Ford Mustang Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,293 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A Michigan Jeep owner who had his Jeep serviced by a dealership is being sued after his vehicle was involved in the death of one of the dealership's employees. Michigan car owner sued after Jeep kills mechanic during oil change.

The other day i read the clickbait headline and immediately opened the link. How couldn't I, I own a Jeep. This event happened 2 years ago and while it is a Jeep, it could be any owner with any vehicle in this scenario who has their vehicle serviced in Michigan.

So how can a owner having his vehicle serviced at a dealership be center in a wrongful death lawsuit when he was sitting in the service department waiting area? The FOX News link above, and Jelopnik, explain why this is in the news 2 years after the event, and why this owner (any owner) is exposed to this liability. https://jalopnik.com/why-a-jeep-owner-is-being-sued-for-a-mechanics-death-du-1848884952 .
 
  • Sad
Reactions: crjackson

· Registered
Joined
·
1,202 Posts
Yep. Watched this vid a few day ago.
 

· Tech Advisor
2014 GT, 1967 Fairlane GTA
Joined
·
6,415 Posts
Unfortunately, anyone can sue anyone for just about anything in this country. From my limited understanding of the civil law system whether a suit has any basis for success or not comes out during pretrial hearings if a judge doesn't just throw a case out immediately that is. Otherwise, there's ultimately a trial unless the two parties settle.
This suit was particular to Michigan's apparently unique and unpractical laws regarding lawsuits in the workplace.
From the article:
"when the Hawkins family filed suit against the Jeep owner, that person immediately sued the dealership for indemnification, and won. With that victory in place, whatever results from the Hawkins family’s suit against the Jeep owner will be the legal responsibility of Rochester Hills Chrysler Jeep Dodge (and their insurance company). Basically, while the owner of the Jeep is named in the suit, that person won’t face any repercussions from the trial or judgment."
It seems that the owner won't be held responsible other than his name being involved in it but it's an unjust shame that Michigan makes a hapless vehicle owner even go thru that process...
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,293 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
You missed the fact that the suit against the owner was only possible because Michigan is no-fault. Had the owner NOT filed and WON the indemnification suit against dealership he would be on the hook for any judgement.

The true impact of this event is if you live in Michigan, or any of the other 11 no-fault states you can plan on this being a precedent whether or not the individual state exempts workplace lawsuit's against coworkers.
 

· Tech Advisor
2014 GT, 1967 Fairlane GTA
Joined
·
6,415 Posts
You missed the fact that the suit against the owner was only possible because Michigan is no-fault. Had the owner NOT filed and WON the indemnification suit against dealership he would be on the hook for any judgement.
I didn't miss that. I posted the very quote from the article that says that the car owner sued the dealership for indemnification.
Many states have no fault car insurance(my state of NJ does as well) but Michigan is apparently unique in that you can't sue a fellow employee in the workplace. From the article: "Michigan workers’ compensation law says you cannot sue a fellow employee for negligence while on the job."
Florida and Michigan seem to be vying for the most senseless laws on the books.
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
8,222 Posts
Up Next ….

Teenager sues dealership for hiring him to/or allowing him to operate a motor vehicle, all the while knowing he had no valid DL or experience to operate common workplace equipment (i.e. motor vehicles, especially with manual transmissions).

I assume an employee can still sue an employer for dangerous / illegal working conditions.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,293 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I'm focused on the owner liability when he wasn't operating the vehicle. Need to watch the video to understand how no fault enabled suing the owner.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,293 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Up Next ….

Teenager sues dealership for hiring him to/or allowing him to operate a motor vehicle, all the while knowing he had no valid DL or experience to operate common workplace equipment (i.e. motor vehicles, especially with manual transmissions).

I assume an employee can still sue an employer for dangerous / illegal working conditions.
I wouldn't be surprised if the family sues Stelanntis for a design flaw. Newer Jeep models with automatics have a lockout preventing movement. The manuals lack this interlock but probably not for long.

Its worrisome though to think you can take your vehicle to a dealership to get serviced and 10 minutes later you are the target of a law suit simply because you are the owner.

It makes me think twice about liability when the vehicle undergoes servicing, or test drives and i don't have no-fault. It like being an open target.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,202 Posts
If you live in a "no-fault" state and take your manual trans car in for service at a shop that has a novice tech who barely knows how to drive it and they injure someone or get injured, be prepared. Or even if they take your car out for a test drive after doing work on it and injure someone, be prepared. Here's the list of "no-fault" states:
Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Utah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONEZ ST

· Administrator
Joined
·
8,222 Posts
probably means low paid, non-US citizen.
Possibly, but I kind of doubt it. Just a feeling. However, there was definitely negligent hiring practices, and improper supervision. The dealership is obviously responsible for this incident, and they (and only they) need to be held accountable regardless of anyone‘s citizenship status. Heads need to roll on this one, and I certainly hope they do.
 

· Tech Advisor
2014 GT, 1967 Fairlane GTA
Joined
·
6,415 Posts
I'm focused on the owner liability when he wasn't operating the vehicle. Need to watch the video to understand how no fault enabled suing the owner.
I watched the video before my previous post and as I said before Michigan has a specific workers compensation law regarding suing. That's in addition to no fault car insurance. It's not only the no fault insurance as a cause for the situation. The no suing in the workplace law in Michigan made this situation into what it is. The victim's family could have filed a suit against the vehicle owner regardless of the state having no fault insurance or not. It's just that Michigan makes it all but necessary to get victim compensation.
 

· Registered
2019 Ecoboost
Joined
·
71 Posts
Besides Mr. Hawkins and his family, my sympathies lie directly with the vehicle owner in this horrific story. You bring your car in for basic service and some mind-numbingly stupid dealership places an incompetent, thoroughly unqualified person in a position where an accident isn't a surprise, it's the expected outcome. Knowing the particulars after the fact, it's a miracle it wasn't worse.
How do these geniuses phrase your work order when you pick up your car?
5 qts of 10w40 oil
New filter
Basic inspection completed, moderate damage noted to your front end
Oh by the way, your car killed somebody and you're getting sued.
Good luck and Happy Motoring!
Having spent the entirety of my years within the Peoples Republic of NJ, I've seen enough to know that laws such as the MI ones aren't all that stunning. The worst part? The poor owner of the vehicle had to sue the dealership for indemnification to protect his home and savings? Really?? I just hope the vehicle owner's legal fees are recoverable in the indemnification verdict.
All the guy wanted was an oil change, not a Matlock episode. Well, the next time anyone wants to know why you pay 2 to 3x what your insurance should cost, look no further than abject stupidity, ridiculous codification, and nonsense like this.
Sorry all, rant done.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,293 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Problem for the dealership is they didn't verify the employee's driver license status. My take on this, since the article didn't state it, no driver's license probably means low paid, non-US citizen. That's why no driver's license.
That was a faulty assumption. The Jeep owners name is Sergio Enrique Diaz-Navarro and the 19 year old technicians name is Daniel Thompson.

Both of these guys were sued in Mar 21 and this month is when that trial is held.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,293 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Thank you for making my point because non citizens can obtain a drivers license in Michigan. Given that fact I have no clue what the non citizen status mentioned was centered around.

I want to keep this thread centered on the topic and maybe we all examine our individual state worker compensation laws, right to sue an employer, and personal liability when something as benign as an oil change exposes unseen liability.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
Thank you for making my point because non citizens can obtain a drivers license in Michigan. Given that fact I have no clue what the non citizen status mentioned was centered around.

I want to keep this thread centered on the topic and maybe we all examine our individual state worker compensation laws, right to sue an employer, and personal liability when something as benign as an oil change exposes unseen liability.
Bottom line is working at a vehicle dealership means sooner or later YOU ARE GOING TO DRIVE SOMETHING. Work on it, test drive it. Dealer prep, test drive it. To cut costs, who do you think they would hire? You do the math.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top