Jeep owner sued after mechanic killed working on vehicle

Weasellee said:
Imagine if everyone lived by the Golden Rule.
Click to expand...

I was asking myself yesterday what if everybody did that for just one day. Just one day.

And that leads me to another point- Not only do you have to do the right thing if you want the best results- And that means a clear conscience and being happy with yourself and a lot of other things sometimes- But you have to do the right thing every day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weasellee
AndyG said:
I was asking myself yesterday what if everybody did that for just one day. Just one day.

And that leads me to another point- Not only do you have to do the right thing if you want the best results- And that means a clear conscience and being happy with yourself and a lot of other things sometimes- But you have to do the right thing every day.
Click to expand...

Its just basic ethics. Which have gone out the window. Wife drove our daughter and family to the airport at zero dark thirty this AM. Its been years since she's been to an airport and its always chaotic - but she just could NOT believe how downright RUDE people are now. Apparently it was horrid.
 
freedom_in_4low said:
Moreso talking about the 2 Michigan laws:

1. You or your estate can't sue your boss if you're injured or killed due to THEIR negligence (such as negligence in hiring a 19 year old who's never driven a stick or held a driver's license...to drive and work on cars)
2. The owner of the vehicle is liable for any damages involving their vehicle, even when it's being used by someone else, as long as that someone else had the owners permission.
Click to expand...

Neither of these laws make sense to me.

Why remove personal responsibility from peoples actions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weasellee
Zorba said:
Its just basic ethics. Which have gone out the window. Wife drove our daughter and family to the airport at zero dark thirty this AM. Its been years since she's been to an airport and its always chaotic - but she just could NOT believe how downright RUDE people are now. Apparently it was horrid.
Click to expand...

Affluence ruins countries- we need nothing-or no one is our attitude. The ME generation is now all generations.

We can burn people in any transaction and we don’t care.

We don’t value relationships.

We don’t have a clue what struggle is. We certainly can’t empathize with those that have it hard- And not having 155 TV channels is not struggling. Struggling is not having clean water, And sleeping under a tarp for years.

As a collective we are an arrogant ungrateful spoiled nation.

Really if you look at history as a whole all of this prosperity is only a hundred years old at most-

I constantly think about how fortunate we are to have everything we do. If you look at how mankind has struggled for centuries and here we are in the lap of luxury- We should all be running around shouting.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: Weasellee and Zorba
Zorba said:
Yep. And don't forget, its all about the PHOOOOONNNE!!!
Click to expand...

I had to tell a worker basically this this morning-

If we pay you $18 an hour we give you the full $18.

Put down your phone and give me the full hour.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba
Rickyd said:
Neither of these laws make sense to me.

Why remove personal responsibility from peoples actions?
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Neither make any sense when applied to this scenario, but I can also play devils advocate and imagine how those laws came to be.

My bet is the first one was lobbied for by large manufacturing employers that wanted to make sure an injured worker didn't have the option to sue them instead of accepting whatever workers comp claim they were offered; or viewed from another angle, to keep employers out of an endless state of litigation from employees that got chased in their ambulances by personal injury lawyers after getting hurt doing something plainly stupid but wasn't expressly forbidden.

The second one probably arose out of situations where an insured vehicle owner loans their vehicle to a driver who doesn't have insurance, or if the driver does have insurance but need the law to tell them whether the insurer of the driver or the insurer of the vehicle has to pay the claim. In the latter scenario, it makes more sense to me that the driver would be liable, but in the former, that means the victim in the accident may never be made whole if they were injured by a broke uninsured driver so the law makes more sense there.

In both cases the laws were likely written in response to, and to prevent, a specific situation without the foresight to account for other ways the law could be applied with an undesirable outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyd
Top Bottom
Back