i thought for sure it was going to be click-baity but unfortunately, it's exactly what the headline says.
can't imagine it will go far but the owner will still have to pay to defend himself.
i thought for sure it was going to be click-baity but unfortunately, it's exactly what the headline says.
can't imagine it will go far but the owner will still have to pay to defend himself.
In reply to jfryjfry :
It looks like that is behind a paywall. Here is a free version
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/jeep-owner-sued-michigan-dealer-mechanic-death/
This probably will go all the way and the family will get money from the insurance company. As the guy says it is a fairly common tactic. Read a story a while back about a house that partially burned down, the only member of the family that was home was a 19 year old son. Somehow the laws turned out that by him being home he was liable and insurance didn't have to pay. Father sued his son, but because his son was a legal resident of the house and member of the family it then fell on insurance.
It is a seriously berkeleyed up set of laws.
It is clickbait.
Its a loophole to get around workman's comp, and the customer will not pay anything. Since it happened on the job, it's a workman's comp claim and they pay very little. There is no way to sue the employer directly, so they sue the customer, the customer sues the dealer for indemnification (which has already happened, and they won), so any settlement against the customer will be paid by the dealers insurance company.
The fact that it's a known and widely used legal maneuver doesn't get you to click though
A workplace death has compensation under Worker's Compensation.
This is just that the family ALSO wants the right to sue someone so they can make $15 million. They are trying to make a claim under the company's liability insurance in addition to the compensation from WC.
The courts get abused all the time.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
You're right.
Though it is a WC claim, WC pays very little. This is a workaround to try to avoid WC
In reply to SV reX :
Children, spouses, and family members are entitled to survivor’s benefits if a loved one is killed on-the-job. The amount paid is based upon what the deceased employee was earning before his or her death. It is an average of the highest 39 paid weeks during the last 52 weeks of employment. The minimum death benefit is equal to 50% of the state average weekly wage in the year of injury. Payments continue for a maximum of 500 weeks, and it is tax free money.
Average Michigan mechanic rate is $41k, 500 weeks is ~10 years, so $410k for the death of a husband. Probably more cause of children helping extend the benefits.
I don't know anyone who has a life only worth $410k
In reply to Mr_Asa :
I never said it was adequate.
In reply to Mr_Asa :
I don't know anyone whose value in life can be measured in dollars.
We also have no knowledge of what his life insurance benefits were.
I don't like justifying letting lawyers make these decisions (and make ridiculous fees), while trying to blame a business for something that they had no control over.
These things shouldn't be defined by a court, and businesses are not automatically the Big Bad Wolf.
If anyone is at "fault", it's the unlicensed driver who killed him. Why not sue that guy? (Obvious answer- because the business and insurance companies have deeper pockets)
It's a tragic event, that could have happened to almost any of us. It was an accident. That's why life insurance exists.
SV reX said:If anyone is at "fault", it's the unlicensed driver who killed him.
Maybe. If a company fails to institute simple and obvious safety protocols or ensure their staff is properly trained, and that leads to injury or death, I'm more inclined to blame the company. The tech being "an unlicensed teenager" sounds like a company trying to hire the cheapest labor even if its unqualified.
But I don't know all the details.
I can't get how the dealership is not at fault for allowing an unlicensed teen driver to get in and operate a vehicle? In Vermont, teens with permits and for one year after getting a license may not operate a vehicle for work. With a permit, if behind the wheel, there must be a fully licensed and sober adult (over 25 yo) in the front passenger seat. In my perfect little world the dealership is at fault for creating an unsafe work environment for it's employees.
Beer Baron said:SV reX said:If anyone is at "fault", it's the unlicensed driver who killed him.
Maybe. If a company fails to institute simple and obvious safety protocols or ensure their staff is properly trained, and that leads to injury or death, I'm more inclined to blame the company. The tech being "an unlicensed teenager" sounds like a company trying to hire the cheapest labor even if its unqualified.
But I don't know all the details.
Maybe.
I work in an environment with the most possible safety procedures and protocols. Doesn't change that people blow off the rules every single day. You can't fix stupid with rules.
Do you think the company allows unlicensed drivers to operate vehicles under their insurance? I seriously doubt it.
In reply to vwcorvette (Forum Supporter) :
Where does the article say the dealership allows an unlicensed driver to get in and operate a vehicle?
It says there were 2 techs doing an oil change. One "accidentally stepped off the clutch" killing the other.
So, the car was running and in gear with someone holding down the clutch. One tech was standing in front of it.
Sounds to me like the senior tech said "start the car and I'll check for leaks".
It's not illegal for an unlicensed driver to do oil changes, or to start a car.
I think the senior tech made a tragic mistake. And it has nothing to do with whether the operator was licensed or not, and no rule or policy could have changed the fact that somebody did something stupid.
Blame the business if you want, but I see nothing they could have done to avoid the stupid. It was a tragic accident.
It's very sad. But the vulture attorney isn't making it any better.
vwcorvette (Forum Supporter) said:I can't get how the dealership is not at fault for allowing an unlicensed teen driver to get in and operate a vehicle? In Vermont, teens with permits and for one year after getting a license may not operate a vehicle for work. With a permit, if behind the wheel, there must be a fully licensed and sober adult (over 25 yo) in the front passenger seat. In my perfect little world the dealership is at fault for creating an unsafe work environment for it's employees.
Except that would only apply on a public road and this would (probably) been on private property.
Beer Baron said:
The tech being "an unlicensed teenager" sounds like a company trying to hire the cheapest labor even if its unqualified.
That's possible.
It's also possible the company has a fantastic entry level training program to encourage young people who want to succeed in the auto tech industry. It's even possible that they pay a premium to hire these young workers.
The speculation is meaningless.
So let's see... What could the company have done?
- They could have required all techs be licensed drivers. Nope. That wouldn't have fixed it.
- They could have trained everyone how to drive a manual. Nope. Not that either.
- They could have required the emergency brake be engaged. Yeah, but people forget.
- They could have required that no one stand in front of a running vehicle. Maybe they already do... but that would easily be blown off by any tech that chose to step forward for a better look.
- They could have required the wheels be chocked. Nope. Car still could have jumped the chocks.
- They could have required the car be chained to the wall behind it before starting. Nope. There's nothing saying the car couldn't have been left in a reverse gear and killed someone behind it.
The one thing the business could have done to completely avoid the accident was to fire all the techs and lock the doors to the shop to prevent entry.
It just doesn't do any good to blame the business.
Unless you're the lawyer.
Insurance claims always default to whoever the insurance company thinks they can extract money or blame from. In BC the government auto insurance company have just been embarrassed into dropping claims against cyclists who have been hit by cars, even when the car was 100 per cent at fault. They have been going after them because they were using the roadways without insurance.
SV reX said:I work in an environment with the most possible safety procedures and protocols. Doesn't change that people blow off the rules every single day. You can't fix stupid with rules.
It's not enough to simply have policies and procedures in place if leadership allows (or promotes) a culture of disregarding them. This is what the speculation on BOTH sides of the argument are missing so far.
If they had adequate safety policies, procedures, and training in place and consistently enforced them, an individual disregarding them constitutes negligence on the part of the individual and makes it an isolated incident largely outside of the company's control.
If they had adequate safety policies, procedures, and training in place but did not consistently enforce them, and/or leadership even actively disregard them, that constitutes negligence on the part of the company.
If they did not have adequate safety policies procedures, and training in place to even be able to enforce, and/or leadership encouraged unsafe practices, that constitutes extreme negligence on the part of the company.
SV reX said:The speculation is meaningless.
Correct...
SV reX said:If anyone is at "fault", it's the unlicensed driver who killed him.
...speculation is meaningless.
A bunch of opinionated guys on the internet who read one article don't really know what happened.
bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:Insurance claims always default to whoever the insurance company thinks they can extract money or blame from.
You are so far off base, it's silly. But nice try.
In reply to SV reX :
Actually, if the unlicensed worker never leaves private property, they can drive anything in the lot.
I have a feeling this is quid pro quo to get someone who works there son employed and get "something out of life".
What I surprised about is Michigan requires a mechanics license to repair any and every system on an automobile, how was the employee allowed to even work there? Of course there is some gray area here as you can be an apprentice as long as you have a licensed mechanic on property. Also, I get an oil change isn't exactly a "repair", but at the same time, you could have a recall repair that requires removing one bolt and replacing it with a "different" bolt.
In reply to SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) :
He's in Canada. Does that make a difference? This is a serious question.
In reply to Ranger50 :
Yeah, that was my mistake
Driven5 said:SV reX said:I work in an environment with the most possible safety procedures and protocols. Doesn't change that people blow off the rules every single day. You can't fix stupid with rules.
It's not enough to simply have policies and procedures in place if leadership allows (or promotes) a culture of disregarding them. This is what the speculation on BOTH sides of the argument are missing so far.
If they had adequate safety policies, procedures, and training in place and consistently enforced them, an individual disregarding them constitutes negligence on the part of the individual and makes it an isolated incident largely outside of the company's control.
If they had adequate safety policies, procedures, and training in place but did not consistently enforce them, and/or leadership even actively disregard them, that constitutes negligence on the part of the company.
If they did not have adequate safety policies procedures, and training in place to even be able to enforce, and/or leadership encouraged unsafe practices, that constitutes extreme negligence on the part of the company.
All true. But still disregards how hard headed humans are.
I have to issue violations multiple times every single day for really basic stuff- like wearing hard hats or safety glasses. The policies are clear. The enforcement is consistent. Doesn't matter if I send people home or fine them, they are still gonna basically give the policies the finger. Every. Single. Day.
That's NOT the company's fault.
And the truth of safety training is that because of the stubbornness of the workers, the only thing companies are actually doing is documenting to avoid OSHA fines.
It's not about safety. It's about money.
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but some of this seems to be due to a quirk in Michigan law. Namely the only party that the family of the deceased technician actually can sue is the owner of the Jeep.
Steve Letho on the 'Tubes has a video about that, although he's the first to admit that he also doesn't know a lot of the details.
You'll need to log in to post.
