If you drop your car off at the dealership and it kills someone it is your fault...what!

[1971demon]

Moral of the story....do your own oil changes.

and...take up roofing in yer spare time...

 

[Magnified]

This crap is allowed to happen because the big business lobby has pushed for endless protections against the right of injured people to sue them (among other things). The lawyers and judges don't make the laws, the legislatures do. I actually applaud the ones involved for finding ways to try and do the right thing. Although the law has for ages prohibited an injured (or dead) employee in many states from being able to sue their employer, no matter how egregious and stupid the mistake that costs an employees life, thats what people have voted for (usually in the context of right to work and caps on injuries, etc...). So, if the dead man's family can't sue the employer (who let the untrained and unlicensed other employee put the vehicle in gear while the motor is running), who is protected under the law, who can they sue? Well, there is the other employee as an individual. But naturally he has no insurance, and he isn't an eccentric millionaire working as an oil change tech at a dealership. So they won't be able to recover anything. The owner of the car has insurance. So, let's go after them (and that shifts the burden of the companies negligence to an individual citizen, which happens a great deal more than anyone imagines - Joe Blow is just a mark). And that IS allowed by legislature. Now, enter the judge. He ruled that, be that as it may, he was going to force the dealership to indemnify the owner. So, if the owner loses (and why would he or his insurance company defend it all if they won't lose anything, unless it rips his driving record or some insurance bullshit like that) the dealership pays, even though they're immune by law. I commend that creativity (but I think it's bullshit that we have to do it - these companies do not need this type of protection) but I think it (the judges indemnification order) will likely be defeated by the dealership and its insurance company on appeal. I did not see the judges reasoning, but these types of protection for company statutes tend to be ferociously defended when challenged like this, and the reasoning will be key to it being able to withstand an appeal.

What I don't like about this type of thing, term limits, damage limits, etc... is that what you are doing is taking away from a jury (that's us) the right to decide what is fair and arbitrarily setting artificial limits or outlawing damages altogether. Then why have courts? People (including me, and you) should be able to vote for whoever we want. Term limits is saying the electorate is stupid, too dumb to be trusted with voting. That' s dangerous. And it puts further power into the hands of the non-elected staff, who the newbies have to rely on as they come and go, to tell them how to vote on various topics. No one has the time to become an expert on a particular area of legislation. And its much easier to influence staff than the representative, senator, official, or whomever...

lol, enjoy the pontification folks.

 

[BULL]

This crap is allowed to happen because the big business lobby has pushed for endless protections against the right of injured people to sue them (among other things). The lawyers and judges don't make the laws, the legislatures do. I actually applaud the ones involved for finding ways to try and do the right thing. Although the law has for ages prohibited an injured (or dead) employee in many states from being able to sue their employer, no matter how egregious and stupid the mistake that costs an employees life, thats what people have voted for (usually in the context of right to work and caps on injuries, etc...). So, if the dead man's family can't sue the employer (who let the untrained and unlicensed other employee put the vehicle in gear while the motor is running), who is protected under the law, who can they sue? Well, there is the other employee as an individual. But naturally he has no insurance, and he isn't an eccentric millionaire working as an oil change tech at a dealership. So they won't be able to recover anything. The owner of the car has insurance. So, let's go after them (and that shifts the burden of the companies negligence to an individual citizen, which happens a great deal more than anyone imagines - Joe Blow is just a mark). And that IS allowed by legislature. Now, enter the judge. He ruled that, be that as it may, he was going to force the dealership to indemnify the owner. So, if the owner loses (and why would he or his insurance company defend it all if they won't lose anything, unless it rips his driving record or some insurance bullshit like that) the dealership pays, even though they're immune by law. I commend that creativity (but I think it's bullshit that we have to do it - these companies do not need this type of protection) but I think it (the judges indemnification order) will likely be defeated by the dealership and its insurance company on appeal. I did not see the judges reasoning, but these types of protection for company statutes tend to be ferociously defended when challenged like this, and the reasoning will be key to it being able to withstand an appeal.

What I don't like about this type of thing, term limits, damage limits, etc... is that what you are doing is taking away from a jury (that's us) the right to decide what is fair and arbitrarily setting artificial limits or outlawing damages altogether. Then why have courts? People (including me, and you) should be able to vote for whoever we want. Term limits is saying the electorate is stupid, too dumb to be trusted with voting. That' s dangerous. And it puts further power into the hands of the non-elected staff, who the newbies have to rely on as they come and go, to tell them how to vote on various topics. No one has the time to become an expert on a particular area of legislation. And its much easier to influence staff than the representative, senator, official, or whomever...

lol, enjoy the pontification folks.

Did you just say that the "law" says that the party that IS liable for the accident can't be sued?

damn...

 

[Prange]

These people are the poster-children for term-limits in any public office, including judges. They should also have mandatory retirement, like Police and Fire departments.

 

[Magnified]

So you dont believe the people.can be trusted to vote for the best candidate?

 

[Magnified]

Did you just say that the "law" says that the party that IS liable for the accident can't be sued?

damn...

Essentially, yes. There's other forms to, like the "common servant doctrine"... It's all a way of prohibiting law suits against the poor defenseless businesses.