TLDR: car owner leaves car with dealership for service; one dealership employee ends up killing another dealership employee with car during service; dead guy estate/family sues car owner.
Leaving aside the general stupidity all around, incl ambulance-chasing lawyer, and excluding car owner who obviously did nothing wrong, here are two lines from article, essentially saying same thing, that I just don’t understand how could be true from a legal theory perspective:
“The attorney also said the dealership cannot be sued because of a legal standard preventing an employee from suing their boss for negligence…”
and
“Because the incident happened at work and involved two employees, the boss cannot be sued”
“[Ambulance-Chaser said] that the car owner is responsible for Hawkins’ death in the same way that someone who lent another person their vehicle would be liable for any injuries caused by the driver. He said a person who lends their car is liable for negligent acts because they gave the other person permission to use their vehicle.”
Seriously, setting aside the obvious stupidity of lawsuit, and people’s general greediness and litigiousness, and grossness of ambulance-chasers, is it possible an employer can be shielded like this? And that I would be responsible for any damage/harm/death caused if I lend something (car, rake, fork) to someone else? I just can’t believe it…