View Single Post
Old 01-14-2014, 01:57 PM   #27 (permalink)
wackjum
Base Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Houston
Posts: 89
Drives: 2004 Porsche 911 T
Rep Power: 13
wackjum is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MightyBobo View Post
This was the written equivalent of dropping the microphone. Just so you know.

And FWIW, your argument seemed logical. Problem here is that a lot of people are obviously biased towards the poor guy who lost his car, and it clouds their judgement. I guess they wont be on this jury :-p
Thanks. I understand the sentiment but I still think it was rude to call out 122554. I want as many options on the table in a case, and one potential option might have been using confidentiality as leverage in a settlement. But now that the cat is out of the bag, I doubt the dealership would find any value in such a settlement.

And I'm not rooting for the dealership. I am a car enthusiast and I have represented clients against shops for similar situations. Liability is without a doubt on the employee, but he doesn't have the money to make this right. Hooking liability onto the party with resources (the dealership) is where its going to be a challenge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonka2581 View Post
The dealer is reponsible for the safe keping of the vehicle when it is in there possession. If I was Hooper I would sue for a new car! I would put money on it that the case wouldnt even make it to court, the dealer would come up with a new car...
He's not entitled to a new car, even in the best circumstance. He's entitled to be made whole, and that's a car of similar value to what he lost.

And of course when you get down to the nitty-gritty, its never simple. A dealership arguably has a duty to care for cars in its possession, but how far does this duty extend? Fallout proof concrete vault with 24/7 armed guards? Obviously there has to be a limit on the dealership's duty, and generally this goes down to what can be reasonably anticipated. If the dealership locked up customer's keys and kept the car in a secured area, I think that might discharge their duty.

The irony here is that the more "wrong" the employee acted, the less liable the dealership is. Example: If the employee just strolled into a publicly accessible area and took the keys out of a bowl and then jumped into the car parked out in front, it could be said that the dealership failed in their duty to safeguard.

On the other extreme, if the employee swiped his security badge to get into a secure area, dropped knockout gas on the guard, and used bolt cutters to get through the locks of the garage facility, I don't think anybody would question the dealership didn't do enough. A somewhat silly example, but if you can see there's a continuum of the dealership's responsibility, then you can see its not so simple to just say the car was in the dealer's possession and the dealer should pay.
wackjum is offline   Reply With Quote