Can you believe this story?

[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?