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

wackjum · 01-14-2014, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMC Racing

You are an attorney in what field?

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 · 01-14-2014, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wackjum

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.

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

Tazicon · 01-14-2014, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wackjum

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. .

That right there is misguided statement.

ElVee · 01-14-2014, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tazicon

That right there is misguided statement.

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

Quote:

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.

MMC Racing · 01-14-2014, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 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.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
East Coast Nissan Dealer - Wilson Nissan - Worst Experience Ever!	TosHaNYC	Nissan 370Z Pricing / Ordering Discussions	26	01-14-2012 10:42 AM
Ichaba Nightmare	phohman	Wheels & Tires	5	10-19-2011 12:11 PM
Worst nightmare ever	370zFORme!!	The Lounge (Off Topic)	6	09-06-2011 11:52 AM
What a Nightmare! Help please!	Jjaden	Wheels & Tires	16	04-08-2011 03:38 PM
Asleep. Had a 370Z Nightmare.	Naytch	Nissan 370Z General Discussions	16	12-19-2010 03:09 PM