Allpar Forums banner

Jeep owner leaves Jeep at dealership for oil change then gets sued by family of mechanic who died

9K views 98 replies 28 participants last post by  06PTElectricBlue 
#1 ·
#3 ·
How the hell would this even be taken up by the court? I would love to see the legal precedent.

I am guessing that it could be one of several things that would allow it to pass legal muster:

1) The plaintiff may be trying to collect from the defendant's insurance company since it was the defendant's vehicle that caused the death.
2) The owner of the Jeep was perhaps an employee of the dealership and knew the technician did not have a driver's license or know how to drive a stick.
3) The defendant modified the Jeep
4) The lawyer is trying to force a settlement with the dealer knowing that the defendant will turn around and sue the dealer should any judgement go against him or her.

Either way, it is scary to think that something like this can happen. "Come into our dealer for our oil change special- and spend tens of thousands of dollars defending yourself for something we did." It does make the dealer look pretty damn bad.
 
#5 ·
The family of the deceased can sue because the dealership broke the law by knowingly hiring someone without a license and letting them drive

the owner of the vehicle should sue the dealership for emotional pain and suffering
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave Z
#9 · (Edited)
Lawyers will look for any reason to sue.

Before reading the full story, I thought this may be a case where there was some kind of recall for the vehicle for unexpectedly jumping out of park, and that the owner failed to get a recall completed on his vehicle. But that's not the case.

The lawyer will be taking on the car owner's insurance company. If anything happens, the insurance company may settle it to make the issue go away.

I see this case going nowhere. The dealership had care, custody and control of his vehicle. The dealership is responsible for the death.

In fact, if there were any damages to the vehicle, the owner could sue the dealership for those repairs.
 
#10 ·
The lawyer will be taking on the car owner's insurance company. If anything happens, the insurance company may settle it to make the issue go away.
Exactly. The b̶l̶o̶o̶d̶s̶u̶c̶k̶e̶r̶ lawyer files a nuisance lawsuit and the insurance company settles because it's less trouble than going to court. The b̶l̶o̶o̶d̶s̶u̶c̶k̶e̶r̶ lawyer gets his share of the settlement for doing very little work. If the b̶l̶o̶o̶d̶s̶u̶c̶k̶e̶r̶ lawyer can find enough clients to do that all day, it's a path to prosperity.
 
#11 ·
Now stop and think about this:
1) How much is this lawsuit for?
2) What are the caps on the car owner's insurance policy?
I'll bet the first number is much higher than the second number.
 
#12 ·
Lawyers are as much of the scourge of the Earth as politicians. As a matter-of-fact, most politicians ARE lawyers. LOL I honestly don't see how any judge would even consider such a ridiculous lawsuit as this. BUT, they're supposed to follow and uphold the laws on the books, so I'll be curious as to how this turns out.
 
#13 ·
I think this demonstrates how asinine this world has become. If the law suit does win the case the cost of the owners insurance will likely increase as well. I think the car owner should counter sue the lawyer! Better yet, I think they should sue God; after all, he created this mess by giving man a brain, lol!
"Beam me up Scotty, there is no sanity left in this world!" 🤪
 
#15 ·
This is a state industrial accident issue for sure. There will be money coming from them to the deceased family but not that much. The lawyer should get an "A" for creativity and a stern rebuke from the judge for using it. The owner should get ALL COSTS reimbursed and some extra for being brought to court falsely (IMO).
 
#37 ·
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.
 
#21 ·
"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.
 
#24 ·
Ah. Here are the key bullets.

  • However, a lawyer for the Hawkins family noted that the Jeep owner, who has not been publicly named, will be defended and indemnified by the dealership
  • Rochester Hills Chrysler's insurance, which will ultimately have to foot the monetary damages and legal fees
 
#28 ·
Historically, not so weird - it was part of the New Deal deal. Businesses did not want workers' compensation laws. They were sold the worker's comp with the idea that they couldn't be sued for worker' comp issues. I don't know if it's unusual that you can't even sue for negligence. Probably it is normal. It's like the way social security goes to very very rich people who certainly don't need it. "See, you get something too." All part of the democratic process.

What's interesting is that the dealership is indemnifying the customer completely. I wonder how that happened. Sometimes legal workarounds get very talmudic - "Let's figure out a bypass to our otherwise-bad laws."

I am pretty impressed with the Daily Mail's coverage.
 
#31 ·
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.

When I read this statement from the lawyer, thats when I got the cringe feeling in my stomach.

I get it, they are a lawyer trying to pay off a student loan ... seriously these people .... looking for the big case to further their career. This lawyer is not a lawyer I would want to use.

We do have people just like this in all walks of life, we need to keep our guard up and protect ourselves from them.
 
#33 ·
. . . .
. . . .
I can see some fallout from this litigation that could affect auto manufacturers in the future. To make starting the vehicle engine "stupid proof" the manufacturers will have to install sensors on the manual transmission shift rails to determine that the manual gearshift is in neutral position. Future vehicles will all have an electric parking brake (no manual engagement lever allowed). The electric parking brake will have to be set from the previous vehicle shut down. All this plus the existing clutch neutral disengagement switch properly set. More complexity( starting logic nightmare ) and cost. .
 
#35 ·
Like push power mowers that shut off when you let go of the handle because years ago either Popular Science or Popular Mechanics had an article on using your rotary mower as a hedge trimmer.

You built a track to roll the mower along while standing on the side opposite the chute. Instructions stated to place the mower on the track and start it. Shortly after this time Craftsman introduced their "vertical pull" starter. Some budding Darwin award contestant found he couldn't start his Craftsman mower sitting on the track. He started it on the ground and reached under both ends to lift it, already running to place it on the frame.

His lawyer manged to find enough jurors to win a substantial settlement against Sears and we now have "stupid proof" power mowers.

I wonder what new and inane regulations will come from this one?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AceHanlon
#36 ·
Like push power mowers that shut off when you let go of the handle because years ago either Popular Science or Popular Mechanics had an article on using your rotary mower as a hedge trimmer.

You built a track to roll the mower along while standing on the side opposite the chute. Instructions stated to place the mower on the track and start it. Shortly after this time Craftsman introduced their "vertical pull" starter. Some budding Darwin award contestant found he couldn't start his Craftsman mower sitting on the track. He started it on the ground and reached under both ends to lift it, already running to place it on the frame.

His lawyer manged to find enough jurors to win a substantial settlement against Sears and we now have "stupid proof" power mowers.

I wonder what new and inane regulations will come from this one?
What in the world is wrong with humans.

Next they're gonna say not to drink antifreeze in car manuals because it looks like Kool aid.
 
#47 ·
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....."
 
#55 ·
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top