RIP 2012 ZL1 #1635

[trashmanssd]

man this whole story makes you wonder if you can trust any one. We have gps trackers for all our work trucks real easy to install (50$ a month) records location speed when cars is running or shut off very handy for work. I think long and hard now before giving my car to a place for repair on pulling one them out and installing it in the car before handing keys over. You can set alerts to for it to email you of it goes over certain speed or when its starts up or shuts down. Be interesting calling onstar to have them shut the car down because cars it out speeding around when it should be at one there dealers. What would happened if Cops had caught him in the car speeding around.

[derklug]

The dealerships moral responsibility is to make the OP whole. A 2012 with same miles or less and no out-of -pocket is making the OP whole. Asking for more is unjustified by the OP, but a couple of oil changes for his trouble isn't too much to ask.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by oldfriend

Are you saying that TSA is also lurking around in this forum ?

130R / Padre / jm88

Small things absolutely change the argument in almost all cases. Which is why I've learned to preface my comments on most situations with the 'If we have the full and accurate story' disclaimer.

If the city asked me to store a telephone pole in my garage then yes, I'd replace it for them if it got out and someone wrecked it.

Employers are responsible for their employees actions and in many ways it's bullshit. But how far that goes will vary on SOP and from location to location. It's why I made the comments I made earlier. Business owners are held at liability for EVERYTHING. And I do mean EVERYTHING. Whether it's out of their control or not. I HATE it when people downplay the business owners risk and make them out to be villains who simply sit on their asses and reap the benefits while the employee somehow is the backbone, the rock, the most important and have the foremost worth in the equation. (mini rant but I see it as relevant here)

Simple fact is that the police in this case (again, if we have the whole accurate story) have quoted an SOP that leans toward dealership liability.

ONE small thing can change the whole thing. ie, the friend stealing a car from my garage vs my minor son stealing it. I'd feel compelled to make it right as the person in control of the car. (I think I might have to run this by my insurance and maybe make an adjustment after reading all of this.) In the meantime I am not working on anyone elses cars at my house. I never charge anyone but I have worked on a number of peoples cars in my driveway just to help out. And on two occasions had them leave it overnight. IN THE DRIVEWAY OUTSIDE. After hearing this stuff I will not. Always wondered but never really paid much attention. I just assumed that they'd understand if something happened. Yes, if my son stole it I'd make it right. But if my best friend came over and took the keys and ruined the car I'd have to make him pay for it. And I'd have to press charges. BUT, what if the police told me I can NOT press charges because my best friend has the keys to my house with my knowledge? (which is the case, he has my garage code and a house key)

As a business owner myself, this would have never became a story. I'd have assured my client right away that we will have them made whole asap and I'll go about reimbursement of myself later. But I can ABSOLUTELY see 130R's point here. What more could the dealership have done? If they can not press charges against this guy then they might have to take a bath on this one. They need a policy that is congruent to covering them since the local laws are such that hate the businesses as well. (Delaware, huh?)

Bottom line here is that businesses are considered by most to be greedy assholes who prey on the working class so liability MUST, in ALL cases lie with the business.

Insurance, insurance, insurance. I have 5 insurance policies on 5 different things. Auto, Home owners, Life, Business, and Health (currently no health as I was dropped but I'll figure something out) It's sad but it's true, this day and age you better be insured for stupid shit. I should start a new insurance category and call it Frivolous Liability Insurance.

This is a round robin situation that is going to land in someones lap. I just hope for the car owners sake that it does not land with the thief.

Yet another reason to NEVER put my car in a shop.

[Mr Monte]

Originally Posted by derklug

The dealerships moral responsibility is to make the OP whole. A 2012 with same miles or less and no out-of -pocket is making the OP whole. Asking for more is unjustified by the OP, but a couple of oil changes for his trouble isn't too much to ask.

The 1st 500 miles of breakin & how somebody treats a car makes a huge difference in the quality of a car.

[Synerbee]

Originally Posted by Mr Monte

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.

[trashmanssd]

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.

[Padre]

Originally Posted by PQ

130R / Padre / jm88

TSA?

Padre

[eymang]

Anyone worried about leaving their camaro with service

[130R]

Originally Posted by dvision

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?

Originally Posted by dvision

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?

Originally Posted by dvision

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?

[PrinzII]

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.

[ZL1-V]

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.

[130R]

Originally Posted by PrinzII

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.

Originally Posted by PrinzII

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!!!

[2012-1822]

Originally Posted by eymang

Anyone worried about leaving their camaro with service

Pretty special

[130R]

^ Now those guys should be hung by their nut sacks…