F.A.O.: TeeVee

[3WE]

Sir Argumentarian, Forum entertainer and Friend:

I enjoy legal arguments: There’s usually some high-level logic that needs to be considered.

In this case: One is required to hand over their vehicle to responsible persons, and is responsible if said persons are negligent.

Hmmm. But, I used reasonable good Dilligence in handing my car to people who have a reasonable expectation of not being grossly negligent.

This defies 99% of common sense.

Do you think this case will prevail?

I think Evan may need to help you guys in the legal department a bit more, as soon as mask law and bomb handling is rectified.

Thanks in advance.


https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/jeep-o...-dies-20220506

[TeeVee]

this is a tough one. i generally DISagree with these types of statutes, especially under circumstances such as these. but, the law is the law and ignorance thereof is not an excuse.

given that the owner's insurance co paid policy limits right away, indicates to me that they acknowledge their insured's liability under the law. i did 10 minutes of quick research on this and to sum it up, read this:

Owner who consented to use of her automobile by another would be liable under owner’s Civil Liability Act for negligent use of automobile by other’s son even though owner gave instructions that no one else was to use automobile, any limitations imposed by owner being irrelevant to purpose of this section to place risk of damage upon person having ultimate control of vehicle.

the relevant statute is what we call a "strict liability" statute. which means pretty much that all a plaintiff has to prove is that the owner gave consent to someone to use the vehicle.

[3WE]

Thank you.

How would Evan go about changing these statutes? It kills me that the eggnernt dealership hired a 19YO idiot who could not legally drive (let alone a stick) and let him touch a drivers seat except to vacuum it.

Perhaps a Twitter campaign against the dealership and a gofundme effort for the car owner? /sarcasm.

[Gabriel]

Although I have no expertise to properly describe it or use ptoper language when trying to do so (and failing), I have known about this type of liability for a long time.

The idea, in the extreme, is that by buying a car you acknowledge that you are buying dangerous machine that can cause harm even if it is not your fault, and then assume the liability for such harm. It kinda makes sense, and it kinda not. I can see both sides.

The part that really puzzles me in this case is this:

The Fox reporter asked Femminineo: "Did the 19-year-old know how to drive a stick?" to which he replied: "He didn't know how to drive a stick, and he had no license."

When asked why the dealership hired the young mechanic at all, the lawyer said: "That's what I'd like to know."

You don't need to be a legal expert to presume who the suit would be targeted at: a person died as a result of an accident in the workplace, so one would predict a lawsuit against the dealership. However, in this case, you'd be wrong.

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

Whaaaaaaaat? At the end of the day this was a workplace accident caused to an employee by another employee who wasn't qualified for the job. How can you NOT sue the employer who was in charge of hiring, ensuring proper qualification or qualifying, training, establishing procedures, and supervising the employees? I think that the employer is more at fault that the employee that caused the accident, and more than the car owner.

[Gabriel]

It kills me that the eggnernt dealership hired a 19YO idiot who could not legally drive (let alone a stick) and let him touch a drivers seat except to vacuum it.

It kills me even more that, despite the above, you apparently cannot sue the dealership.

[TeeVee]

i'm not an expert in the area but likely it's because of our workers compensation laws. prior to work comp, workers were screwed. they had to prove all sorts of crap like liability, negligence etc. now? it's simple: (1) i was working (2) i got hurt/dead. no long expensive trials. no burdens of proof blah blah blah. good for employees. most of the time.

the work comp laws trump civil liability laws as between worker and employee. now, i don't know if that means that the family of the worker cant sue the employee directly in what is called a survivor action. not my area of expertise.

[Gabriel]

i'm not an expert in the area but likely it's because of our workers compensation laws. prior to work comp, workers were screwed. they had to prove all sorts of crap like liability, negligence etc. now? it's simple: (1) i was working (2) i got hurt/dead. no long expensive trials. no burdens of proof blah blah blah. good for employees. most of the time.

the work comp laws trump civil liability laws as between worker and employee. now, i don't know if that means that the family of the worker cant sue the employee directly in what is called a survivor action. not my area of expertise.

I don't get what you are saying. The employee that resulted fatally inquired a) was working and b) is dead, so it meets the criteria you mention. Why does the lawyer that represents the killed employee (or his family) say that they can't go against the employer because of a "legal standard" that is involved? What you explains seems to mean the exact opposite (if I understood it correctly).

[TeeVee]

I don't get what you are saying. The employee that resulted fatally inquired a) was working and b) is dead, so it meets the criteria you mention. Why does the lawyer that represents the killed employee (or his family) say that they can't go against the employer because of a "legal standard" that is involved? What you explains seems to mean the exact opposite (if I understood it correctly).

because under work comp law, the employee cannot "sue" the employer. period. all that can be done is a work comp claim which is an administrative process. there are still payments made for injury and death, but no juries, no long trials. i do not know if the family can file suit against the employer.

one would have to know what MI law says about this and i'm guessing that because the lawyer went on the record as saying it couldnt be filed, the law prevents it. no sane lawyer walks away from making money...

[Gabriel]

I get it now. Comp law kicks in in lieu of a tort trial. I wonder how much is that comp. Would it be a fair compensation for damages? (similar to what you could obtain in a traditional way, by suing and reaching a negotiation or jury verdict)?

[TeeVee]

the comp laws are fairly good when it comes to paying disability type pay for work related injuries/illness. i doubt they come anywhere near the kinds of verdicts people get in civil trials.

[Gabriel]

This of course was terrible for the victim who was killed and his family, and it is possible a life changing event for the person who caused the accident who will have to live with this for the rest of his life (depending on whether he is the type of person that gives a s**t or not).

But it can be life-changing for the car owner too. Depending on how much is the claim, how much is covered by the comp law and how much by the car's insurance (liability limit in the policy), the owner may still be liable for an amount of money that he cannot afford and be forced to be indebt for a long time, or sell his house, or declare bankruptcy, or something like that. This doesn't seem fair at all for the car owner whose only fault was to leave his car at the dealer for an oil change (and being the owner of a dangerous item to begin with, but still!).

I think that is not ok (perhaps even not constitutional in some way) that a comp law prevents you from suing your employee if you consider that the remedy you get by the comp law doesn't cover the damage done. In this case the family can still go against the owner. But what if there was no owner? (a different accident, say the employee got electrocuted or the accident happened with a dealer's car) Are you forced to surrender your right to claim for what you consider a fair repair, in order to accept job?

I mean, good for the comp law that removes the burden of proof from the employee, but the employee should have a resort to claim upon the justice what he considers to be just. The judge or jury may then disagree, but any person should have the opportunity to at least seek for justice. Isn't that a right?

[Evan]

Thank you.

How would Evan go about changing these statutes?

Well, for starters, he would employ logic and the principals of justice, both of which are missing here.

In Michigan, an injured employee can't sue their boss, even if it was the boss' negligence in employing someone incapable of the job they were hired for.

Secondly, he would get the f out of Michigan and never look back.

I recommend that the owner of said Jeep do the same.

[TeeVee]

where do you live evan?

https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/IMPUTED-CONTRIB-NEG-AND-VICARIOUS-LIABILITY-OF-VEHICLE-OWNER.pdf

i have not independently verified the above info.

[3WE]

I briefly wondered if the guy could counter-sue to get any car damage fixed, but he’s probably responsible for that, too.

[Gabriel]

I briefly wondered if the guy could counter-sue to get any car damage fixed, but he’s probably responsible for that, too.

That's a good point. If the family of the affected employee cannot sue the employer for damages, perhaps the car owner can. Not only to repair the car, but also the rest of the costs incurred (legal cost, liability beyond insurance limit) and the intangible damages (inconvenience for car not available, mental and emotional stress and suffering, etc...)