Can you believe this story?

[ruffdog]

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.

The guy having the "brain fart" did not die. Instead, he was the one that killed a fellow mechanic, the breadwinner of his family.

 

[azbinder]

The guy having the "brain fart" did not die. Instead, he was the one that killed a fellow mechanic, the breadwinner of his family.

Yes. I've seen a couple of posts here saying that the "brain fart" was the one that died, when in fact it was a mechanic working across the shop.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

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

The defendant has absolutely no duty to the plaintiff. Now if he had modified the vehicle to the point to where it was dangerous to the mechanic, and didn't inform him, that's different...but that wasn't the case. I would still sue the dealership, get them into court, and let them tell the judge they were protected by law. The owner of the vehicle is not responsible for the stupidity and ignorance of the mechanics. The lawsuit has absolutely no merit, and I would award attorney fees for a frivolous lawsuit.

"Femminineo told McClatchy News that the car owner is responsible for Hawkins' death in the same way that someone who lent another person their vehicle would be liable for any injuries caused by the driver. He said a person who lends their car is liable for negligent acts because they gave the other person permission to use their vehicle.

According to a summary filed in court on March 1, the court has ordered the Rochester Hills Chrysler Jeep Dodge dealership, where the incident occurred, to indemnify Diaz-Navarro if he is found liable of negligence."

Femminineo is wrong; the car owner is not responsible in the same way as someone who lent their vehicle and the driver caused injury to another; and when you lend your vehicle, you are not responsible if he has a license and has done nothing that would label him a dangerous driver; and under the UCC, the dealer is an expert and it's his responsibility to take reasonable care.

 

[Jstpssng]

The defendant has absolutely no duty to the plaintiff. Now if he had modified the vehicle to the point to where it was dangerous to the mechanic, and didn't inform him, that's different...but that wasn't the case. I would still sue the dealership, get them into court, and let them tell the judge they were protected by law. The owner of the vehicle is not responsible for the stupidity and ignorance of the mechanics. The lawsuit has absolutely no merit, and I would award attorney fees for a frivolous lawsuit.

I understand that, and agree. You seemed to be among those who blamed the victim for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Frivolous? You are a lawyer and I’m not. Yet I would be more concerned with why this was necessary in the first place.
There are two victims here... the person getting sued, and the family of the person who died. While it may suck to be both, I think that the latter got the short stick and are merely playing the cards they were dealt.

 

[Jstpssng]

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

I understand that. I also am aware that the victim’s family is only doing what they have to, so they can get compensated for the loss of that breadwinner.
I don’t know the circumstances, but if I was that car owner and knew what was going on I’d like to think I would play along, while ensuring that I wasn’t going to get burned in the end. I also would try to get enough extra to start changing that law... and as soon as things were settled would start beating on doors to make that happen.
>
>
In a perfect world that’s what I would do... I hope that my words never get out to the test.

 

[SgtSluggo]

I tried to quote everyone who this applied to, but it got to be too much.

This is really important - The owner has ALREADY sued the dealership and WON. The dealership must now indemnify the owner (i.e. pay whatever the judgement is for). As it's a civil suit, there really isn't any reason for the owner to care whether they loose this lawsuit or not.

What needs to change is the Michigan law that even lets this be necessary.

 

[Jstpssng]

What needs to change is the Michigan law that even lets this be necessary.

AMEN!!!!!

 

[Danica]

Read this story and tell me this isn't crazy.

Michigan car owner sued after Jeep kills mechanic during oil change

on edit for those who cannot or won't go on the dastardly Fox News


A Michigan man who left his car at a dealership for an oil change and tire rotation is being sued after his vehicle was involved in the death of one of the dealership's employees.

Sergio Enrique Diaz-Navarro took his red 2019 Wrangler to a Chrysler Jeep Dodge dealership on March 13, 2020, and 19-year-old lube technician Daniel Thompson worked on the car. After the service was complete, the vehicle "lurched forward" as the young employee attempted to operate it, crushing 42-year-old mechanic Jeffrey Hawkins against a cabinet, court records show.

Thompson had lowered the Jeep from the vehicle lift, and then tried to start the car and let it idle to ensure there were no oil leaks around the filter, according to court records.

"Thompson reached into the vehicle and pressed brake with his right foot, keeping his other foot on the floor," the plaintiff summary reads. "He pressed the start button. When the vehicle did not start, he took his foot off the brake and depressed the clutch pedal. He again hit the start button. This time the Jeep started. He removed his foot from the clutch, still standing outside the vehicle. The vehicle lurched forward."

Hawkins was taken to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries, according to The Kansas City Star.

Attorney David Femminineo, who is representing Hawkins' estate, told FOX 2 that Thompson did not know how to drive the vehicle's manual transmission and did not have a license. The attorney also said the dealership cannot be sued because of a legal standard preventing an employee from suing their boss for negligence, which, in this case, would be the hiring of someone who should not have been driving.

Because the incident happened at work and involved two employees, the boss cannot be sued, FOX 2 notes.

Diaz-Navarro's attorney told FOX 2 he plans to fight the case in a trial later this month.

"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.

According to a summary filed in court on March 1, the court has ordered the Rochester Hills Chrysler Jeep Dodge dealership, where the incident occurred, to indemnify Diaz-Navarro if he is found liable of negligence.

"So in reality, the owner is going to be held responsible, but the dealership’s insurance company is paying," Femminineo told McClatchy News. He said he hopes a verdict in excess of $15 million is awarded.

That is our litigious society gone mad…

 

[WM75Guy]

The person doing the oil changes for a dealership is usually not a mechanic, they are a shop worker with minimal training. Hence the 19 y/o lube technician without a driver's license that killed a mechanic. The statute that prevented the estate of the employee from suing the employer for negligence is labor law. Hard to imagine that got passed in a state with that much union presence.

 

[Dftodd]

I understand that. I also am aware that the victim’s family is only doing what they have to, so they can get compensated for the loss of that breadwinner.
I don’t know the circumstances, but if I was that car owner and knew what was going on I’d like to think I would play along, while ensuring that I wasn’t going to get burned in the end. I also would try to get enough extra to start changing that law... and as soon as things were settled would start beating on doors to make that happen.
>
>
In a perfect world that’s what I would do... I hope that my words never get out to the test.

I don't think I would play along. I understand they are upset. It was Tragic.

You know as well as I do of the idiocy in our legal system.

All it takes is a bleeding heart loony toon for a judge and a stacked jury for that customer to lose everything.

 

[Dftodd]

The guy having the "brain fart" did not die. Instead, he was the one that killed a fellow mechanic, the breadwinner of his family.

Gotcha, I missed that part. Either way, the customer should not have been named in a lawsuit.

The person listed in that lawsuit should have been the employee with the brain fart and caused the death.

 

[SgtSluggo]

There's a really good chance that the customer could lose everything because of some bleeding heart judge and a stacked jury.

You are missing part of the story. The customer has already sued the dealership for indemnification against any judgment in their case. Which means if the customer "loses" the dealership pays the cost.

All this is because Michigan has a law that a business/owner/boss cannot be sued for negligence in a worker injury/death case.

As for suing the 19 year old who caused the death, I'm not sure suing someone with what is probably a negative net worth is worthwhile.

 

[Dftodd]

You are missing part of the story. The customer has already sued the dealership for indemnification against any judgment in their case. Which means if the customer "loses" the dealership pays the cost.

All this is because Michigan has a law that a business/owner/boss cannot be sued for negligence in a worker injury/death case.

I'm not missing anything.

If they want to change a law, do it another way. Don't victimize an innocent bystander because your unhappy with a payout. Only thing the person being sued did was drop his vehicle off for an oil change.

 

[SgtSluggo]

I'm not missing anything.

If they want to change a law, do it another way. Don't victimize an innocent bystander because your unhappy with a payout. Only thing the person being sued did was drop his vehicle off for an oil change.

I am sure they want to be compensated for the loss of their family member (and punish the dealer). However, Michigan law prevents this. So, they could fight a long uphill legislative battle against a lobby group with much deeper pockets that will not result in them being able to seek restitution or they could work within what their state's law allows currently.

As for the owner, I am not sure how much he is being victimized when he will owe nothing (not sure what his arrangement with his lawyers is, I would certainly have sued the dealership for legal fees as well).

 

[Dftodd]

I am sure they want to be compensated for the loss of their family member (and punish the dealer). However, Michigan law prevents this. So, they could fight a long uphill legislative battle against a lobby group with much deeper pockets that will not result in them being able to seek restitution or they could work within what their state's law allows currently.

As for the owner, I am not sure how much he is being victimized when he will owe nothing (not sure what his arrangement with his lawyers is, I would certainly have sued the dealership for legal fees as well).

Who is paying the owners legal fees?

How much is the owner out up front for legal representation?

Can they afford it?

How long will it take for the suit to go through for reimbursement?

Will you actually win reimbursement or are you gonna have to eat those expenses?

Those are a lot of what if's, crap, and stress to deal with just because you dropped your vehicle off for an $80 oil change

 

[Jstpssng]

Who is paying the owners legal fees?

How much is the owner out up front for legal representation?

Can they afford it?

How long will it take for the suit to go through for reimbursement?

Will you actually win reimbursement or are you gonna have to eat those expenses?

Those are a lot of what if's, crap, and stress to deal with just because you dropped your vehicle off for an $80 oil change

Read what he said! Apparently the Jeep owner has already received a judgement against the dealer.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

It just occurred to me, that if the story is really true, it is a way around the Worker's comp law. You can't sue the employer, but you can sue the guy who owns the car, who if he loses, is reimbursed by the employer. Worker's comp laws were designed to make sure the worker was taken care of when injured and thus making the suit against the employer unnecessary. However, it is possible in Michigan the employer does not have to pay much in the way of death benefits to the family or life insurance.

 

[5030]

Kinda pathetic what lawyers will do, to make a living. Yup, they are lower on the totem pole than a used car salesman. LOL

Not all, but quite a few. Our attorney is one, a conservative and two a gun nut and 3 a good ethical hunter too.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

You are missing part of the story. The customer has already sued the dealership for indemnification against any judgment in their case. Which means if the customer "loses" the dealership pays the cost.

All this is because Michigan has a law that a business/owner/boss cannot be sued for negligence in a worker injury/death case.

As for suing the 19 year old who caused the death, I'm not sure suing someone with what is probably a negative net worth is worthwhile.

Yeah, the Worker's comp law only prohibits the employee from suing, not a customer.

 

[Jstpssng]

It just occurred to me, that if the story is really true, it is a way around the Worker's comp law. You can't sue the employer, but you can sue the guy who owns the car, who if he loses, is reimbursed by the employer. Worker's comp laws were designed to make sure the worker was taken care of when injured and thus making the suit against the employer unnecessary. However, it is possible in Michigan the employer does not have to pay much in the way of death benefits to the family or life insurance.

You just asked the question which nobody else has addressed. Have you ever considered a career as a lawyer?