Your comparing apples and oranges and some of your assumptions are incorrect as well.
First, in the scenario you describe, an outside criminal, one the homeowner has no association with, breaks in and does damage. That person, if caught, can be charged with the crime.
In the scenario at hand, regardless of which side you take, the dealer was associated with the offender. They vetted this person and trusted him with the keys to the facility. As a business, they have a level of due diligence and responsibility associated with this individuals actions. Technically, unless they have some form of training document that states they instructed the employee that conducting "test drives" on his own during off duty hours was against the rules, then they can be held liable for his actions. My guess is they do not have this sort of documentation which is probably why the individual could not be charged with even the lesser offense of "unauthorized use."
In the scenario described, not that it is particularly relevant since the homeowner did not have a contractual obligation to the car owner, nor was the offender someone, in your scenario, that the homeowner had any sort of supervisory relationship with, the homeowners insurance would be responsible for the damages to the vehicle. This is exactly what the car owner's insurance company would tell them as well.
And yes, if the homeowner obstructs the process, etc. the the friend would most likely and justifiably drag his name through the mud. I am sure you can find many real world instance of something similar happening between friends.
Finally I would tell you as someone whose wife owns a business. Occasionally, not often, but occasionally, a customer's property gets damaged when she or more often than not, one of her employees, is working with it. When that happens, my wife bends over backwards to fix or replace the items in question. This is almost aways a substantial loss compared to the value of the work my wife was undertaking, but it is the right thing to do and she always does this. It is the right thing to do and it is why her business has a great reputation in her industry.
So while on some levels, I do have sympathy for the dealership, I also feel they handled this entirely wrong. Additionally, I don't agree with your analogy below. Probably the fastest way they could handle this at this point would be for both parties to agree to arbitration and then sit down in a room and hash out an equitable agreement.. Short of that, this is going to be a 6 month long public relations nightmare based on the dealership's initial action or inaction. Padre is correct. The smart thing to do would have been to think through the public relations aspect and then just bend over backwards to make it right for the customer. At the end of the day, they would take a short term loss, but the long term, strategic outcome, would have been much better.
~Rex
Quote:
Originally Posted by 130R
That's an ENTIRELY different scenario… Your son is your legal responsibility 24/7. An employee is not… The dealership was closed. The employee wasn't on the clock or being paid. He's not the dealerships responsibility when he's off the clock.
Had the service manager been testing the vehicle, on the clock, and crashed the car in a negligent manner (ie: doing doughnuts in a parking lot), the dealership would absolutely be on the hook.
That didn't happen here…
Trust me. I hate dealerships as much as the next guy. But the dealership did nothing negligent according to the facts as stated by the OP in his first post.
Could the dealer have handled it better? I don't know. Keep in mind the car was stolen on a Sunday afternoon. The car wasn't totaled out by the insurance company until that Friday, the day the OP posted. Not much time to work things out, don't you think?
|