Your worst nightmare when you drop your ZL1 car off at the dealer...

122554

I don't understand why they're on a forum, any forum! Hire an attorney and STFU!

__________________


I don't normally drink beer, but when I do....i drink a lot!

SuperTom

Word of mouth is the best way to get back at any bad business. If the dealership makes good on the situation they can gain back their credibility. Either way everyone on the internet has that information on that dealership now.

__________________
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y18...psd111ae61.jpg

122554

What you say is true, but this is not the right time.

As an attorney, I would love to be representing the dealership. The plaintiff is out there shouting his whole case to everyone. You think the attorney's that represents the defendant doesn't read this? Perhaps there's some law that protects the dealer from the actions of an employee? If not, they would in most cases have insurance to cover such an event.

Now the whole case is on the internet. If for some reason the dealership prevails, I can turn around and sue the plaintiff for slander.

I'm not judging anyone by these statements. If the plaintiff wins, they have the rest of their life to blast the dealership.

I stand-by my earlier statement in this case, past, and future. The best advice you will ever receive from an attorney is "STFU"

__________________


I don't normally drink beer, but when I do....i drink a lot!

Wonka2581

The dealer is reponsible for the safe keping of the vehicle when it is in there possession. If I was Hooper I would sue for a new car! I would put money on it that the case wouldnt even make it to court, the dealer would come up with a new car...

__________________
"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat""Winston Churchill"

122554

You need to raise your level up a bit. A car would be the last thing I'd accept. Something that starts with a $ and ends with a lot of 0000's would be more appropriate!

__________________


I don't normally drink beer, but when I do....i drink a lot!

Wonka2581

Your so right...

__________________
"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat""Winston Churchill"

wackjum

Thanks. I understand the sentiment but I still think it was rude to call out 122554. I want as many options on the table in a case, and one potential option might have been using confidentiality as leverage in a settlement. But now that the cat is out of the bag, I doubt the dealership would find any value in such a settlement.

And I'm not rooting for the dealership. I am a car enthusiast and I have represented clients against shops for similar situations. Liability is without a doubt on the employee, but he doesn't have the money to make this right. Hooking liability onto the party with resources (the dealership) is where its going to be a challenge.

He's not entitled to a new car, even in the best circumstance. He's entitled to be made whole, and that's a car of similar value to what he lost.

And of course when you get down to the nitty-gritty, its never simple. A dealership arguably has a duty to care for cars in its possession, but how far does this duty extend? Fallout proof concrete vault with 24/7 armed guards? Obviously there has to be a limit on the dealership's duty, and generally this goes down to what can be reasonably anticipated. If the dealership locked up customer's keys and kept the car in a secured area, I think that might discharge their duty.

The irony here is that the more "wrong" the employee acted, the less liable the dealership is. Example: If the employee just strolled into a publicly accessible area and took the keys out of a bowl and then jumped into the car parked out in front, it could be said that the dealership failed in their duty to safeguard.

On the other extreme, if the employee swiped his security badge to get into a secure area, dropped knockout gas on the guard, and used bolt cutters to get through the locks of the garage facility, I don't think anybody would question the dealership didn't do enough. A somewhat silly example, but if you can see there's a continuum of the dealership's responsibility, then you can see its not so simple to just say the car was in the dealer's possession and the dealer should pay.

MightyBobo

You're saying we can't oversimplify something? Can you....can you tell me if that is a good thing or a bad thing?

Good/BadFellas - Good Thing or Bad Thing? - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 10/29/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

__________________
I don't own a car anymore.

MMC Racing

The main facts don't seem in dispute. The dealership had possession of the vehicle. An employee of the dealership damaged the vehicle. The dealership admits all this and fired the employee.

Is the judge going to care that there was some settlement negotiations? Because any potential slander is around statements made about the aftermath of the damage. The only thing before the judge would be applying liability law.

You are an attorney in what field?

__________________
2014 F150 Raptor, 2014 Mazda 3, 2015 Nissan GT-R

wackjum

These cases are not as straightforward as it may seem.

In order for the dealership to be liable, the employee had to be either: 1) acting under the scope of his employment; or 2) the dealer knew or should have known the employee would do something like this.

Generally, a party like the dealership is only liable if they owe a duty to the injured party. For example if you're walking in the street and you spot an injured bicyclist, you have no duty to this person and the person cannot sue you for causing his injuries or failing to get help. And that would make sense because you're just some random person. But if you were the driver that hit the bicyclist, you'd have a duty to operate your vehicle carefully, and a duty to stop and render aid. So the driver could be liable to the bicyclist.

Really the only way the dealership can be liable for this event is if the employee had done something like this before, there had been similar incidents, or during the hiring process the dealership should have known this individual would probably do something like this.

I find this to be a very misguided and potentially insulting statement but something I come across pretty often. There's an idea that law does not require specialized knowledge, when in fact it does a great deal. I would at least respect the advice of an MD when he was giving medical information, even if he was giving it in a field that was outside of his specialty. A gynecologist has more knowledge about the human foot than I do even though he'd be clearly speaking outside of his chosen practice.

I believe it is a fair statement to say that a practicing attorney in any field is probably more adept at giving legal advice and analyzing the legal issues than somebody who has had no legal training at all.

MightyBobo

This was the written equivalent of dropping the microphone. Just so you know.

And FWIW, your argument seemed logical. Problem here is that a lot of people are obviously biased towards the poor guy who lost his car, and it clouds their judgement. I guess they wont be on this jury :-p

__________________
I don't own a car anymore.

Tazicon

That right there is misguided statement.

ElVee

Not to get annoying and butt into this thread, but at least give the full context.

MMC Racing

I was responding to the guy saying there was a slander case if there was a lawsuit and if the car owner lost. Try to keep things in context.

__________________
2014 F150 Raptor, 2014 Mazda 3, 2015 Nissan GT-R