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

[burntorangebongos 10752]

I tried reading all the posts that  might have the answer but ain't nobody got time for that. 

Isn't what is going to happen here is the family of dead guy sues car owner and his auto insurance company is on the hook to the policy limits? They will then subrogate and sue the shit out of the dealership insurance company who hired a dumbass 19 year old who is stupid enough to attempt to operate a vehicle he doesn't know how to ON THE JOB? The dealership's liability insurance is going to pay out to the family and for the property damage the car owner suffered. If the family wants more money out of the car owner than policy limits...good luck winning that in court. But this does speak highly into why an umbrella policy to cover your ass from liability in Michigan might be a good thing. Let the insurance companies settle with each other on who is gonna pay the most.

Edited May 6, 2022 by burntorangebongos
fuck autocorrect.

[Dahobbs 17655]

6 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

I tried reading all the posts that  might have the answer but ain't nobody got time for that. 

Isn't what is going to happen here is the family of dead guy sues car owner and his auto insurance company is on the hook to the policy limits? They will then surrogate and sue the shit out of the dealership insurance company who hired a dumbass 19 year old who is stupid enough to attempt to operate a vehicle he doesn't know how to ON THE JOB? The dealership's insurance is going to pay out to the family and for the property damage the car owner suffered. If the family wants more money out of the car owner than policy limits...good luck winning that in court. But this does speak highly into why an umbrella policy to cover your ass from liability in Michigan might be a good thing. Let the insurance companies settle with each other on who is gonna pay the most.

Not quite. 

What has happened:

Family sues driver under no fault law. 

Driver sues for indemnification by dealership. Wins. Dealership is now on the hook for any judgments against driver. Essentially, dealership is an insurer for driver, but with much deeper limits than the driver's auto policy. No idea if driver pursued claims for damages to his vehicle, I assume he did, but that hasn't been addressed in the articles. 

Dealership's attorney, under indemnification order, will now represent driver in case by family. Since the law is essentially that the owner is liable, it seems any trial would be essentially limited to damages. 

Next Steps: 

Judgment against driver by jury. The amount of the judgment will have no relationship to the driver's auto policy limits. Those limits are irrelevant. The question to the jury is what is fair compensation for the wrongful death of the worker. 

Assume judgment is $15 million. Dealership has to indemnify driver for full $15 million under the other order. So, dealership is now on the hook for $15 million to driver, so driver can pay family. Usually in situations like this there would be some sort of split between the family and the driver since it is technically the driver that has the claim against the deep pocket, the dealership. 

Where does the dealership get the money? Well, as you said, it has insurance. So, that insurance would be triggered and would pay to the dealership. Anything over the policy limits of the insurance would then be owed directly from the dealership out of its other assets. Note, neither the family nor the driver can sue the dealership's insurer. They don't have any contractual relationship with the insurer and so the insurer owes them nothing. Any suit would be for the dealership to do if the insurer doesn't pay out under the policy. 

What about the driver's auto policy? Well, in this situation it doesn't really matter. Technically, it is triggered by the judgment against the driver and so should be paid to the family. But, the auto insurer then likely has a subrogation claim against the dealership. So, it gets paid right back to the auto insurer out of the $15 million pot. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13521]

csb alert. I was on a jury where a truck inspector at a warehouse was run over by a truck from another company. I can't recall the details other than the driver was clearly at fault. We gave the worker a lot of money from the driver's company.

[Bevo 13596]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

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. 

Not sure what you are talking about. It is more like a Fedex employee in the warehouse who moves a Fedex truck and kills another Fedex employee in the parking lot. Then the employee's family sues Fedex. Fedex may hold some responsibility for not taking enough preventative measures. But from a moral perspective, the Fedex employee knew he shouldn't be driving the truck but chose to do it anyway.

[Dahobbs 17655]

7 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Not sure what you are talking about. It is more like a Fedex employee in the warehouse who moves a Fedex truck and kills another Fedex employee in the parking lot. Then the employee's family sues Fedex. Fedex may hold some responsibility for not taking enough preventative measures. But from a moral perspective, the Fedex employee knew he shouldn't be driving the truck but chose to do it anyway.

I feel like we are talking across each other. I also don't think the fact that injured party is also employee materially changes the situation.

There are three separate concepts we are playing around:

(1) Does the driver have responsibility? Both the law and fundamental fairness say yes. Unfortunately, if this is where the law ends, then injured people will not be compensated for their injuries because individual employees are almost always judgment proof. 

(2) Should the employer be vicariously liable for the negligence of employee? The law, fairness, and economic efficiency say yes (see my prior posts). Again, not having the employer responsible for the negligence of its employees would mean that the employer isn't incentivized reduce harm caused by its business operations. Unfortunately, Michigan's worker's comp comes into play and prevents accountability. 

(3) Should the employer be directly liable for hiring a non-licensed, apparently non-trained person as a driver? Our negligence law and common sense say yes. Unfortunately, Michigan's worker's comp comes into play and prevents accountability. 

I don't know what you mean by the driver "knew" he shouldn't be driving. That is literally the job he was hired to do. Now, he shouldn't have been hired to do it, and a non-negligent company wouldn't have hired him. But I don't think the driver was morally wrong for doing his job. He just fucked up. That's what negligence is. It doesn't necessarily mean the person is bad. It just means they failed to exercise due caution. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13521]

non-lawyer but my opinion is that the employer is liable if they have poor safety practices including hiring and training. Now if the hypothetical driver decides to get drunk over lunch, and hops behind the wheel and kills a co-worker, I would be less inclined to blame the employer. I still would want to know the employer provides safety training and practices to prevent accidents from occurring. 

[Dahobbs 17655]

3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

non-lawyer but my opinion is that the employer is liable if they have poor safety practices including hiring and training. Now if the hypothetical driver decides to get drunk over lunch, and hops behind the wheel and kills a co-worker, I would be less inclined to blame the employer. I still would want to know the employer provides safety training and practices to prevent accidents from occurring. 

Whether vicarious liability (which only looks at the negligence of employee) would apply to this situation depends on what you mean by getting drunk over lunch. If they are driving their own personal vehicle back from lunch, then the employer may escape vicarious liability because the employee's conduct isn't in the scope of employment. If the vehicle is a work vehicle, but the employee isn't actually doing something on the job, the situation gets murkier and vicarious liability may not apply. But direct liability could attach under the theory of negligent entrustment, especially if the company had some knowledge (or should have had some knowledge given a proper background check) that the employee had a problem drinking and driving. 

[TwiceHorn 31529]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

non-lawyer but my opinion is that the employer is liable if they have poor safety practices including hiring and training. Now if the hypothetical driver decides to get drunk over lunch, and hops behind the wheel and kills a co-worker, I would be less inclined to blame the employer. I still would want to know the employer provides safety training and practices to prevent accidents from occurring. 

There are two theories under which an employer may be liable for the negligence of an employee.  First is respondeat superior, which makes all employers liable for negligent acts of their employees, regardless of fault.  That is the first thing Dahobbs was talking about and it's a sound legal and economic theory.  The second is "negligent entrustment," if it can be proven that the employer was negligent in permitting the employee to engage in certain acts, like letting an unlicensed driver who can't drive stick jockey MT vehicles around the dealership.  That's what Dahobbs refers to as "direct liability."  The two theories are independent of one another and require different proof, meaning you could win on one and not the other.

Those theories would be available to all of us against the dealership, subject to weirdnesses in Michigan law.

But, because the plaintiff was also an employee, he is stuck with worker's comp for on the job injuries, at least as against his employer and fellow employees.  In most states with workers comp systems, an employee cannot sue an employer for injuries on the job, no matter how negligent the employer or how grievous the injuries.  It covers back injuries as well as decapitation or other mutilation and mayhem.

Now, I suppose you could argue that the plaintiff here, or his family, should just stfu and live with the workers comp.  That seems kinda shitty, though.

Due to the involvement of third parties and quirks in Michigan's vehicle liability laws, they have this other avenue by which to pursue ordinary tort claims and receive compensation, mostly from the dealership, as seems fair and righteous, otherwise.

[Dahobbs 17655]

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But, because the plaintiff was also an employee, he is stuck with worker's comp for on the job injuries, at least as against his employer and fellow employees.  In most states with workers comp systems, an employee cannot sue an employer for injuries on the job, no matter how negligent the employer or how grievous the injuries.  It covers back injuries as well as decapitation or other mutilation and mayhem.

Now, I suppose you could argue that the plaintiff here, or his family, should just stfu and live with the workers comp.  That seems kinda shitty, though.

Just for context, Michigan's Worker Compensation death benefits are:

• Up to 500 weeks of wage loss benefits, based upon the after-tax average weekly wage of the deceased employee. The amount of wage loss benefits will be 80 percent of the after-tax average weekly wage. Benefits are subject to a specific maximum: no worker is allowed to receive compensation above 90 percent of the state average weekly wage. The highest compensation rate allowed in 2012 was $775 per week.
• A $6,000 burial expense

Taking the $775 per week example above (which coincidentally appears to be around the average for a mechanic based on a cursory look at Michigan averages), that's a total benefit of $387,500. That's the sum value of a 42-year-old father of four under Michigan's Worker's Comp scheme. 

[956 Worldwide 34747]

Jalopnik had a nice explainer on this with no legal words. The Jeep owner is gonna be fine.

https://jalopnik.com/why-a-jeep-owner-is-being-sued-for-a-mechanics-death-du-1848884952

Quote

As Femminineo explained to Jalopnik, the Hawkins family can’t directly sue the dealership or its management. Michigan workers’ compensation law says you cannot sue a fellow employee for negligence while on the job. So the Hawkins family’s only option was to sue the Jeep owner. But that doesn’t mean the Jeep owner will be held responsible for the accidental death.

According to Femminineo, when the Hawkins family filed suit against the Jeep owner, that person immediately sued the dealership for indemnification, and won. With that victory in place, whatever results from the Hawkins family’s suit against the Jeep owner will be the legal responsibility of Rochester Hills Chrysler Jeep Dodge (and their insurance company). Basically, while the owner of the Jeep is named in the suit, that person won’t face any repercussions from the trial or judgment.

 

[Murfdogg21 4423]

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

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

Spoken like a true lawyer. There’s right, there’s wrong, and there’s the law. 

[Revolution512 1495]

13 hours ago, Deej said:

You could have just said lawyers. Douchebag is implied.

It’s amazing this profession was ever held in high regard. I’ve yet to meet an intelligent lawyer and that includes all of the dipshits on this board. Complete scam artists. Sad part is they are occasionally needed

Edited May 7, 2022 by Revolution512

[Deej 76897]

8 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

It’s amazing this profession was ever held in high regard. I’ve yet to meet an intelligent lawyer and that includes all of the dipshits on this board. Complete scam artists. Sad part is they are occasionally needed

I was once told legal smarts and common sense can’t exist in the same brain.

[TwiceHorn 31529]

32 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

It’s amazing this profession was ever held in high regard. I’ve yet to meet an intelligent lawyer and that includes all of the dipshits on this board. Complete scam artists. Sad part is they are occasionally needed

Well, okey dokey then.

[TwiceHorn 31529]

1 hour ago, Murfdogg21 said:

Spoken like a true lawyer. There’s right, there’s wrong, and there’s the law. 

I mean, I assume if you have a legal problem, and you hire a lawyer, you want them to know the law and use it to your advantage.

Maybe I am mistaken on that one.  I dunno.

[Dahobbs 17655]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, okey dokey then.

And we had such a nice thread. 

[Bob Lives! 920]

This is a loser of a negligent entrustment claim, but it’s not what’s wrong with America. What’s wrong with America is that this lawsuit, which cost the defendant nothing but minor inconvenience, got more attention than the death of this 42-year-old husband and father whose only crime was working for a living at an apparently understaffed/undertrained place of employment. This lawsuit will be used, as usual, to spread the myth of frivolous lawsuits filling our courthouses while the reality is that it’s the insurance companies filling our courthouses with frivolous defenses and lowball offers on legitimate claims.

Not defending the lawsuit. It’s weak. It will be lucky to survive a No-Evidence MSJ and even luckier to ever result in a judgment for the plaintiff. All the costs associated with it will be paid by either the plaintiff that filed it, who buried a loved one as a result of someone else’s negligence, or the defendant’s insurer, who profits massively off its premiums and investments and won’t feel one bit of pinch from this case, win or lose. That’s what courthouses are for, letting juries pick the winners and losers.

If you were more bothered by the lawsuit than the loss of life, count yourself amongst the insurance industry’s sheep. You’ve been distracted and played. You won’t know it until you’re in front of a lawyer being advised as to why your own seemingly valid claim for your own losses to yourself or family have no value and will not be properly compensated due to the same tort reform you supported.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob Lives! 920]

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

Barring some evidence we haven’t heard, ‘negligence law’ won’t support a verdict anywhere in this country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TwiceHorn 31529]

30 minutes ago, Bob Lives! said:

If you were more bothered by the lawsuit than the loss of life, count yourself amongst the insurance industry’s sheep. You’ve been distracted and played. You won’t know it until you’re in front of a lawyer being advised as to why your own seemingly valid claim for your own losses to yourself or family have no value and will not be properly compensated due to the same tort reform you supported.

I was involved on a similar discussion on another board relating to an inherently dangerous sport.  A lot of lack of empathy for the injured and deceased and a credulity about the "facts" recited in the post, similar to the McDonald's hot coffee case.

It occurred to me that rarely are the plaintiffs injuries discussed in these types of discussions, or the costs associated with them.  Yet, on a crime thread, there's no shortage of what must be victim-empathy because a lot of the same people start screaming for the most draconian application of the law.

It's not a perfect analogy, but there are lobbies and "disinformation" in both areas (business and insurance on torts and the tough on crime crew on crime).

[Dahobbs 17655]

2 hours ago, Bob Lives! said:

Barring some evidence we haven’t heard, ‘negligence law’ won’t support a verdict anywhere in this country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You missed a very important detail. Michigan applies automatic vicarious liability to the vehicle's owner (with some exceptions). 

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-257-401

A supreme court ruling confirmed that negligent entrustment is available as a cause of action in the limited circumstances where the vicarious responsibility statute doesn't apply. 

This lawsuit thus isn't about negligent entrustment and appears to be a winner to me. 

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Bob Lives! 920]

You missed a very important detail. Michigan applies automatic vicarious liability to the vehicle's owner (with some exceptions). 
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-257-401
A supreme court ruling confirmed that negligent entrustment is available as a cause of action in the limited circumstances where the vicarious responsibility statute doesn't apply. 
This lawsuit thus isn't about negligent entrustment and appears to be a winner to me. 
 

Interesting. So the case against the owner isn’t even a negligence case. It’s purely about invoking coverage.

Crazy how the media will do anything to perpetuate the frivolous lawsuit myth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dahobbs 17655]

1 hour ago, Bob Lives! said:

Interesting. So the case against the owner isn’t even a negligence case. It’s purely about invoking coverage.

Crazy how the media will do anything to perpetuate the frivolous lawsuit myth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah. It is essentially automatic liability on the owner, who is indemnified (by contract I assume) by the dealership. Straight bypass of terrible worker comp limitations. 

Edited May 7, 2022 by Dahobbs

[ChickenSandwich 9849]

Did the owner of the car have to pay legal fees for his victory granting indemnification? Would hope the family covered that for him beforehand at least. 

[TwiceHorn 31529]

5 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Did the owner of the car have to pay legal fees for his victory granting indemnification? Would hope the family covered that for him beforehand at least. 

Doubtful.  That would probably be part of the insurer's duty to defend, or at least subrogate.  Michigan law may cause their insurance policies to be written weirdly, or very differently from Texas'.

[Dahobbs 17655]

11 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Did the owner of the car have to pay legal fees for his victory granting indemnification? Would hope the family covered that for him beforehand at least. 

Hard to know for sure without more information. If it was indemnity by contract, there is a decent chance that the victory would have included attorney fees. And he may have been covered by his own insurance, who would have hired an attorney to on his behalf. Finally, as I said earlier in the thread, coordination between the family and the owner before suit was filed would be common.  I wouldn't be surprised if the owner and the family have an agreement on how to share any award. 

Edited May 7, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Chewy's Hairy Horn 868]

Assuming the owner didn’t own the car outright, would the victim’s family be suing the lienholder as well?

[conVINCEd 21469]

16 minutes ago, Chewy's Hairy Horn said:

Assuming the owner didn’t own the car outright, would the victim’s family be suing the lienholder as well?

I’m not familiar with Michigan law, but I feel quite confident that whoever wrote this particular one protected the lienholder shortly after the campaign contribution check cleared the bank.

[TwiceHorn 31529]

This is so curious, I did a bit of research.  The owner liability statute is here.  http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(43s53svmqzlvqnmq53duennl))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-257-401

The relevant provision being:

 The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for an injury caused by the negligent operation of the motor vehicle whether the negligence consists of a violation of a statute of this state or the ordinary care standard required by common law. The owner is not liable unless the motor vehicle is being driven with his or her express or implied consent or knowledge. It is presumed that the motor vehicle is being driven with the knowledge and consent of the owner if it is driven at the time of the injury by his or her spouse, father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, or other immediate member of the family.

The indemnity referred to apparently is a common-law indemnity and is commonly invoked in the owner liability context.

[Capt. Squints 176]

Fucking lawyers trying to outlawyer one another up in here. Not that there's anything wrong with that..

[Beau Vine 54381]

On 5/5/2022 at 8:20 PM, freyguy said:

does the same legal risk apply in Texas?

You gonna hatch a plan for when you go to work at the Jiffy Lube tomorrow morning?

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

On 5/6/2022 at 9:21 PM, Revolution512 said:

It’s amazing this profession was ever held in high regard. I’ve yet to meet an intelligent lawyer and that includes all of the dipshits on this board. Complete scam artists. Sad part is they are occasionally needed

 

lol someone got sued

 

 

[HiggyBaby 2545]

Looks like the dealer settled with the family

https://jalopnik.com/jeep-dealer-settles-with-family-of-mechanic-killed-in-t-1849114737?fs=e&s=cl