Allpar Forums banner
41 - 60 of 99 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
As if I needed another reason for DIY ...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
160 Posts
"had started the car and removed his feet from the clutch"
"Hawkins, who was performing an oil change at the time, was ran over"

Holy crap, how ignorant and unqualified do you have to be to be in the news business? My daughter could have written this correctly at age 6. I would take points off in a performance review and consider replacing someone whose grammar is this bad.
And the first phrase shows that the authors are as ignorant as the mechanic about how to operate a clutch.
Well, it began with the Sojourner Homes Affair back in 1942....
 

·
Registered
2017 Ram 1500 3.6 Crew
Joined
·
7,160 Posts
To quote Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does."

Why not just use the proper tool for it? Like, ya know, a hedge trimmer. Jeez Louize.


Indeed. I knew something was wrong when the warning "Caution Beverage may be hot." label was put on disposable cups after the McDonald's lawsuit years ago. I mean, when ordering a hot beverage wouldn't you expect it to be hot?

It's utterly amazing how stupid, ignorant or idiotic some people are. It's a wonder the human race has lasted as long as it has. Surprised we haven't killed ourselves off by stupidity or war.

Actually, it's the dealer's insurance that will have to pay out. He'll probably end up with higher premiums though. I could be wrong - I'm not sure how that works.
The big issue is that some juries love to punish any company because they are "EVIL". My mom was on a jury once that got it right. Technically the company was wrong but only be a slim amount. They awarded $1.00 which was split by the lawyer and the client per their agreement. More awards like this for frivolous suits would make attorneys a litle more selective of clients. Please reward as per actual loss/injury.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,536 Posts
I'm still curious why it took 2 years for this case to come to trial.
This appears to be a Worker's Comp issue. What in heck is going on in Michigan?
It probably took some time to go through the Worker's Comp process and the payout was probably limited. So then you start looking for people to sue.
 

·
Virginia Gentleman
Joined
·
16,309 Posts
So then you start looking for people to sue.
There was an auto accident here involving a charter bus, and several vehicles many years ago. I forget who was at fault but passengers on the bus were suing everyone - the bus company, the bus driver, other drivers, and VDOT (claimed poor intersection design/layout). I don't recall the outcome of the case, but I do remember reading how they were suing anyone that was near the intersection at the time of the accident.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Curious Joe

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,803 Posts
This story appeared last night on my local FOX affiliate news, and it appeared to be the same, abbreviated version, as in the original link posted.

But since there also appears to be a much fuller version of the entire story out there, in the DailyMail link, I'm curious why FOX would tell the compressed version, instead of the full story.

I always loved to hear Paul Harvey.....

".....the rest of the story....."
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
33,654 Posts
This story makes much more sense.

So the family of the dead mechanic will get compensated, in the end by the dealership (his former employer) they just have to go through the vehicle owner to get their $.

And as long as the dealership, in the end, is the one paying the judgement, then I have no problem with that because, IMO, the dealership is ultimately responsible for the death.

I'm still curious why it took 2 years for this case to come to trial.

And the lawyer sues for $15M, but the case will probably be settled for $5M or less.
Covid has backed up the legal system for many months beyond normal.
 

·
Registered
2017 Ram 1500 3.6 Crew
Joined
·
7,160 Posts
This story appeared last night on my local FOX affiliate news, and it appeared to be the same, abbreviated version, as in the original link posted.

But since there also appears to be a much fuller version of the entire story out there, in the DailyMail link, I'm curious why FOX would tell the compressed version, instead of the full story.

I always loved to hear Paul Harvey.....

".....the rest of the story....."
A news story is given so many seconds by the producer based on his/her feeling as to viewer interest and importance AND COMMERCIAL BREAKS NEEDED.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
39,919 Posts
It probably took some time to go through the Worker's Comp process and the payout was probably limited. So then you start looking for people to sue.
Part of the rationale for worker’s comp is to limit liability for the companies... historically.
Pennsylvania had a very “progressive” system at one point, before people could sue their employers - you'd get $50 for a leg, $100 for an arm, and so on... (numbers fudged but in the ballpark). Then you could starve to death outside the mine, when that ran out... maybe in six months, maybe in a year, unless you could somehow find a job that only required one arm. That was still better than most states, which treated people as disposable - because you wouldn't want people suing employers over unavoidable workplace accidents, right?

It helps to know how these things evolved. There were two forces at work - shielding companies and shielding workers - and a good deal of evolution. The original ethic was that you worked at your own risk, period. As you can imagine, there was no incentive for most employers to have any sort of regard for safety. In fairness, some types of work were just very dangerous due to the technology - George Westinghouse saved untold lives by inventing the air brake (just as Clessie Cummins did when he invented the diesel brake). He also probably stopped the #1 cause of loss of limbs among railway employees.

I was trained in org psych, learning from the companies’ perspective - often from the leaders’ perspective - so I thought I should learn about the other side. It's quite illuminating and explains much of what we have today. There's apparently no way to avoid the extremes, but without the threat of lawsuits, things like car-lift safety would be handled by the “wait till it falls on top of the mechanic, then repair it” method. Henry Ford was famous for that — one of the last of the truly uncaring industrialists — he advertised a wage almost nobody could get, far and wide, not for his own reputation (though that happened) but so he could have a long line of “replacement parts” at one end of the factory as the dead and wounded were thrown out of the other side.

I won't say the legal system isn't a mess full of rapacious lawyers and insane judges, because it obviously is. I've watched judges in action and find it hard to believe some of them got any training at all. I've seen how cases sorted out, like the one someone mentioned with the minivan latch where the guy was driving drunk, at night, headlights off, the wrong way down a one-way street, and Chrysler had to pay millions to the survivors. Yup. That sucked. But this case seems almost sane - people are working around a broken worker's comp program, and again, there were two forces creating that, one protecting workers and one protecting businesses...
 

·
Registered
2017 Ram 1500 3.6 Crew
Joined
·
7,160 Posts
So you think that in this case the dealership was innocent?
No! Dealer hired/allowed an unqualified employee. Do a task. In this case, L&I laws exempt employees family from suing the employer. I do not know what the L&I payment schedule is for loss of life but I do expect that it is not adequate. Dealer is the one that should be the defendant. In any case, this is a tragic event. Wish life was fair and equitable but we all know that it is sometimes unfair.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,925 Posts
Why do you need a driver's licence to change a tire, change brakes or a transmission or run a level 3 scan on a vehicle?
I'm sure the young tech was well qualified to do what he was hired to do. Attempting to perform an unqualified task was a tragic mistake. Could have even been the victim who requested it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,803 Posts
A news story is given so many seconds by the producer based on his/her feeling as to viewer interest and importance AND COMMERCIAL BREAKS NEEDED.
But the headline and just telling 1/2 the story is just a tease, and IMO, irresponsible reporting.

All they had to do was take another 30 seconds and explain the rest of the story.

If I was the Jeep owner, I would want FOX to also do my side of the story, explaining the rest and that the dealership (or their insurance company) will ultimately (hopefully) be responsible for the settlement.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,536 Posts
I think the story serves a very good purpose. It shows a legal exposure most people don’t realize they have. The dealer could wash their hands of this. Then the car owner would be subject to a possible multi-million dollar judgement (far in excess of any insurance they’d have) which means the car owner would have to sue the dealer for negligence hoping to get a settlement to pay off the judgment against them.

This story should encourage law makers to revisit the laws in place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doug D

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,803 Posts
I think the story serves a very good purpose. It shows a legal exposure most people don’t realize they have. The dealer could wash their hands of this. Then the car owner would be subject to a possible multi-million dollar judgement (far in excess of any insurance they’d have) which means the car owner would have to sue the dealer for negligence hoping to get a settlement to pay off the judgment against them.

This story should encourage law makers to revisit the laws in place.
Yes the story does serve a purpose, so long as the ENTIRE story is told.

But if every vehicle owner was fully aware of, and fully understood their potential and extending liability for anyone and everyone that they ever give the keys to their car to, nobody would ever let anyone else operate their vehicle, ever again.

For example, just think of at a dealership service department where you now basically surrender your vehicle for them to work on it. If the vehicle owner can be held liable for everything, nobody could leave their vehicle, but they would have to stay at the dealership and the vehicle owner would have to be the one to move their own vehicle around the service department, whenever needed.

And we all know that won't happen because dealerships aren't going to allow customers in the shops due to liability and it would be impractical for people that need to work, while their vehicle is being serviced, to stay at the dealership all day, or several days, to be available to move their vehicle, when needed.

There needs to be some common sense applied and hold responsible, for any issues, the person operating the vehicle.

Can anyone come up with a scenario of where a vehicle operator, whether they own the vehicle or not, shouldn't, couldn't or wouldn't, be held responsible for their own negligence?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave Z

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,536 Posts
Yes the story does serve a purpose, so long as the ENTIRE story is told.

But if every vehicle owner was fully aware of, and fully understood their potential and extending liability for anyone and everyone that they ever give the keys to their car to, nobody would ever let anyone else operate their vehicle, ever again.

For example, just think of at a dealership service department where you now basically surrender your vehicle for them to work on it. If the vehicle owner can be held liable for everything, nobody could leave their vehicle, but they would have to stay at the dealership and the vehicle owner would have to be the one to move their own vehicle around the service department, whenever needed.

And we all know that won't happen because dealerships aren't going to allow customers in the shops due to liability and it would be impractical for people that need to work, while their vehicle is being serviced, to stay at the dealership all day, or several days, to be available to move their vehicle, when needed.

There needs to be some common sense applied and hold responsible, for any issues, the person operating the vehicle.

Can anyone come up with a scenario of where a vehicle operator, whether they own the vehicle or not, shouldn't, couldn't or wouldn't, be held responsible for their own negligence?
The full story should be told, but the fact is people need to be aware when they are exposed to potential liability. The original story served that purpose.
 
41 - 60 of 99 Posts
Top