances are slim, but if the dealership's appeal is successful, it seems to me that the owner of the car gets proper fucked. 

Eh, then whatever insurance the owner has gets paid out and that is about it. It isn't going to be worth the trouble of going after an individual's assets unless that individual is uber wealthy. And even then it may not be since a lot of assets can be protected from judgment under laws like homestead (don't know what Michigan allows for that, but in Texas it is functionally unlimited).

And the reality is that an appeal doesn't seem likely to be successful. And even if it is at an intermediate level, it likely either A) will not be determinative and just require the lower court to consider some other factor or B) will get appealed by the family to a higher court. The result just changes the bargaining posture of the parties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, ROFL BOX said:

Any chance this case getting aired out in public will make Meat-Chicken laws up for change or... nah?

There is a chance, but it isn't an easy fix. I mean, for Texas it would be easy. Texas would just say the family can't sue the owner either because fuck plaintiffs/injured people. But an actual equitable fix would require some thinking with regard to Michigan's no fault rules and workman's comp system. Simply doing away with either of them isn't likely, so you're talking about a fairly nuanced change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An equitable fix should have nothing to do with the owner of the vehicle being liable for dick in the situation described above.

I mean, goddamn, I go to my local JiffyLube, hand the keys over, dumbass gooses it and kills coworker, and I’m liable?

Yes, @crash_davis, what the fuck is wrong with America?

I’m coming around to the view of Shakespeare’s Dick the Butcher in Henry VI.

Surly legal eagles excluded, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Victor Lazlo said:

An equitable fix should have nothing to do with the owner of the vehicle being liable for dick in the situation described above.

I mean, goddamn, I go to my local JiffyLube, hand the keys over, dumbass gooses it and kills coworker, and I’m liable?

Yes, @crash_davis, what the fuck is wrong with America?

I’m coming around to the view of Shakespeare’s Dick the Butcher in Henry VI.

Surly legal eagles excluded, of course.

I agree that the owner shouldn't be liable. Under normal negligence schemes, the owner wouldn't be. The owner's liability is dictated by Michigan's no fault system, which was a form of tort reform designed to make it dead easy to identify the party responsible for payment and encourage quick resolution. The problem with no fault schemes is the seeming unjustness of holding someone who did nothing wrong responsible. I don't like them. 

1 hour ago, South Austin said:

This is one of those times I’m in favor of tort reform.

So your preference is that the family shouldn't be able to collect from anyone at all? Reasonable tort reform would be to allow the family to sue the dealership. Michigan took that away. 

45 minutes ago, Bevo said:

dahobbs thinks the only loss for the car owner is monetary.

No, I don't think that. I think the situation sucks and is the result of a conflict between two different set of laws. But I also recognize the reality that the owner is likely to recognize monetary gain from this, so it isn't all bad for them.

You'll see similar news stories where for instance a daughter sues her mother an injury that occurred at the mother's house. But people often fail to understand that the point of the suit is to trigger insurance coverage, coverage mom paid for and is there to benefit the daughter. The only reason the suit has to be filed is because the insurance company is refusing to pay the claim. So mom and daughter are really on the same team, but it isn't always explained that way on the news.

This situation isn't entirely the same, but I do think it is in the same general category. Both the owner and the family (and I assume pretty much everyone?) should be financially responsible for the death. And the likely result is that they'll end up splitting an award against the dealership. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Blotto said:

What if that appeal is successful? Maybe the chances are slim, but if the dealership's appeal is successful, it seems to me that the owner of the car gets proper fucked. 

Then your problem is with Michigan law, not the plaintiff's attorney or the plaintiff.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's pretty much how workman's comp works:  an employee injured or killed on the job can't sue the employer, s/he has to go through workman's comp.

The vicarious liability thing where a vehicle owner is automatically liable for the negligence of a driver, is kind of fucked up.

Yeah, and who created those laws? Douchebag lawyers, that's who.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, South Austin said:

This is one of those times I’m in favor of tort reform.

Well, first maybe you should look at workers comp, which seems to me to be an outdated concept entirely too favorable to employers, except maybe in certain occupations or industries.

Then you probably need to have a look at Michigan's auto liability scheme, of which I am virtually certain that "automotive respondeat superior" is an integral part.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I agree that the owner shouldn't be liable. Under normal negligence schemes, the owner wouldn't be. The owner's liability is dictated by Michigan's no fault system, which was a form of tort reform designed to make it dead easy to identify the party responsible for payment and encourage quick resolution. The problem with no fault schemes is the seeming unjustness of holding someone who did nothing wrong responsible. I don't like them. 

So your preference is that the family shouldn't be able to collect from anyone at all? Reasonable tort reform would be to allow the family to sue the dealership. Michigan took that away. 

No, I don't think that. I think the situation sucks and is the result of a conflict between two different set of laws. But I also recognize the reality that the owner is likely to recognize monetary gain from this, so it isn't all bad for them.

You'll see similar news stories where for instance a daughter sues her mother an injury that occurred at the mother's house. But people often fail to understand that the point of the suit is to trigger insurance coverage, coverage mom paid for and is there to benefit the daughter. The only reason the suit has to be filed is because the insurance company is refusing to pay the claim. So mom and daughter are really on the same team, but it isn't always explained that way on the news.

This situation isn't entirely the same, but I do think it is in the same general category. Both the owner and the family (and I assume pretty much everyone?) should be financially responsible for the death. And the likely result is that they'll end up splitting an award against the dealership. 

Yep, I was going to surmise that the plaintiff/owner suit was "friendly" in nature.  And there's probably some kind of agreement between the plaintiff and owner that if the "indemnity suit" is unsuccessful, the owner's liability is limited to insurance coverage.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

So your preference is that the family shouldn't be able to collect from anyone at all? Reasonable tort reform would be to allow the family to sue the dealership. Michigan took that away.

To be clear, my criticism is with a law that appears to have unconditional liability against the owner of the automobile who wasn't in the vehicle and had no reason to believe a service provider who might be driving it would be a shitty driver.  Strict liability without regard to some level of fault, e.g., negligent entrustment, seems like bad policy.  Whether workers comp. law is its own fuckedupness is a separate matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, a point about most no-fault type auto schemes.  They tend to be designed in such a way that liability is assigned without regard to actual negligence or much legal evaluation at all.  In order to keep lawyers and the courts out of it.

And in so doing, they seem to violate all notions of fundamental fairness.  And lawyers and courts get involved anyway, see the above.

Be careful what you wish for.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, South Austin said:

To be clear, my criticism is with a law that appears to have unconditional liability against the owner of the automobile who wasn't in the vehicle and had no reason to believe a service provider who might be driving it would be a shitty driver.  Strict liability without regard to some level of fault, e.g., negligent entrustment, seems like bad policy.  Whether workers comp. law is its own fuckedupness is a separate matter.

I agree with the first part to an extent. No fault systems for car accidents suck. However, other strict liability systems don't necessarily share the same flaws (e.g., strict product liability). I disagree with the last sentence. Here, they are related. As to this situation, you absolutely have to address both. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I agree with the first part to an extent. No fault systems for car accidents suck. However, other strict liability systems don't necessarily share the same flaws (e.g., strict product liability). I disagree with the last sentence. Here, they are related. As to this situation, you absolutely have to address both. 

Yes, agree on products liability, which has completely separate policy considerations. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

This situation isn't entirely the same, but I do think it is in the same general category. Both the owner and the family (and I assume pretty much everyone?) should be financially responsible for the death. And the likely result is that they'll end up splitting an award against the dealership. 

The 19yr old tech should hold all responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Bevo said:

The 19yr old tech should hold all responsibility.

Which would leave everyone holding a great big bag of nothing.

The dealership has no responsibility for hiring and placing an unlicensed driver that can't drive stick in a position to move cars around the dealership?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Which would leave everyone holding a great big bag of nothing.

The dealership has no responsibility for hiring and placing an unlicensed driver that can't drive stick in a position to move cars around the dealership?

If the dealership told the unlicensed driver that his job was to move cars then the driver and the unlicensed driver were breaking the law. Are we sure that the dealership knew he was unlicensed and hired him to move cars? That seems odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

The 19yr old tech should hold all responsibility.

Under our tort system, employers are usually responsible for the negligent conduct of their employees that injure another when the actions are within the scope of their employment. The reason that rule exists generally is so that the entity that benefits from the work being done is also incentivized to make sure it is being done properly. This makes sense economically. Otherwise, you're left with negative externalities that aren't properly accounted for in the cost of a good or service. This rule generally doesn't extend to intentional torts by employees, partly because those are viewed as outside the scope of employment. 

11 minutes ago, Bevo said:

If the dealership told the unlicensed driver that his job was to move cars then the driver and the unlicensed driver were breaking the law. Are we sure that the dealership knew he was unlicensed and hired him to move cars? That seems odd.

In addition to the rule above, the dealership can also be directly liable if, for instance, the dealership is negligent in its hiring or supervision of an employee. That seems to be what you're addressing here. However, I note you've made what I believe to be an unsupported assumption. So long as the driver was moving the car solely on the dealership's private property, I don't believe there is any strict legal requirement that he be licensed. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

In addition to the rule above, the dealership can also be directly liable if, for instance, the dealership is negligent in its hiring or supervision of an employee. That seems to be what you're addressing here. However, I note you've made what I believe to be an unsupported assumption. So long as the driver was moving the car solely on the dealership's private property, I don't believe there is any strict legal requirement that he be licensed. 

I have seen so many instances here in Austin of people driving without a license for years without consequence. I wouldn't be surprised if the 19 year old is one of that group.

It is obvious that the 19 year old is responsible. He knew better.

So, the family members of the deceased went after the deep pockets because they could. No one is going to be sympathetic to the big bad company. This makes it likely that they will hold the brunt of the monetary burden regardless of their culpability.

So, you have a 19 year old who is solely responsible from a moral perspective. You have a car dealership that might hold some responsibility from a moral perspective. And then you have the law. Regardless of the law, the 19 year old was responsible for the kids death even in the very unlikely case where the dealership told him he had to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't worked many of these cases but I do recall that most states you cannot get around workers comp immunity by suing a third party and having the employer brought in through an indemnity claim or third-party petition. Sounds like it might be to obtain no-fault payout from the owners' insurance policy? Even a slimy lawyer knows they would never get a judgment against the owner in this situation, it's either an indemnity or third-party ploy if its allowed in that state, or to get a quick insurance settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I have seen so many instances here in Austin of people driving without a license for years without consequence. I wouldn't be surprised if the 19 year old is one of that group.

It is obvious that the 19 year old is responsible. He knew better.

So, the family members of the deceased went after the deep pockets because they could. No one is going to be sympathetic to the big bad company. This makes it likely that they will hold the brunt of the monetary burden regardless of their culpability.

So, you have a 19 year old who is solely responsible from a moral perspective. You have a car dealership that might hold some responsibility from a moral perspective. And then you have the law. Regardless of the law, the 19 year old was responsible for the kids death even in the very unlikely case where the dealership told him he had to do it.

I have no clue what you are on about. Do you really want a tort system where businesses aren't liable for the negligent actions of their employees?

Fedex delivery driver totals your car and leaves you with 250k in medical bills? Ain't Fedex's problem, try and sue the judgment proof 21 year old driver.   

Crane operator accidentally smashes your house? Oh well, hopefully you have really good insurance cause it ain't the company's problem. 

Not having the employer be responsible for the actions of its employees means the employer doesn't have to care if its business operations hurts other. That makes no sense morally or economically. The better result is obtained by imputing liability to the employer, thereby encouraging better business behavior and accounting for the true cost to society for the business' operation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I haven't worked many of these cases but I do recall that most states you cannot get around workers comp immunity by suing a third party and having the employer brought in through an indemnity claim or third-party petition. Sounds like it might be to obtain no-fault payout from the owners' insurance policy? Even a slimy lawyer knows they would never get a judgment against the owner in this situation, it's either an indemnity or third-party ploy if its allowed in that state, or to get a quick insurance settlement.

I think that depends on the basis for indemnity (I haven't been able to find the suit from the owner of the car to identify the basis of indemnity). If there is a contractual agreement (which given Michigan's no fault law, I imagine there very well may be one), I can't think of the legal reasoning that would allow the dealership to escape from the consequences of indemnity here. Worker's comp doesn't protect the dealership from its own agreements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...