Your worst nightmare when you drop your ZL1 car off at the dealer...

SuperTom · 01-13-2014, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 122554

I don't understand why they're on a forum, any forum! Hire an attorney and STFU!

Word of mouth is the best way to get back at any bad business. If the dealership makes good on the situation they can gain back their credibility. Either way everyone on the internet has that information on that dealership now.

Jordo! · 01-14-2014, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gadgetech

I think the owner of that car has written like 6 books on the Camaro.

Sent from my Lumia 1020 using Tapatalk

If this is the same John Hooper

Big Book of Camaro Data, 1967-1973 by John R. Hooper 1995, Paperback, Revised | eBay

The 7th book will undoubtedly have a whole chapter devoted to this mess.
That dealership is screwed

This was like a restaurant getting caught pooping in the meal of a food critic

122554 · 01-14-2014, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperTom

Word of mouth is the best way to get back at any bad business. If the dealership makes good on the situation they can gain back their credibility. Either way everyone on the internet has that information on that dealership now.

What you say is true, but this is not the right time.

As an attorney, I would love to be representing the dealership. The plaintiff is out there shouting his whole case to everyone. You think the attorney's that represents the defendant doesn't read this? Perhaps there's some law that protects the dealer from the actions of an employee? If not, they would in most cases have insurance to cover such an event.

Now the whole case is on the internet. If for some reason the dealership prevails, I can turn around and sue the plaintiff for slander.

I'm not judging anyone by these statements. If the plaintiff wins, they have the rest of their life to blast the dealership.

I stand-by my earlier statement in this case, past, and future. The best advice you will ever receive from an attorney is "STFU"

Wonka2581 · 01-14-2014, 04:59 AM

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...

122554 · 01-14-2014, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonka2581

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...

You need to raise your level up a bit. A car would be the last thing I'd accept. Something that starts with a $ and ends with a lot of 0000's would be more appropriate!

Wonka2581 · 01-14-2014, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 122554

You need to raise your level up a bit. A car would be the last thing I'd accept. Something that starts with a $ and ends with a lot of 0000's would be more appropriate!

Your so right...

DCNISMO · 01-14-2014, 08:09 AM

Slander for what? They only presented the facts.... You lawyers can be such dicks. They did not call them names or any of the sort. The dealer is being a ****, they have insurance and could sell more of the mutton Camaro if they did right by him.

MMC Racing · 01-14-2014, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 122554

What you say is true, but this is not the right time.

As an attorney, I would love to be representing the dealership. The plaintiff is out there shouting his whole case to everyone. You think the attorney's that represents the defendant doesn't read this? Perhaps there's some law that protects the dealer from the actions of an employee? If not, they would in most cases have insurance to cover such an event.

Now the whole case is on the internet. If for some reason the dealership prevails, I can turn around and sue the plaintiff for slander.

I'm not judging anyone by these statements. If the plaintiff wins, they have the rest of their life to blast the dealership.

I stand-by my earlier statement in this case, past, and future. The best advice you will ever receive from an attorney is "STFU"

The main facts don't seem in dispute. The dealership had possession of the vehicle. An employee of the dealership damaged the vehicle. The dealership admits all this and fired the employee.

Is the judge going to care that there was some settlement negotiations? Because any potential slander is around statements made about the aftermath of the damage. The only thing before the judge would be applying liability law.

You are an attorney in what field?

Mike · 01-14-2014, 10:27 AM

I had something similar happen at Gwinnett Place Nissan with my 350z back in 04. It was in beautiful pristine condition but the seat material was fraying. They sent it to an outside vendor who wrecked my car, and basically told me to handle it with him myself, even though I had no clue this guy had driven my car across town 20 miles to his shop. Wanted to trade it on a new one and they lowballed me because it was wrecked.

In the end, the vendor did take care of everything and made me whole again, and Nissan USA gave me a $150 gift certificate because of my trouble with that dealership.

wackjum · 01-14-2014, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMC Racing

The main facts don't seem in dispute. The dealership had possession of the vehicle. An employee of the dealership damaged the vehicle. The dealership admits all this and fired the employee.

Is the judge going to care that there was some settlement negotiations? Because any potential slander is around statements made about the aftermath of the damage. The only thing before the judge would be applying liability law.

These cases are not as straightforward as it may seem.

In order for the dealership to be liable, the employee had to be either: 1) acting under the scope of his employment; or 2) the dealer knew or should have known the employee would do something like this.

Generally, a party like the dealership is only liable if they owe a duty to the injured party. For example if you're walking in the street and you spot an injured bicyclist, you have no duty to this person and the person cannot sue you for causing his injuries or failing to get help. And that would make sense because you're just some random person. But if you were the driver that hit the bicyclist, you'd have a duty to operate your vehicle carefully, and a duty to stop and render aid. So the driver could be liable to the bicyclist.

Really the only way the dealership can be liable for this event is if the employee had done something like this before, there had been similar incidents, or during the hiring process the dealership should have known this individual would probably do something like this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMC Racing

You are an attorney in what field?

I find this to be a very misguided and potentially insulting statement but something I come across pretty often. There's an idea that law does not require specialized knowledge, when in fact it does a great deal. I would at least respect the advice of an MD when he was giving medical information, even if he was giving it in a field that was outside of his specialty. A gynecologist has more knowledge about the human foot than I do even though he'd be clearly speaking outside of his chosen practice.

I believe it is a fair statement to say that a practicing attorney in any field is probably more adept at giving legal advice and analyzing the legal issues than somebody who has had no legal training at all.

MightyBobo · 01-14-2014, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wackjum

I find this to be a very misguided and potentially insulting statement but something I come across pretty often. There's an idea that law does not require specialized knowledge, when in fact it does a great deal. I would at least respect the advice of an MD when he was giving medical information, even if he was giving it in a field that was outside of his specialty. A gynecologist has more knowledge about the human foot than I do even though he'd be clearly speaking outside of his chosen practice.

I believe it is a fair statement to say that a practicing attorney in any field is probably more adept at giving legal advice and analyzing the legal issues than somebody who has had no legal training at all.

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

wackjum · 01-14-2014, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MightyBobo

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

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.

Tazicon · 01-14-2014, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wackjum

I would at least respect the advice of an MD when he was giving medical information, even if he was giving it in a field that was outside of his specialty. .

That right there is misguided statement.

MightyBobo · 01-14-2014, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wackjum

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.

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.

You're saying we can't oversimplify something? Can you....can you tell me if that is a good thing or a bad thing?

Good/BadFellas - Good Thing or Bad Thing? - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 10/29/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

theDreamer · 01-14-2014, 05:27 PM

RIP 2012 ZL1 #1635 - Page 53 - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com

Quote:

Just a quick update for everyone...

1. I never demanded a new car. I merely stated that I should not HAVE to be forced to buy a new [read "different"] car when mine was totaled through no fault of my own. If I had been driving the car, I would accept the loss.

2. The difference in price between a good, used 2012 ZL1 and a new 2013 ZL1 is only about $5-6K considering rebates, etc.

3. Yes, the OP really was to just let everyone know what happened to #1635 that appeared on the ZL1 registry many months ago.

4. We actually made 3 payments on the car while the car was in the dealer's possession while they tried to figure out what to do about the paint issues [read "left the car there for weeks on end without actually doing anything."] I believe the last time I drove the car was the weekend of October 25, 2013.

5. GM and Berger Chevrolet (Grand Rapids, Michigan) have stepped in and are paving [not paying] the way for a new 2013 ZL1 to be sent to First State Chevrolet for me to purchase.

6. We have apologized to many of the employees at First State for the actions taken by many of the people who have been infuriated by this whole story and have called First State to voice their opinions. Anyone who thinks the dealership has not been affected by all of this must have his head in the sand.

7. We want to thank everyone for their support. We never expected this to take on a whole life of its own. A special thanks goes out to the suppliers who have so graciously stepped up to provide parts at their own expense to help ease the heartache we have experienced in this ordeal.

8. I am not the biggest tech guy out there, and I have never made it a practice to post on forums, don't have a Facebook page, etc. But I do plan to stick around on this forum, and I hope to meet many of you in person at various events.

9. When the situation is resolved, I will post photos of the new car. I understand that it will be about two weeks before the insurance check is cut, the old car is paid off, the new car arrives, and a new purchase contract will be signed by my wife and I for the PURCHASE of our new ZL1.

Thanks,

01-14-2014, 04:59 AM	#19 (permalink)
Wonka2581 A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Chattanooga, TN Posts: 3,083 Drives: MY WIFE CRAZY.... Rep Power: 2612	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... __________________ "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat""Winston Churchill"

01-14-2014, 10:27 AM	#24 (permalink)
Mike The370Z.com Sponsor Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Loganville, GA Posts: 5,944 Drives: 370z Rep Power: 2186	I had something similar happen at Gwinnett Place Nissan with my 350z back in 04. It was in beautiful pristine condition but the seat material was fraying. They sent it to an outside vendor who wrecked my car, and basically told me to handle it with him myself, even though I had no clue this guy had driven my car across town 20 miles to his shop. Wanted to trade it on a new one and they lowballed me because it was wrecked. In the end, the vendor did take care of everything and made me whole again, and Nissan USA gave me a $150 gift certificate because of my trouble with that dealership. __________________ NISSAN: 75 280Z / 86 300ZX GLL /87 Sentra SE / 03 350Z / 23 Z Porsche: 93 968 / 23 Macan GTS / 93 968

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
East Coast Nissan Dealer - Wilson Nissan - Worst Experience Ever!	TosHaNYC	Nissan 370Z Pricing / Ordering Discussions	26	01-14-2012 11:42 AM
Ichaba Nightmare	phohman	Wheels & Tires	5	10-19-2011 01:11 PM
Worst nightmare ever	370zFORme!!	The Lounge (Off Topic)	6	09-06-2011 12:52 PM
What a Nightmare! Help please!	Jjaden	Wheels & Tires	16	04-08-2011 04:38 PM
Asleep. Had a 370Z Nightmare.	Naytch	Nissan 370Z General Discussions	16	12-19-2010 04:09 PM

01-14-2014, 08:09 AM	#22 (permalink)
DCNISMO Track Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: washington dc Posts: 995 Drives: Nismo Z Rep Power: 179	Slander for what? They only presented the facts.... You lawyers can be such dicks. They did not call them names or any of the sort. The dealer is being a ****, they have insurance and could sell more of the mutton Camaro if they did right by him.