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

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.