Oil Change Customer SUED After Worker Kills Someone with Car | ARE You Liable for Your Car!

Oil Change Customer Sued After Worker Kills Someone With His Car. You are liable for your car. On March 13, 2020, a customer needed an oil change and tire rotation so he took this car to the dealership for routine maintenance. While he was waiting, a 19-year-old mechanic with no drivers license was working on the vehicle when something terrible happened. This is more than a tragic story, it's an important lesson for all drivers in every state.

After the service was complete, the dealer mechanic attempted to start the car when suddenly it "lurched forward" crushing 42-year-old mechanic against a cabinet, court records show. That mechanic passed away. The dealer mechanic didn’t have a license, and the vehicle owner wasn’t behind the wheel. Now he’s being sued. Why are you responsible for another persons negligence?
Expert: Christopher Saeli, Esq. discusses Vicarious Liability and how it impacts you and your car.
Liability Lawyer: Blake J. Zaccagnino, Shaw & Shaw, P.C. | TikTok Channel: @blakezaccagnino

If you have additional questions, put them in the comments below and I'll be happy to answer.

0:00 Oil Change Customer #SUED After Worker Kills with #Car - You ARE #Liable for your Car! #law
1:25 Christopher Saeli - lawyer - Vicarious law
8:58 Valet, car repair or loan the car - assume the risk

⬇️. Check out our new podcast on all platforms:
with Lauren Fix, @KarlBrauer, and @JavierMota.

⬇️ Social media:
Truth Social ► @laurenfix
Truth Social - @laurenfix

⬇️ Website: CAR COACH REPORTS - car reviews, expert advice, and Car Smarts:

⬇️. See more Car Coach Reports

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT CREATORS
The Fix Family has taken generations of passion, pride & automotive expertise to create unique auto products & books that will keep you, your family & cars safer and running better for years to come.

Music by subscription: Epidemic Sound
©Automotive Aspects, Inc., 2022. All Rights Reserved. car expert workers compensation corporate insurance scotty kilmer

[bobdavis]

Why am I NOT surprised? It's sad, and the dealer deserved to be sued. Not the owner of the car.

[iSlandeRon]

Uh no. The owner did not give that particular person ( the unlicensed 19 year old ) the keys to the car.

[antoinelee-thomas]

I didn't get to read the article because I've been so busy with work, but after listening to this, here's my opinion from this.

First, this is just an insane time we live in because I never heard of such a law before. Understandably, I get the reason for lending your car to someone for other reasons. It's your car and it has your name on paper and the license plate as the owner. That I do get.

What I don't get is being sued by the dealership. I'm not a law expert by any means, but in my opinion, I'm going to guess that there is going to be multiple suing and countersuing in the matter.

The vehicle owner has every right to countersue in his defense, while he was waiting for work to get done the dealership hired an employee who does not have a driver's license which would have made the employee unqualified for the position he should have never been hired for. The dealership took on a risk to a hire an employee who did not have a license let alone did not know how to properly drive a vehicle into the service bay at the facility. The vehicle owner also has a right to sue the individual unlicensed employee for damaging the owner's car.

What's going to be worse is that the 42-year-old's family is going to sue the dealership if they don't already know they hired a person to work for their company that did not have an official Michigan driver's license and the family of the 42-year-old is legally entitled to sue the 19-year-old himself.

Lastly, this is going to go in many different ways. The owner of the vehicle that was getting service done on his vehicle will get off the hook for a long reason why and he will be owed a new car when it's all done. Even if he doesn't win any money, the dealership and the 19-year-old individual will be held responsible in paying for the legal fees. As for the 42-year-old worker's family who lost their loved one on the job, the dealership is losing this case and so will the 19-year-old and unfortunately because the 19-year-old supposedly just started that job, his suing will be pinned on his family to pay for all of the legal expenses and therefore, that dealership is going to lose a lot of customers and business, but they're also going to go out of business having to fork over all of their money having to sell the dealership to pay off the legal expenses and the funeral expenses and the same goes for the 19-year-old or the 19-year-old's family on behalf of his son.

In conclusion, the dealership and 19-year-old are both in a double-edged sword ⚔️ situation because the two parties, the owner of the vehicle and the family of the 42-year-old are going to work together in making sure the verdict goes in their favor once the case is over.

[fuqui]

We live in a stupid society. I just prove my case

[fredp]

What if you are paying off a loan on a car.
The bank still owns the car .

[RonnieGreher]

Valet mode? What vehicles have this? I’ve NEVER heard of it before.

[ASMRRALPH]

This is good to know thank you so very much for video. I hope that you do more videos like this!

[bobdavis]

Your Lawyer friend is not all correct here. They can win on appeal.

[richardb.]

Let me sum this up. Stupid law and a prime example of why I don't like lawyers, especially ones who become politicians. "Vicarious liability" is the dumbest concept I've ever heard of.

[rembo]

Anyone can sue anyone! This lawsuit against the owner who gave the keys to the dealership is clearly not at fault, was not negligent and vicarious liability wouldn’t apply and this cause of action it frivolous. I fully expect the case to be dismissed by the judge. If it went to a jury the owner would be cleared. No jury appeal at all! Of course you need a lawyer to defend against frivolous lawsuits. Your insurance should cover you if not get better insurance- like an “umbrella” policy.

[vinn]

Heard the news, I hope you are doing ok!

[kenro-]

This is quite telling. As a coder who reviews medical claims for people who blow through their PIP coverage, this is quite telling. And yes the overwhelming majority of cases settle such that while I have been deposed, they rarely go to trial. I always tell people to carry the maximum PIP coverage allowed, which in NJ is 250k.

[uhavemooface]

I live in California so I have no clue what the law would be in this case. You talk like this is going to be like this in every single state. Its not. Every state is different.