Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
From the You've Got To Be Kidding File
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by silver_bullet View PostThat's the Dealership's responsibility for letting an unqualified "Employee" attempt to drive the vehicle after taking possesion of said vehicle.... I mean really...Last edited by pdub; May 7, 2022, 05:20 AM.Charter member of the Turd Nuggets
- Likes 3
Comment
-
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 dealershipLast edited by SuperBuickGuy; May 7, 2022, 07:28 AM.Doing it all wrong since 1966
Comment
-
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.
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment