New England B.S. Thread

I am gonna be honest, I think my jeep one wins.

Imagine you park your car in a parking lot. You leave and go into the store. 20 minutes later, someone backs into it, and then you get sued because

Same idea. Car went in for service. The owner wasn’t even involved, and yet is being sued as responsible (per MI law) for the damages caused by someone else.

I also have a feeling this is going to be a precedent-setter/challenger case type of thing. As it stands, the law says X, but the attention this brings will cause that law to be challenged and changed, etc. It just hasn’t come up, until now. And most likely everyone involved knows that, but they do not have the ability to change the law/statutes, and have to proceed this way to get that done.

 

Wait, imagine sending your teenage son to school, who then gets taken advantage of by a teacher, considered a crime, and now they have to pay because she took used her position of power to become pregnant and now the victim is required to pay.

I can not say which is worse, they both are bassackwards. I could go on, but the point is we might want to reconsider how our system is working/notworking.

I think the jeep is kind of like, if someone comes on my property and gets hurt, I am responsible, even though I didn't give permission, but I didn't post no trespassing signs either. What I can not figure out, is how the dealership is not liable for allowing someone without a license operate that vehicle, let alone they don't know how to operate a manual trans.

 

.... what the fuck?

 

Read the lawyers comments - AND note that the lawyer is talking to the media. They don’t do that. So it sounds like he WANTS to get the word out and get some public support on this case.

With the kiddo - he was involved at least. He was there, involved. It’s bananas, but to draw a parallel, he was the one squashed, and the teacher was the driver of the jeep. Imagine if the kid who sat next to him in class had to pay child support, for a statutory rape, of someone else. That’s why I think the Jeep case is a step worse.

Either way - who wins? The lawyers.

Yeah it really sounds like the only way to challenge this law is to pursue this case and bring it to the state supreme court.

Also worth noting, most times insurance won’t pay out unless it’s done via courts, so they likely don’t have a choice here, and everyone involved knows they’re just kinda doing it to do it.

 

at least the kid had some bragging rights

 

the age of no personal responsibility

 

That lawyer is a piece of shit is what's going on. This should be an open and shut case of worker's comp, it's a work place accident and the dealer's insurance should be responsible for it. There are likely limits on the compensation provided by workers comp at the dealer and he's suing for more than the limits would be my guess. In order to do so, he's trying to exploit a loophole in the state's system in which you can go after the vehicle's owner regardless of who was actually behind the wheel.

NY went through something vaguely similar a while back in which there was a loophole where you could sue the manufacturer if you were in an accident with a leased car. The manufacturer still holds ownership even though it's leased to someone.

Part of that is my own speculation, but it's pretty shitty any way you look at it. Dealership should be brought up on negligence charges for having a mechanic operating vehicles in which he's not legally licensed to operate. I work in the construction industry and equate this to a crane accident which involves an operator that doesn't have a license to operate. Granted, they don't teach you how to drive a stick shift when you get your license, but let's start with the basics...

 

So if I understood all of that correctly, that in Michigan, as long as I have a job where I'm driving someone else's car, I can run over all of the people I don't like, and it's the car owner's responsibility?

 

so since i drive a company car, can i hit whoever i want and have my hands clean?

 

Sometimes, insurance will not pay out AT ALL, unless they take it to court. Not just about limits, but AT ALL. So that’s probably what this is.

Then beyond that, they can’t sue the driver or the dealer due to how the laws are written. So they are suing the owner, because that’s all that’s written as possible under the law.

The fact that ANY lawyer is commenting to a news outlet on an OPEN case, tells me that it’s most likely that lawyer is going to present it and not fight it, in my mind.

Note that the defense lawyer is keeping his trap shut. That’s what any lawyer would do, on an open case. The fact that he’s talking, it makes me think he’s looking to draw attention to the shenanigans.

ONLY IF you lose your license.

Actually - Funny enough, I am thinking a license isn’t required to move cars on private property IE a garage… License is needed to drive on the roads, but probably not on a private property like that.















I’m going kayaking and forgetting about all this shenanigans.

 

only if you don’t have a drivers license, and don’t know how to drive a stick.

 

Im still genuinely speechless, whatever the actual case ends up being. Again, age of absolutely no personal responsibility.

 

might get sued for crossing the damn street. It’s pathetic… litigation makes everything more, and more restrictive.

 

Well, the ones who will always win - the lawyers - are fine with it.

 

https://youtu.be/MeXQBHLIPcw

 

Don't even look at me in that tone of voice I got my lawyer on speed dial

 

What if I don't know how to drive a cvt, does that count?

 

The struggle is real