Jeep owner sued for killing mechanic
- Thread starter TJ Jim
- Start date
This seems crazy to me, sounds like the employee was at fault…did I miss something…..oh yeah I might have used common sense, silly me.
That seems like a reach. Casting the net and hoping to catch something.
The idiot kid started it in gear and let off the clutch, and ran over a coworker...that's what happens.
Only chance it gets anywhere in court is if they get a gen Z judge.
Only chance it gets anywhere in court is if they get a gen Z judge.
In many states that would be accurate, you’d have to show the owner actually committed the negligent act himself. Michigan however has vicarious liability in cases like this, meaning the owner himself doesn’t have to be the negligent party, he may be automatically liable if the person he lends the car to does something negligent. It usually comes up when your kid gets into an accident with your car. I’m not 100% sure how it extends to mechanics, there may be a heightened standard (meaning the plaintiff may have to show you knew or should’ve known that they’d do something stupid…), just not sure. Vicarious liability is a form of strict liability, meaning you’re automatically liable by statute if certain criteria are met.
stop trying to use common sense, we're talking about the law hereThe idiot kid started it in gear and let off the clutch, and ran over a coworker...that's what happens.
Only chance it gets anywhere in court is if they get a gen Z judge.
The fact that the plaintiff's lawyer didn't laugh in his client's face is troublesome.
so the vehicle owner is now responsible for who the dealership hired, didn't train or verify the ability of and handed the keys to?
this will be great for business. and 1 might assume the vehicle owner will sue the dealership later after they pay the patsy settlement. since after all they wrecked his vehicle in house and used it to kill someone..................what of the idiot, is he not charged with negligence, ooops, my mistake?
this will be great for business. and 1 might assume the vehicle owner will sue the dealership later after they pay the patsy settlement. since after all they wrecked his vehicle in house and used it to kill someone..................what of the idiot, is he not charged with negligence, ooops, my mistake?
OP
I read it initially wondering if the owner made a mod that they felt caused it. But no it was just an idiot changing the oil.
I would say, no. Generally workers’ compensation statutes prevent co-workers from suing one another and/or their employer. It’s the workers’ compensation compromise, generally you don’t have to prove negligence if you’re injured on the job, you only have to prove that you sustained an injury in the course and scope of your employment, even if it’s your own fault. If you meet that standard, you are generally entitled to lost wages and medical expenses, but you’re not able to seek ‘pain and suffering’, which is what is sought in a negligence action.
More specifically, the trade-off is on both sides of the equation: The employee has the benefit of a lower burden of proof to establish liability but the detriment of a lower set of damages that he can recover for. On the employer’s side, they have the benefit of being shielded from pain & suffering damages (the big money verdicts you read about in the news from time to time), but, they don’t have the benefit of the typical negligence defenses like assumption of risk, contributory or comparative negligence, with certain exceptions (ex: horseplay…).
Also, the claims are handled by the state’s administrative law section rather than the typical court system, these cases are heard before Administrative Law Judges, not juries, which is why you generally never hear about these cases.
So, in this situation, unless Michigan has some strange law in place, no, the estate of the decedent could not ‘sue’ the dope that actually committed the act of negligence, or the dealership itself they both worked for, as they’d both be barred under the worker’s compensation statutes.
And by the way, you’re not ‘charged’ with negligence, it’s not a crime.
it's been my experience that those that take this position are the most demanding of all clients when it is they that get injured.
Last edited:
I could see maybe if he'd bypassed the clutch safety that would give them something to latch onto, but it still remains that the 19 year old shop kid either didn't know how a manual transmission works or was careless and not paying attention.
my mistake.
and i'm all to familiar with workers comp, they have no interest in worker compensation and work for the employers to try and negate claims at all cost. to the point of evaluations from state paid quacks that are there just to discredit your doctors opinions.
yet somehow get duped quite often while sending real injured workers out the door with not even enough to cover the type of care often needed.
funny how that all works.
sounds like old school you grease me i got your back...........i used to be married into a family like that.
its "aggressive" design does indicate the intent of the owner to cause emotional and physical harm
^ This. So the plaintiff had to sue the vehicle owner who then immediately sued the dealership for indemnity which was a slam dunk win. That took the owner out of harms way and put the dealership on the hook for all expenses and any judgement.
Careful who you let drive your car, maybe the dealership will start letting us pull them on the lift? 
TLDR - took Jeep in for service, tech can’t drive a stick, kills someone and the owner is getting sued.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-man-sued-after-car-kills-mechanic-during-oil-change
TLDR - took Jeep in for service, tech can’t drive a stick, kills someone and the owner is getting sued.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-man-sued-after-car-kills-mechanic-during-oil-change