Can you believe this story?

[Thomas]

Not surprise.

 

[RoyJackson]

Maybe a countersuit against the dealership (they're the ones who should have confirmed the mechanic was competent), the mechanic's' family (who initiated the lawsuit} ...as well as the lawyers who filed the stupid lawsuit
My guess is the lawyers who filed the lawsuit are the most complicit in this travesty

 

[Jstpssng]

The Automobile Dealers Association is one of the strongest lobby/special interest groups in the US.

There is a huge difference between an individual borrowing your car and a business taking possession of your car as part of the normal course of business. The owner of the Jeep has zero fault here unless he made some modification to the Jeep that was unknown to the dealership.

The fault lies with the employee who did not know how to drive a stick. His pockets are not deep, so lawyers go after the owner to get at the dealership. Moronic laws. The owner will still have to be involved in something for which he did nothing wrong. In this crazy world, he should be able to sue the state for putting the business ahead of the individual. How is the guy going to feel knowing his Jeep killed someone? Smh

He also didn't have a license. Probably not required to drive on private property, yet that still is an indication of knowing how to drive.
How many 19 YOs know how to drive a standard, anyways? I know that some will sound off about how your son/daughter has been driving one since the age of 3, yet that's a vast minority.

 

[Pixguy]

Imagine in our day being 19 and not having your license? I couldn't wait at 16 to have my independence and yet today I've known dozens of 17-25 yo's who don't have an interest in driving and I'm talking in rural NH and ME, not in the cities. Very odd to me.

 

[Oaktree]

He also didn't have a license. Probably not required to drive on private property, yet that still is an indication of knowing how to drive.
How many 19 YOs know how to drive a standard, anyways? I know that some will sound off about how your son/daughter has been driving one since the age of 3, yet that's a vast minority.

For that matter, how many 40 year olds today know how to drive a stick? Very few.
I'm surprised the dealer hired someone with no license to work as a mechanic. An acquaintance of mine got let go from a dealership when he lost his for DWI...if he couldn't drive he wasn't much use to them. Not sure if that was a company policy or a state law.
Then again, it's hard to find good help these days and maybe the 19 year old was a promising mechanic so they looked the other way.

I would guess that in a state that's synonymous with the auto industry, there are a lot of state laws protecting that industry, even when they're clearly responsible/at fault.
I feel bad for the Jeep's owners. Even if they were successfully able to collect from the dealership, there was still the hassle/expense of suing the dealership themselves. Likewise, how much of the fact that they were sued will continue to dog them for the rest of their lives by those who don't read the entire story?

 

[Pixguy]

He also didn't have a license. Probably not required to drive on private property, yet that still is an indication of knowing how to drive.
How many 19 YOs know how to drive a standard, anyways? I know that some will sound off about how your son/daughter has been driving one since the age of 3, yet that's a vast minority.

Wouldn't you think that the dealers contract with Chrysler would include not having unlicensed drivers working on the lot.

 

[Jstpssng]

Wouldn't you think that the dealers contract with Chrysler would include not having unlicensed drivers working on the lot.

I don't know. That's not something I've ever had to be concerned about.

 

[Torvy]

He also didn't have a license. Probably not required to drive on private property, yet that still is an indication of knowing how to drive.
How many 19 YOs know how to drive a standard, anyways? I know that some will sound off about how your son/daughter has been driving one since the age of 3, yet that's a vast minority.

Haha...my kids (18-24) X 4 can all drive a stick...we specifically bought a manual to avoid having friends 'borrow' the car.

Based on an informal poll of my HS students, it is probably 5% or less.

 

[Jstpssng]

Haha...my kids (18-24) X 4 can all drive a stick...we specifically bought a manual to avoid having friends 'borrow' the car.

Based on an informal poll of my HS students, it is probably 5% or less.

I haven't driven one since 2001, when the engine went in my Toyota. . For years I was keeping my eyes open for a heavy 3/4 ton or light ton truck with a manual transmission, but it's hard to buy something which isn't made. When I bought my Colorado 2 years ago I was also considering a Tacoma, but nobody had what I wanted with the 6 speed, and I couldn't afford the gas for a V-6 auto.

 

[Dftodd]

I honestly think the suit against the owner will be tossed out. Owner wasn't on site and the worker was a flat out idiot. Dealership should have policies in place curb darwinism.

Worker should have been sitting in the seat and not trying to do it from outside the vehicle.

Guy I knew years ago did something similar while working quick lube for a Ford dealership. Guy used his hands to work the clutch from outside the vehicle.

Launched the car off the ramp he had it on. Person worked off the damages to the vehicle that the dealer had to fix. Then got canned once the damages were worked off.

 

[71bronco]

At least 1 of my vehicles were stick ever since I started driving. Current truck is the only 1 I ever had with an automatic. Couldn't pass up the deal.
My current work car is a 2012 focus with stick and 38 mpg.
My wife and son can drive standard but 2 daughters can't.

Jeff

 

[locknut]

The lawyers could sue Jeep for not having a sensor in the drivers seat to disable the starter circuit. Deep pockets and all.

And I'm sure the owners manual for the Jeep says to shift to neutral and set the parking brake.

 

[Bill Guenthner]

1. If Jeep doesn’t immediately move in to protect the customer then I would suggest that having a vehicle serviced at any Jeep dealership is too risky.

2. Given that there are probably more Jeeps sold with manual transmissions than any other brand, how does Jeep not train all service employees to drive and operate a stick? I don’t want anyone who can’t drive my car working on it.

I took my Silverado to a dealership for service many years ago. They had the receptionist filling in moving vehicles in and out of the shop, she ran it into the overhead garage door frame. Then they did a lousy job fixing it.

 

[2manyrocks]

The plaintiff's lawyer in this case is trying to do an end run around worker's compensation laws to get more money out of the dealership. Under normal worker's comp laws, the deceased worker's sole and exclusive remedy is whatever worker's compensation money is awarded for death and can't sue either the dealership or the co-worker for more money in excess of what worker's compensation provides. The plaintiff's lawyer is trying to get around this by suing the customer for being liable for the death as the registered owner of the vehicle. The case against the customer should be dismissed, IMPO, because the whole thing is an attempt to get around the worker's comp statute's sole and exclusive remedy to get more from the dealership. The case will probably end up in the court of appeals.

 

[Bill Guenthner]

The plaintiff's lawyer in this case is trying to do an end run around worker's compensation laws to get more money out of the dealership. Under normal worker's comp laws, the deceased worker's sole and exclusive remedy is whatever worker's compensation money is awarded for death and can't sue either the dealership or the co-worker for more money in excess of what worker's compensation provides. The plaintiff's lawyer is trying to get around this by suing the customer for being liable for the death as the registered owner of the vehicle. The case against the customer should be dismissed, IMPO, because the whole thing is an attempt to get around the worker's comp statute's sole and exclusive remedy to get more from the dealership. The case will probably end up in the court of appeals.

I am not a lawyer but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last week. I would think gross negligence on the part of the employer (if provable) would take it out of the realm of workman’s comp.

 

[Dftodd]

You would think that the dealership would want to get in front of this.

Words already out there that one of there customers is being sued by an employees family over gross incompetence by said employee.

Seems at some point that the service departments gonna suffer when everyone refuses to use them for service for fear of being sued.

And if I was the defendant in that case. I would be counter suing the employees family for dragging me into the middle of there pi$$ing contest with the employer because they are butt hurt over there family member being an idiot.

Actually I would be suing everybody for dragging me into the middle of it. I was just there to get my vehicle serviced just like every other customer. It's not my fault they hire idiots and failed to train there employees properly.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

I am not a lawyer but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last week. I would think gross negligence on the part of the employer (if provable) would take it out of the realm of workman’s comp.

I've been a lawyer and an Administrative law judge also. I would have dismissed the lawsuit on a motion for summary judgement. The dealer or employer are charged with having expertise in the matter, and their burden is greater. If I were the lawyer for the defendant, I would sue the dealer big time on the basis that they were responsible, if nothing more, just to get them in the lawsuit.
I don't know much about worker's comp, but this needs a second look.

 

[Jstpssng]

You would think that the dealership would want to get in front of this.

Words already out there that one of there customers is being sued by an employees family over gross incompetence by said employee.

Seems at some point that the service departments gonna suffer when everyone refuses to use them for service for fear of being sued.

And if I was the defendant in that case. I would be counter suing the employees family for dragging me into the middle of there pi$$ing contest with the employer because they are butt hurt over there family member being an idiot.

Actually I would be suing everybody for dragging me into the middle of it. I was just there to get my vehicle serviced just like every other customer. It's not my fault they hire idiots and failed to train there employees properly.

You are way off base. The imcompetent employee is getting off Scott free... as is the dealership at this time. The family pursuing a lawsuit is trying to get compensated for the loss of the bread winner, who was killed because the dealership-aka, his employer- hired somebody who wasn’t qualified to do his job. State law prevents suing the dealership, even though they are ultimately at fault. So the plaintiff’s only recourse is to go after the car owner, who will then collect from the dealership’s insurance to cover the settlement.

All that the deceased was trying to do was make a living. He wasn’t at fault, he wasn’t incompetent. He just happened to be on the wrong place at the wrong time.

How would you feel if your wife was killed because somebody from that dealership took a car for a ride around the block even though he didn’t have a license; then you found out that the dealership was protected by law? It’s the exact same thing.

 

[Jstpssng]

I've been a lawyer and an Administrative law judge also. I would have dismissed the lawsuit on a motion for summary judgement. The dealer or employer are charged with having expertise in the matter, and their burden is greater. If I were the lawyer for the defendant, I would sue the dealer big time on the basis that they were responsible, if nothing more, just to get them in the lawsuit.
I don't know much about worker's comp, but this needs a second look.

If you read the original link you will see that the dealership is protected by law. See my comment above

 

[Dftodd]

You are way off base. The imcompetent employee is getting off Scott free... as is the dealership at this time. The family pursuing a lawsuit is trying to get compensated for the loss of the bread winner, who was killed because the dealership-aka, his employer- hired somebody who wasn’t qualified to do his job. State law prevents suing the dealership, even though they are ultimately at fault. So the plaintiff’s only recourse is to go after the car owner, who will then collect from the dealership’s insurance to cover the settlement.

All that the deceased was trying to do was make a living. He wasn’t at fault, he wasn’t incompetent. He just happened to be on the wrong place at the wrong time.

How would you feel if your wife was killed because somebody from that dealership took a car for a ride around the block even though he didn’t have a license; then you found out that the dealership was protected by law? It’s the exact same thing.

And if you go back and read what I wrote, i was writing it as if I was the poor customer who got dragged into the middle of that mess because he happened to be the owner of the vehicle.

Who is gonna reimburse him for his legal fees, stress, loss of work, ect...... because some jack leg lawyer is trying to do a reach around to get past state law.

He did the same as anyone of us and dropped his vehicle off for service. And getting sued because the person working on his vehicle had a huge major brain fart and lost his life over it.

As a consumer you should be extremely concerned. Because that could have very well been you who got dragged into the middle of that lawsuit because you happened to own the vehicle.