Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

From the You've Got To Be Kidding File

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • From the You've Got To Be Kidding File

    Really?

    https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/why...ing-oil-change
    Ed, Mary, & 'Earl'
    HRPT LongHaulers, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.


    Inside every old person is a young person wondering, "what the hell happened?"

    The man at the top of the mountain didn't fall there. -Vince Lombardi

  • #2
    Why I pretty much never let others drive my vehicles
    This is taking it too far.
    Must be (oops political)

    Comment


    • #3
      This is the result of bad laws.
      Act your age, not your shoe size. - Prince

      Comment


      • #4
        That's the Dealership's responsibility for letting an unqualified "Employee" attempt to drive the vehicle after taking possesion of said vehicle.... I mean really...
        Patrick & Tammy
        - Long Haulin' 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014...Addicting isn't it...??

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by silver_bullet View Post
          That's the Dealership's responsibility for letting an unqualified "Employee" attempt to drive the vehicle after taking possesion of said vehicle.... I mean really...
          Agreed. Logically. But in Michigan take your car to another state if you have to have somebody else work on it, and never use valet parking in Michigan. Got it.
          Last edited by pdub; May 7, 2022, 05:20 AM.
          Charter member of the Turd Nuggets

          Comment


          • #6
            Does no one think its the fault of the 19 year old who set said vehicle in motion???? Another example of a world with no personal responsibility.

            Comment


            • #7
              That type of lawsuit is not uncommon, however, in most cases the plaintiff negotiates with the car owner - where the car owner assigns any potential award they may receive in exchange for a hold-harmless agreement. It happened when my brother was killed in a car accident - his estate signed away rights to sue others for indemnification in exchange for a hold harmless. I suspect that the Jeep owner didn't because in the case of indemnification - in short, the dealership is fighting against the notion that it has to pay the car's owner AND the victim's family - thus the dealership is fighting to reduce its liability. Just because someone is on the same side of the v. in the lawsuit does not make they allies.

              Otherwise the dealership wouldn't have stepped into the Defendant's case but rather would have been another v. in the lawsuit e.g. Squished guy v. idiot Jeep owner v. idiot jeep dealership
              Last edited by SuperBuickGuy; May 7, 2022, 07:28 AM.
              Doing it all wrong since 1966

              Comment


              • #8
                the hole in the case is the rules demanded by the dealer.
                if they let the owner move it.. this case would make sense.

                it was up to the owner to move the car.
                if the owner said no you cannot, his service is denied.

                how does bull crap go this far..

                I worked a quick lube 30 years ago, some people should not be at the wheel.. but the customer almost always drove in..
                if they killed me guiding them, I'd.. oh wait.
                Previously boxer3main
                the death rate and fairy tales cannot kill the nature left behind.

                Comment

                Working...
                X