Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Solo Performance
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > General Camaro Forums > Camaro ZL1 Forum - ZL1 Specific Topics


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-26-2013, 01:40 PM   #341
Synerbee
SoCal Headturners
 
Synerbee's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 SGM
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Anaheim Hills, California
Posts: 5,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Monte View Post
The 1st 500 miles of breakin & how somebody treats a car makes a huge difference in the quality of a car.
True, but they aren't liable for a new car. They are liable to replace what was brought into the shop. It would look good for them to give him a new car though. Sentimental value doesn't translate into cash.
Synerbee is offline  
Old 12-26-2013, 02:17 PM   #342
trashmanssd


 
trashmanssd's Avatar
 
Drives: Black 14 2SS/1LE/RS 14 Tundra
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Plymouth, Ma
Posts: 2,274
PQ

AMEN. own my own business and I cant believe how many people think they are great employees, I have 15 people working for me 3 are great 2 are ok the rest are just another guy. No one understands all the hidden costs till the try to open a business and fail. I cant wait till mine is big enough to sell it and retire and as a business owner my idea of retiring is to stop working 70-80 hours a week and only do 40 hours a week.
trashmanssd is offline  
Old 12-26-2013, 02:22 PM   #343
Padre
Only drives on Sundays
 
Padre's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 2SS/RS, Black/Inferno, L99 A6
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Dalton, GA
Posts: 2,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by PQ View Post


130R / Padre / jm88


TSA?

Padre
__________________

The "Heretic": '11 2SS/RS L99 A6 Black/Inferno. Build Journal, Videos
D1SC GT9 JBA-LT = 720/680 | 10.330 @ 133.61, 1.546 sixty... Camaro King at ECS V, Darlington.
Padre is offline  
Old 12-26-2013, 03:14 PM   #344
eymang
 
eymang's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS & 1991 Vert
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 397
Anyone worried about leaving their camaro with service
eymang is offline  
Old 12-26-2013, 04:33 PM   #345
130R
 
Drives: SS
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvision View Post
The employer is responsible for his employee. He didn't break into the dealership, he used his keys.
Maybe I'm missing something, but where does it say the employee had keys?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvision View Post
Unless the laws in your state are different than ours, dealership has insurance for this. I was in the car business for many years and my insurance always included garage keepers liability. This is for test drives while you are working on vehicles and damage that might occur while driving or problems that may be a result of techs.
That's all well and good, but this dealership was closed, and the employee was there after hours and not on the clock. In other-words, he wasn't there as an employee, or at the owners behest, and he wasn't test driving the vehicle as it was there for paint issues. Would your insurance cover this situation?


Quote:
Originally Posted by dvision View Post
I also might disagree on the insurance company or the dealer giving him a new '14 ZL1. They are going to look at it like he was driving a '12 and sentimental value doesn't matter. I think they are responsible for giving him a car that is the same value or greater, or the cash including the cost involved with the purchase including sales tax and title fees. I hate that this happened and it has made me rethink how I may handle any future trips to get work done on my Z. Good luck.
What you think, and, like many others here, you're emotions are irrelevant. The law requires that you are made whole at the time of the loss; you're not entitled to a windfall.


Apparently some here would have snapped their fingers and had a brand new $60,000 car with a hot blonde holding a puppy in the passenger seat for the guy 1st thing Monday morning. That's awesome for those of you that have those kind of super powers, but that's just not realistic; these things take time.

At the end of the day, according to the information given to us by the OP, the dealership did nothing negligent.

In my experience, assholes don't have: "You can't trust me, I'm an asshole" tattooed on their foreheads. For all we know a background check was done and it came back clean. What's the owner suppose to do? Have a PI follow all employees around when they're off the clock? Lock them up in a vault at night? A business owner can only do so much...

Even if the advisor did have keys, you have to prove that that is unusual. That is, is it unusaul for some key employees to have keys to a business? The answer to that is, no.

Obviously there is a trust that goes with that responsibility. The advisor broke that trust. Was it foreseeable? We don't know. For all we know the employee was a model employee that earned the owners trust over the years and had one really stupid lapse of judgement. None of you upstanding citizens have never done something really stupid?

My only point in standing up for the dealership is to get people to think before they react. This thread grew 8 pages in one day with most people demanding the dealership owner be hung by his nut sack with the most minimal of facts, and from only one side of the story. The car had only been officially totaled THAT day.

Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves for posting the kind of crap you did on their Facebook and/or website so quickly.

Hey, at some point facts may come out that the owner is a real douche, but until then, how about giving him the benefit of the doubt. Wouldn't you want that same consideration?

Last edited by 130R; 12-26-2013 at 04:54 PM.
130R is offline  
Old 12-26-2013, 04:55 PM   #346
PrinzII
Future ZL1 Owner
 
PrinzII's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Edge Limited
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 164
After reading the whole thread, I am looking at it this way:

a) The dealership is liable no matter how you slice it. First, the safeguards for the keys to prevent this from happening failed or were nonexistent. Second, whether or not the employee is on the clock, the fact remains that he is a representative of that entity and should be held liable.

b) According to Arizona Revised Statutes, this clown would be charged with Unlawful use of Means of Transportation which is a felony in the state of AZ. As for my home state of IL, it is a Class 2 felony but can also be a misdemeanor in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, Delaware has no such law.

AZ Law: http://cantorcriminallawyers.com/veh...ng-in-arizona/

Being a car person, whether or not it is the Edge or a ZL1, there would be that sense of violation due to the fact someone decided to take a joyride in my vehicle without authorization. Believe me, I would feel the same sense of anger on a very high level. The OP has a legitimate case against the dealership on the grounds of negligence (bare minimum) and may have to pursue that angle. But the advice of getting a lawyer would be echoed by me.

I understand 130R's points but the basic facts remain that the dealership is still liable due to the fact the car was in their care at the time and safeguards to prevent this failed.
PrinzII is offline  
Old 12-26-2013, 04:56 PM   #347
ZL1-V

 
ZL1-V's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 Camaro ZL1
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,045
I'm pretty sure a "background check" wasn't done. I still think that "employee" is somehow connected through family with either the dealer or a member of the local Police department.
ZL1-V is offline  
Old 12-26-2013, 05:43 PM   #348
130R
 
Drives: SS
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinzII View Post
After reading the whole thread, I am looking at it this way:

a) The dealership is liable no matter how you slice it. First, the safeguards for the keys to prevent this from happening failed or were nonexistent. Second, whether or not the employee is on the clock, the fact remains that he is a representative of that entity and should be held liable.
The problem is, you don't know what the safeguards were, so you don't know if they were adequate/reasonable or not. Again, the dealer, or anyone in possession of someones property, is only required to use reasonable care. Maybe they were lack, but maybe they weren't; you don't know. Those facts have not been presented.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinzII View Post
I understand 130R's points but the basic facts remain that the dealership is still liable due to the fact the car was in their care at the time and safeguards to prevent this failed.
Not if it is found they exercised reasonable care. You have to show the dealer did something that was unreasonable, or negligent.

Examples of negligence would be: Someone at the dealership forgot to lock the gate, or, someone left the car on the street with the keys in the fender well.

Reasonable care is also dependent on the circumstances, or the type of business. For example, a bank locking it's money in an ordinary closet wouldn't be reasonable care. If I'm holding money for you, that would be reasonable care. A dealership locking a vehicle in the service bay is exercising reasonable care. If the keys are hanging in plain view through a window a passer-by can easily see, probably not.

Is a bank negligent that has a state of the art vault with 3' thick steel, a time lock, and every other possible safeguard negligent if someone manages to get past all the safeguards and steals the money anyway? No. A state-of-the-art vault meeting industry standards is reasonable care in protecting the money. If someone forgot to close the vault, that's a different story. Reasonable care includes making sure the safeguards are operational and utilized.

Again, the dealer isn't required to ship the car to Fort Knox, that's not reasonable. Besides, if the plane crashed on the way back to the dealer, people would be screaming: "WTF were they doing shipping the car to For Knox for the weekend?" ASSHOLES!!!
130R is offline  
Old 12-26-2013, 05:58 PM   #349
2012-1822


 
2012-1822's Avatar
 
Drives: Black ZL1
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: City of Champions, Alabama
Posts: 3,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by eymang View Post
Anyone worried about leaving their camaro with service
Pretty special
__________________
Check out Alabama Camaros, for Camaro enthusiasts all around Alabama https://www.facebook.com/groups/1739...group_activity

Last edited by 2012-1822; 12-26-2013 at 06:38 PM.
2012-1822 is offline  
Old 12-26-2013, 06:00 PM   #350
130R
 
Drives: SS
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 221
^ Now those guys should be hung by their nut sacks…
130R is offline  
Old 12-26-2013, 06:13 PM   #351
heymatt

 
heymatt's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 IBM 2SS Vert.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tequesta, Fl.
Posts: 781
And the difference between those two guys beating on a customer's car during business hours and the guy who takes a customer's car after business hours and wrecks it is.........
__________________
LS3/M6 K&N, VMAX throttle body, RX Catch Can, skip shift eliminator, DT shorties and Solo HFC, DRL harness and 5K LED DRL, ZL1 rear sway, 1LE front sway
heymatt is offline  
Old 12-26-2013, 06:20 PM   #352
Russo
Unofficial Glass Tech
 
Russo's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Ford F150 FX2
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Raceland, LA
Posts: 1,376
Send a message via Yahoo to Russo
i own a business and I have garage keepers.. one phone call to their insurance agent and the insurance company will write the OP a check for the fair market value of his car.. then, the OP could press criminal charges against the person who stole the car to recoup damages.. the twist will be when an attorney finds out the person who stole the car had prior infractions with the HR department at the dealer... then the dealer is responsible for his actions.. a habitual offender is a liability, that is why employers set the bar so high when they hire people
Russo is offline  
Old 12-26-2013, 06:42 PM   #353
130R
 
Drives: SS
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by heymatt View Post
And the difference between those two guys beating on a customer's car during business hours and the guy who takes a customer's car after business hours and wrecks it is.........
There's a very big difference, and it's been beaten to death…

I never said the guy that crashed the ZL1 shouldn't be charged. In fact, I said he was a douche for doing what he did.

The only difference is, he wasn't working for the dealer at the time. He wasn't performing his duties at the owners behest. He had no business being there. He had no business being in the car, let alone stealing it. I've been saying I don't feel the dealer was negligent, or responsible for an employee that decided, on his own, to illegally enter the premises and steal a car, after hours. How could the owner have known, or do anything else to prevent it (based on what we know, not on mindless assumptions)?

I think I've said enough on this, but this is what I'm basing my opinion on:

"Job-Related Accidents or Misconduct
Under a legal doctrine sometimes referred to as "respondeat superior" (Latin for "Let the superior answer"), an employer is legally responsible for the actions of its employees. However, this rule applies only if the employee is acting within the course and scope of employment. In other words, the employer will generally be liable if the employee was doing his or her job, carrying out company business, or otherwise acting on the employer's behalf when the incident took place."


http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...cts-29638.html

And while I'm at it:

"reasonable care
n. the degree of caution and concern for the safety of himself/herself and others an ordinarily prudent and rational person would use in the circumstances. This is a subjective test of determining if a person is negligent, meaning he/she did not exercise reasonable care."


http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1730


I love the law, but I'm no lawyer. If someone else has actual case law that supports their claims, and discount mine, I'd love to see them… Please though, only present case law that is on point, and based on the facts as we know them…



Padre - Thank you. I missed that. Though I've read the entire thread, I've been basing my comments on the 1st post, since I'm most disturbed by the mob mentality and feeding frenzy as a result of that one post alone...
130R is offline  
Old 12-26-2013, 07:51 PM   #354
alv927
 
alv927's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 camaro 2ss/rs dusk edition
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: florida
Posts: 404
i would contact an attorney and also contact the local news stations in your area and adjoining areas. If you cause enough chaos i promise you it will turn in your favor...
alv927 is offline  
Old 12-26-2013, 08:36 PM   #355
mrpyle
 
mrpyle's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2LT/RS - Synergy Green
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Auburn, Ga
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by heymatt View Post
This is one reason why I have such a problem with this.

The State Police said he can't be charged with theft, because he was an employee and had keys to access the service area.
Granted, he had absolutely no reason to be there. Unless he makes the claim that he needed to see the paint repair in the daylight, while driving.

Morally, it is theft.

Because the police are establishing him as an employee, it would fall back to the dealership's insurance to cover the loss.

If your tv gets stolen, the insurance co doesn't say go get a used tv on Craigslist and we'll call it even. Because now you've been made whole.
You get a new tv.

The dealer will end up sending it thru his insurance, because the police have established him as an employee.
The OP will end up with hopefully, in my opinion, a new, not used car. With the dealer paying the difference, so the OP doesn't have to come out of pocket at all.

The guy that wrecked the car, should be charged and prosecuted. The way it looks now, probably not gonna happen.
I have to agree with this ....
__________________
mrpyle is offline  
Old 12-26-2013, 09:02 PM   #356
Msmall143

 
Msmall143's Avatar
 
Drives: Camaro
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: NOVA
Posts: 1,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by heymatt View Post
If your tv gets stolen, the insurance co doesn't say go get a used tv on Craigslist and we'll call it even. Because now you've been made whole.
You get a new
This isn't true, insurance companies do have access to used and refurbished items. They also calculate depreciation into claims.


I had a home theft. It was interesting to go through the process. I had an older laptop stolen, it was replaced by another out dated laptop...not the newest one in stores.

I also had a expensive watch stolen, it was replaced by a "like" item
Msmall143 is offline  
Old 12-26-2013, 09:20 PM   #357
tones2SS


 
tones2SS's Avatar
 
Drives: 13 Roush S3 05 Dodge Ram Daytona
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,855
So,....let me get this straight.
The douche bag went into work, during non-business hours and took the OP's car for a little "joy ride" and ended up totaling it. If that's the case, the douche bag is 100% responsible for this. The dealership is like a third party issue. Yes, the car was housed there overnight, but the dealership did not allow the douche to take or steal the car for the day, non-business hours. The douche decided that on his own.
It's just how I see it. Kinda like suing Burger King because they make fatty foods, I eat their fatty foods and I weigh over 350 pounds now.(Not really, but you get the idea. lol )
I hope all goes well for the OP.
__________________
tones2SS is offline  
 
Closed Thread

Tags
1st state chevrolet, stealership, stolen, totaled, wrecked, zl1

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.