Printable View
Car owner who left Jeep at dealership gets sued after worker dies during oil change [[fox2detroit.com)
The deck was stacked over a century ago against workers who are killed at work. At the end of the Progressive Era workers compensation laws were created to insulate employers from torts on behalf of workers who are injured or killed on the job. Progressive Era - Wikipedia
Steve Lehto did a video on this. He is unaware of any such law that protects suing employers like this. Also, for tort cases like this, you can *always* sue the person directly responsible, that is, the driver of the vehicle. It doesn't matter if they are an employee, or contractor or customer, or anyone else. Suing the vehicle owner *can* be an option, but in this case it's a confusing one. If there is protection for the dealership for some weird reason, the next person on the list of people to sue is the driver.
Steve Lehto should know that workers compensation law prohibits an employee's family from suing the employer for wrongful death. So, the dealership is absolutely protected from any such lawsuit by the family of the deceased.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
Here's how it works in many, if not all, states:
"WORKERS' COMP DEATH BENEFITS VS. WRONGFUL DEATH LAWSUIT
Workers' comp is designed to provide financial benefits to a worker/employee who is injured or killed on the job, as well as their dependents.
What many people don't realize is that workers' comp is designed to protect employers from being sued for job-related injuries or deaths—even if the employer was negligent or contributed to a dangerous workplace environment.
This means that even if an employer violated safety standards, such as those set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [[OSHA), they are still protected by workers' compensation laws.
However, if the workplace death was caused by a third party, such as a general contractor, subcontractor, or negligent equipment manufacturer, the surviving family members may be able to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the third party, not the employer."
Of course, they can sue the kid who didn't have a license, and hence didn't have insurance. Does the kid have money?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVXN1oEWKZE
Oil Change Customer Sued After Worker Kills Someone w/Car
Quote:
And, they are not suing the man who was behind the wheel.
Then worker's comp would pay no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Whalley
500 weeks of pay, based on the last 52 weeks of the employees earnings?
I.E $576,000 if the 42 year mechanic was making $60k a year?
Correct. A suit for wrongful death would yield $18M or more. But the employer is insulated. Instead, the state's compensation fund will pay out a small fraction of that, and the employer will pay nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket
IMHO the owner of the dealership should be charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter. But I wouldn't bet on that happening unless the guy is behind on his payments to the prosecutor's campaign fund.
Can't the dealership be sued for hiring a 19 year old who didn't even have a valid driver's license?
The article says the Jeep was a stick. Very few people, especially young know how to drive a manual transmission vehicle. I do.
If you don't manual trannies can lunge forward suddenly, or stall out [which would have been a better outcome in this case].
The dealership is exempt from any and all lawsuits by the family of the deceased. But someone else can sue the dealership, e.g., the owner of the car may sue for damages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid
One of the reasons for the Workman's Comp program is to have equity on compensation.
Employee One is injured badly. He works for a corporation with very deep pockets. Hot shot attorney takes his case. Huge settlement for employee and massive cut for hot shot attorney.
Employee Two is injured just as badly. He works for a corporation teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. No attorney wants to invest the time on his case. Finally, a third tier, very desperate attorney takes a swing at it. Much less compensation is awarded. Company goes into bankruptcy and employee gets a pittance from the bankruptcy court.
Workman's Comp would compensate each employee equitably.
What you say is just fanciful. Not historically factual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid
Why would it be negligent homicide to allow a 19 year old to change oil? And why would a guy changing oil be required to have a driver's license?
Some of this makes little sense,I had mechanic shops and quick lubes for years and all had business liability insurance.
In the event something happened one would sue the insurance company and it would all get worked out through them,workman’s comp was paid if an employee was injured on the job.
It would be up to the insurance company to determine weather or not the claim could be denied in the case due to negligence on the employers part.
For some reason this appears as though somebody took a bunch of different scenarios and took them out in different directions verses how it actually works.
An event happens,the insurance company is immediately notified and they take it from there,anybody that has full coverage auto insurance knows how it works.
Irregardless of workman’s comp or is the company goes bankrupt,the insurance covers anything that happens on the property.
I agree once the owner of the vehicle turns it over to the dealership it is in the custody of the dealership,their liability ends,outside of a clearly posted sign that states the dealership or shop is not responsible for theft or damage’s.
Another article that goes into a little more detail on the process.
https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/why...ushes-mechanic
I always have said, that when purchasing a vehicle there are three important points to consider: 1) automatic transmission 2) automatic transmission 3) automatic transmission.
Ha - when I was 13 I met a girl on the CB radio,on line dating pre internet days,my parents had gone camping on my uncles farm for the weekend,I wanted to go meet her for the first time.Quote:
Originally Posted by softailrider
She lived about 1 mile away and the only thing that stood between me and her was my fathers brand new 1973 Ford pinto sitting in the driveway,Delux model station wagon with the fancy wood grain sides and a 4 speed manual transmission.
I had driven manual transmission tractors on my uncles farm plowing fields sense age 10 plowing fields and I figured,how hard can it be? I made it about 2 blocks grinding through the gears before my older brother came driving around the corner and caught me,parked the car and he drove me the 75 miles up to my scolding from my parents.
Every car I had after that was 60s muscle cars that all had manual transmissions and the ocasional 3 on the tree.Dumping the clutch to smoke the tires and speed shifting was the experience,automatics were made for women.
Interesting enough until recently you could not give a car away in Europe or Latin America that had an automatic,even luxury cars came with standards.
Back then you could not beat a 4 speed with a granny gear.
You also used to give up fuel mileage and HP with an automatic,now out side of being a good theft control device,not much difference between the 2.
I have a 1976 MB 450SL with auto,it’s a dog,my friend in the UK has the same year but with a manual,it will smoke the tires off the rims in all gears,it’s a world of difference between two identical cars.
My Jag has a dual gate shifter with an automatic,like the old school Hurst shifter,the difference is in manual mode you hit the torque curves better with a higher RPM verses full auto,big difference though performance wise.
Thats a Ford design car with a GM automatic lol
A 1913 Buick touring car that sold to the rich,had a 4 cylinder,standard transmission and no side windows,no power nothing sold for $1200 which is equivalent to $35,000 in todays money.
Get a lot more for the money these days.
Watched the Steve Lehto video and kind of don’t understand the confusion or uncertainty of what is happening. Yes, it seems unfair to the vehicle owner but it’s pretty clear what is going on. It’s well known that if a worker is killed on the job, the liability of his/her employer is limited by the worker’s comp. statute in the particular state. Under worker’s comp, the employer can’t be sued by the employee although I think that most states have exceptions to the liability limitations for intentional conduct or “gross” negligence. But just because this is a workers comp situation doesn’t mean that the decedent’s family can’t look elsewhere for someone responsible under the law for their loved one’s death. In Michigan, as Mr. Lehto stated, that additional responsibility is found in the law governing automobile owner liability. I think that the general rule is that if someone is using your vehicle with your permission, you are responsible for any damage caused by the operation of your vehicle. This kind of liability is one of many reasons why Michigan residents should have automobile insurance. But why would owner liability be the end of the lawsuit story? Workers comp shields the employer from a lawsuit by the employee, but does it shield the employer from a lawsuit by the vehicle owner? Any workers comp attorneys out there know the answer? Mr. Lehto doesn’t even discuss this obvious possibility. If I lend you my car and you run over grandma crossing the street, I’m liable to grandma because I’m the owner but I can still sue you for your negligence that caused my damages [i.e. the money I have to pay to grandma]. Seems like the same should hold true in this case for the vehicle owner suing the dealership.
^ I presume when the articles say "Suing the owner", what they mean is, the attorney for the deceased is suing the owner's insurance company.
If it ends up being compensable, the insurance company will issue a check, and the matter will be over. The vehicle owner's premiums wouldn't even go up as he's not at fault in an accident.
Would the insurance company then go after the dealership? Who knows. I kind of doubt it.
It would be an uphill battle to prove negligence on the dealer's part just because they hired a 19 year old to change oil.
No, it doesn't. Neither does it shield the dealership from prosecution for criminal negligence.Quote:
Originally Posted by swingline