Dealership drove my car into a pond. FMYLIFE....Dealer Response
03-29-2010, 03:46 PM
#151
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Washington
Posts: 70
These two threads have had so much interest that I had my attorney friend of 30 years look at both of the threads. Obviously, he did not get to review the case file.
However, he stated that if the owner of the car did not give the dealer specific instructions on the use of the remote. And, if he also failed to inform the dealer that he had installed a remote starting system and circumvented the safety protocols. The owner is 100% liable and the insurance company is not required to cover the loss. By handing the remote over to the dealer, the owner gave permission, even if not verbal, to operate the remote.
That being said, none of us will never know the entire truth. It's a good lesson for any of us that modify our cars to inform the dealer and it should be documented on the service order.
However, he stated that if the owner of the car did not give the dealer specific instructions on the use of the remote. And, if he also failed to inform the dealer that he had installed a remote starting system and circumvented the safety protocols. The owner is 100% liable and the insurance company is not required to cover the loss. By handing the remote over to the dealer, the owner gave permission, even if not verbal, to operate the remote.
That being said, none of us will never know the entire truth. It's a good lesson for any of us that modify our cars to inform the dealer and it should be documented on the service order.
03-29-2010, 04:17 PM
#152
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Brandon, Florida
Posts: 2,616
These two threads have had so much interest that I had my attorney friend of 30 years look at both of the threads. Obviously, he did not get to review the case file.
However, he stated that if the owner of the car did not give the dealer specific instructions on the use of the remote. And, if he also failed to inform the dealer that he had installed a remote starting system and circumvented the safety protocols. The owner is 100% liable and the insurance company is not required to cover the loss. By handing the remote over to the dealer, the owner gave permission, even if not verbal, to operate the remote.
That being said, none of us will never know the entire truth. It's a good lesson for any of us that modify our cars to inform the dealer and it should be documented on the service order.
However, he stated that if the owner of the car did not give the dealer specific instructions on the use of the remote. And, if he also failed to inform the dealer that he had installed a remote starting system and circumvented the safety protocols. The owner is 100% liable and the insurance company is not required to cover the loss. By handing the remote over to the dealer, the owner gave permission, even if not verbal, to operate the remote.
That being said, none of us will never know the entire truth. It's a good lesson for any of us that modify our cars to inform the dealer and it should be documented on the service order.
Good reply but, giving permission to operate a device does not absolve the user of liability of said device in the "correct and safe manner". The dealer operated a device that they were not trained on and was not part of the cars manufacture originally installed equipment.
What should of happen here is that the dealership should of called the owner and asked about the remote "prior to using it". If contact could not be made with the owner then the dealership should of used the "KEY" to unlock the car.
Both party's are equally liable here, The owner for bypassing safety features of the device and the dealership for operating a device with out being instructed on its use.
03-29-2010, 05:08 PM
#153
Moderator
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Michigan again!
Posts: 8,584
Marc S's attorney friend is correct. A basic tort analysis asks what is the proximate cause of the damage (the defective installation of the remote starter) - the fact that the ***** who did the defective installation gave the fob to the dealer is a grant of permission to use it. He didn't have to say "you can use this" because if he didn't want them to then he wouldn't give it to them. If he didn't want it used then he shouldn't give it to the dealer.
Using the remote is not negiligent - they are used everyday and "BUT FOR" (another step in the basic tort analysis) the faulty installation by the owner nothing like this would have happened. Simply having the car in the dealer possession does not create per se liability as so many seem to want to believe.
A second year law student should be able to do this analysis and come up with the outcome.
Using the remote is not negiligent - they are used everyday and "BUT FOR" (another step in the basic tort analysis) the faulty installation by the owner nothing like this would have happened. Simply having the car in the dealer possession does not create per se liability as so many seem to want to believe.
A second year law student should be able to do this analysis and come up with the outcome.
Last edited by wilkinda; 03-29-2010 at 08:10 PM.
03-29-2010, 05:26 PM
#154
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: TN
Posts: 70
I was riding too work this morning listening too the Free Beer and Hot Wings show and they did a piece on this thread or threads. I had to laugh because I have just recently joined the forum and read about the owner of the car and his story. They were split on who should be at fault but on thing that stood out too them was who needs a remote start in Florida. They thought that was the funny part of the story. Kinda is though. Well just thought I would spread the news that now we are on a syndicated radio show.
03-29-2010, 08:13 PM
#156
2010 Section Moderator
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Lithia, FL
Posts: 3,328
Why do people just associate the remote start to states with cold weather??It does get HOTT in Florida for those wondering.... on the beer and wings show or whatever they call it. That being said.. I still would not put one on my standard transmission
03-29-2010, 09:59 PM
#158
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 638
do you bother to read? or selectively focus on certain things?
it is very likely the car never even started. and if the e-brake was working, it would be enough to stall out the motor...which would prevent the remote start from getting a "running" signal to tell it to stop cranking. without that "running/kill" signal, the remote start would continually crank the motor until the timing circuit killed it. which could be anywhere from 5-10 seconds.
2 questions for you.
1. Do you use your e-brake 100% of the time?
2. did you try this with the e-brake 1/2 way set?
I believe you about the car not moving. That is why I said in my prior post that a e-brake SHOULD stop this kind of situation. But I've seen many times where people don't even bother to set it. And that leads to weak/non-functioning e-brakes.
Which is what I theorize happened with LD's car. Either his e-brake was only partially engaged...or it just didn't work at all from non-use.
it is very likely the car never even started. and if the e-brake was working, it would be enough to stall out the motor...which would prevent the remote start from getting a "running" signal to tell it to stop cranking. without that "running/kill" signal, the remote start would continually crank the motor until the timing circuit killed it. which could be anywhere from 5-10 seconds.
2 questions for you.
1. Do you use your e-brake 100% of the time?
2. did you try this with the e-brake 1/2 way set?
I believe you about the car not moving. That is why I said in my prior post that a e-brake SHOULD stop this kind of situation. But I've seen many times where people don't even bother to set it. And that leads to weak/non-functioning e-brakes.
Which is what I theorize happened with LD's car. Either his e-brake was only partially engaged...or it just didn't work at all from non-use.
I use the ebrake every time im out on the road, never at home as i park in a garage
When I tried mucking around, ebrake was set at 100%
But if it was at 80% or so, it would probably roll
