GOLFMK8
GOLFMK7
GOLFMK6
GOLFMKV

Think About This...

vjmvjm

Go Kart Newbie
Can you show me one case where your silly fantasy actually played out?
It's not a silly fantasy, it's reality. The case in question. As stated in the article, the owner of the vehicle is said to have "no active negligence". That is not the same as no negligence. And while the court ordered the dealership to indemnify the owner, other news stories have reported that the dealership (presumably through their insurers) are appealing that ruling. Does any of this make sense? No, but that's the way that the law works. Unless settled out of court, this will end up in a trial, each party will be found x% negligent, and whomever has the deepest pockets will pay.

From the news articles: “So in reality, the owner is going to be held responsible, but the dealership’s insurance company is paying,” Femminineo told McClatchy News. He said he hopes a verdict in excess of $15 million is awarded.
 

MonkeyMD

Autocross Champion
It's not a silly fantasy, it's reality. The case in question. As stated in the article, the owner of the vehicle is said to have "no active negligence". That is not the same as no negligence. And while the court ordered the dealership to indemnify the owner, other news stories have reported that the dealership (presumably through their insurers) are appealing that ruling. Does any of this make sense? No, but that's the way that the law works. Unless settled out of court, this will end up in a trial, each party will be found x% negligent, and whomever has the deepest pockets will pay.

From the news articles: “So in reality, the owner is going to be held responsible, but the dealership’s insurance company is paying,” Femminineo told McClatchy News. He said he hopes a verdict in excess of $15 million is awarded.

Just copied these from legal sites

In order to pursue legal action, the victim must be able to prove:

  • The defendant owed them duty of care
  • The defendant did not provide that duty of care
  • The lack of care was the legal cause of the victim’s injuries
  • The victim suffered an injury or some sort of damage

If you can answer yes to any of those, then plaintiff has a right to sue owner of the vehicle.

Also

What is NEGLIGENCE?
The failure to use reasonable care.
The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under similar circumstances.
A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community.


Again, the owner of the vehicle was not negligent in an active or vicarious manner.

Now the mechanic that had no drivers license and didn't know how to operate a manual? Absolutely

The Shop where that mechanic works, are they vicariously negligent? Absolutely
 

bentin

Autocross Champion
Location
Austin, TX
Car(s)
18 GTI SE - 3 Pedals
Just copied these from legal sites

In order to pursue legal action, the victim must be able to prove:

  • The defendant owed them duty of care
  • The defendant did not provide that duty of care
  • The lack of care was the legal cause of the victim’s injuries
  • The victim suffered an injury or some sort of damage

If you can answer yes to any of those, then plaintiff has a right to sue owner of the vehicle.

Also

What is NEGLIGENCE?
The failure to use reasonable care.
The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under similar circumstances.
A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community.


Again, the owner of the vehicle was not negligent in an active or vicarious manner.

Now the mechanic that had no drivers license and didn't know how to operate a manual? Absolutely

The Shop where that mechanic works, are they vicariously negligent? Absolutely
Just stop, he thinks he's smart. don't spoil it for him.
 

vjmvjm

Go Kart Newbie
Just copied these from legal sites

In order to pursue legal action, the victim must be able to prove:

  • The defendant owed them duty of care
  • The defendant did not provide that duty of care
  • The lack of care was the legal cause of the victim’s injuries
  • The victim suffered an injury or some sort of damage

If you can answer yes to any of those, then plaintiff has a right to sue owner of the vehicle.

Also

What is NEGLIGENCE?
The failure to use reasonable care.
The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under similar circumstances.
A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community.


Again, the owner of the vehicle was not negligent in an active or vicarious manner.

Now the mechanic that had no drivers license and didn't know how to operate a manual? Absolutely

The Shop where that mechanic works, are they vicariously negligent? Absolutely
"I read it on the internet, it must be true."
 
Top