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.Can you show me one case where your silly fantasy actually played out?
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.