Are Employeers >>Really<< Shielded Like This!?

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…

I read that on Jalopnik yesterday. Apparently Michigan law is set up like that. It’s important to note that the car owner already sued the dealership and the court found the dealer liable for the employee’s injuries - I can’t remember the terminology. A pass-through liability kinda thing. So the car owner won’t have the judgement on the record against them.

It’s a weird law for sure. And I wish it hadn’t been so highly publicized. We’re still almost 8 months before the Texas Lege meets, they don’t need any “pro business” ideas.

2 Likes

Love how the judge ruled>

  • Employer liability limited under and protected under Worker’s Comp … affect premium due to claims under WC
  • Employer’s actions so grossly negligent that employer must indemnify the car owner, Employer will pay any award against car owner. If overruns policy limits, then whole dealership at risk. You can bet the dealer will be fighting with car owner to defeat the claim since the mechanics actions solely clearly contributed the accident.

But the fact the suit was dismissed in a summary action is unreal.

I just don’t get how the owner was involved, legally, at all. I am still way confused about the legal standard that lending stuff to people means I assume all liability?

Not really sure this would apply here…clearly negligence was root cause, not an accident. But I get WC and indemnity clauses, etc. can be complicated. I know from personal experience (in AZ, different state) that not all workplace injuries are automatically covered by WC. I had to fight it.

Here’s the important part of the article.

Thompson did not know how to drive the vehicle’s manual transmission and did not have a license. The attorney also said the dealership cannot be sued because of a legal standard preventing an employee from suing their boss for negligence, which, in this case, would be the hiring of someone who should not have been driving.

This was a very unfortunate circumstance, but there is no fault on owner. A 19 year old guy with no license, who doesn’t know why there’s three pedals instead of two had no business starting the vehicle.

To the family “someone” had to pay. They apparently couldn’t go after employer… which should be changed, the 19 year old who was responsible didn’t have enough to probably go after, so only one party left to try.

If it is mandatory WC state (Texas isn’t employee can opt out and take their chances in court), then it is a NO FAULT system. In exchange for the right to sue by worker or right to defend by employer, both agree that if employee is hurt at work, regardless of cause even if employee does stupid things, then they get a prescribed set of damages (so much for finger, arm, limb, etc.) plus some temporary wage replacement while recovering plus medical care.

As to suing the car owner? The plaintiff attorney got creative in filing the suit. The judge was an idiot IMO for not dismissing immediately, I would expect an immediate appeal before the suit proceeds. What the did was hold that the dealership had a duty of care to its customers, in hiring and training it’s employees. They failed this so they should hold the customer harmless and indemnify the customer against actions by it’s employee, making it an issue between the dealer and customer and outside WC.

As Femminineo [attorney for the mechanic killed in the accident] explained to Jalopnik, the Hawkins [dead employee] family can’t directly sue the dealership or its management. Michigan workers’ compensation law says you cannot sue a fellow employee for negligence while on the job. So the Hawkins family’s only option was to sue the Jeep owner. But that doesn’t mean the Jeep owner will be held responsible for the accidental death.

According to Femminineo, 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.

1 Like

I gathered all of this, but was worth repeating/calling out. What makes this so legally perverse, is that the defendant has zero motive to vigorously defend himself (AFAICT)…if the plaintiff asks for the $15MM it sounds like they are going to ask for, nothing is stopping the defendant (in this case, the jeep owner) from saying “meh…sure, why not…let’s settle”.


I am still interested in the quoted legal theory (or whatever) 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.

Can this really be true? Does it just apply to cars?

You are assuming several things:

  • The defendant has insurance that protects and covers him in this suit.
  • That the dealer has adequate coverage to pay the judgement.
    • If not, once it exceeds the limits dealer could file for Chapter 11 and get rid of most of it. If that occurs, the plaintiff may be able to go back for whatever isn’t indemnified. No idea how state law covers failure of indemnification failure.

But you don’t want to ever say “just settle” on something this big, besides the insurance company has a right to defend but you wouldn’t be liable in most states beyond what you agreed to settle for if within policy limits.

I’m not sure how this is covered under the meaning of “use your vehicle”. The court case will have a lot of issues to resolve, I doubt it survives. Michigan also has Comparative Negligence, if the plaintiff is over 50% at fault, you get nothing. I don’t think this gong to be very tough in this case to reach >50%.
https://accidentusa.com/michigan-accident-guide/michigan-comparative-negligence-laws/

Yes it is true. If you loan lend someone your car, in some jurisdictions, you’re responsible / liable for damages caused by the vehicle. I remember hearing of some cases years ago where someone negligently left their car accessible (like with the keys in it) and it was stolen and the injured party went after the car owner for making the car available. It’s been like almost 40 years, it was in the '80s when I worked at law firms.

The system is working as it was designed to. The family will receive benefits from workers’ compensation and in return the employer can’t be sued for negligence.

I think that’s called an attractive nuisance, or at least in that ballpark of legal concepts. Different kettle of fish than me loaning you something, like a car or a rake, and you leaving the rake somewhere where Larry, Curly, or Moe might step on it and shatter their Isles of Langerhans. Hard to see where it makes legal sense that I would be liable in any way for something like that.

Maybe, but something seems fishy if a person (the car owner) with literally no liability or culpability or responsibility or etc. has to get involved with lawsuits and courts and lawyers. It’s upsetting and nerve-wracking and time-consuming, if nothing else.

It’s possible the owner of the vehicle is okay with this and coordinated the effort to help the family.

Yep…maybe. I’m less curious about the specific case than I am about the general legal concepts and/or applications. All I can say is it seems wrong that anyone in the car owner’s position or anything similar end up with a loss of anything, including time and effort in a situation like this.

There’s an actual wrong involved, plus the inefficiency of not addressing that actual party responsible and what will be paying the bills/costs/judgments.

Yes, but you’re a sensible person. Lawyers and legislators see the world through a different lens called “how can we get someone else to pay.”

Instead of attorneys’ fees being assessed against plaintiffs who file frivolous suits, the fees should be assessed against them and their attorneys, who should be be required to carry bonds sufficient to cover them. This would end at least some ridiculousness out there. The worst of the ambulance-chasers would rapidly become uninsurable and find themselves out of business or just working traffic tickets.

1 Like

Steve Lehto is a lawyer in Michigan and goes over the case:

Enjoy!

Lehto is awesome. Thanks for the link.