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

Camaro ZL1 Forum - ZL1 Specific Topics Camaro ZL1 specific topics

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-31-2013, 11:38 AM   #476
PQ
1st State Chevy supporter
 
PQ's Avatar
 
Drives: Hybrid SS Camaro
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 36,838
Send a message via Yahoo to PQ
Wow, so not only are businesses supposed to share ownership with their employees without ANY liability going to the employee but the business is also supposed to be liable FOR the employee 24/7?

If service based jobs could go overseas we'd have nothing left.

It would be a good business decision for the dealer to make it right by the customer ASAP. But we go back to the notion that people should be FORCED to make the decisions they make.

This mentality is sickening to me.
__________________
PQ is offline  
Old 12-31-2013, 11:55 AM   #477
Padre
Only drives on Sundays
 
Padre's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 2SS/RS, Black/Inferno, L99 A6
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Dalton, GA
Posts: 2,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by PQ View Post
Wow, so not only are businesses supposed to share ownership with their employees without ANY liability going to the employee but the business is also supposed to be liable FOR the employee 24/7?
He was on the employer's property with keys entrusted to him by the employer, so the employer is responsible for property that he damaged, yes.

If the employee had broken-and-entered, he'd be in jail now for grand theft auto - the police would have charged him regardless of the wishes of the employee. Hence, the "unauthorized use" charges.

And who said he's suffering NO liability? He lost his job and is facing (possibly) some criminal charges.

Under these circumstances, it's the employer's responsibility to hold his employee liable, not the innocent party (though he COULD try in court and get a settlement he'll never see).

The theory of "deep pockets" applies here. And in this case, it's both legally and morally correct.

Quote:
This mentality is sickening to me.
A no-brainer sickens you?

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 12-31-2013, 12:17 PM   #478
Expunge
 
Expunge's Avatar
 
Drives: Chevy S10 ZR2, 2013 ZL1 AGM M6
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: League City, TX
Posts: 163
I had a somewhat similar experience maybe 15 years ago.

Took my very new truck(my first new vehicle) to a dealership for some work. While it was in their care someone put 20 miles on it and took it offroad scratching it headlight to taillight on both sides. After all this time I still get pissed when I think about that.

I hope it works out to your satisfaction JHoop.
Expunge is offline  
Old 12-31-2013, 12:33 PM   #479
PQ
1st State Chevy supporter
 
PQ's Avatar
 
Drives: Hybrid SS Camaro
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 36,838
Send a message via Yahoo to PQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre View Post
He was on the employer's property with keys entrusted to him by the employer, so the employer is responsible for property that he damaged, yes.

If the employee had broken-and-entered, he'd be in jail now for grand theft auto - the police would have charged him regardless of the wishes of the employee. Hence, the "unauthorized use" charges.

And who said he's suffering NO liability? He lost his job and is facing (possibly) some criminal charges.

Under these circumstances, it's the employer's responsibility to hold his employee liable, not the innocent party (though he COULD try in court and get a settlement he'll never see).

The theory of "deep pockets" applies here. And in this case, it's both legally and morally correct.


A no-brainer sickens you?

Padre
I was not referring directly to this case per se' but what some of the comments here. If you read some posts people are saying that an employer should be responsible for his employees actions period. Even after work.

BUT, in this case the car was locked up adequately and was stolen after hours. How is the dealership supposed to keep this person out? He has to have the keys at some point when working. Hell, he could simply make a key without the dealers knowledge. The dealer should be screwed for that?

If I were on a jury I'd hold the employee responsible and not the dealership. (given the info we have)

The 'No-Brainer' part is the dealership just making it right as a good business decision and the right thing to do.

I've seen employees screw all kinds of shit up. Wreck trucks, dump loads, ruin freight in the warehouse and everything. ZERO had to pay for it. The company takes the loss.

So yes, it sickens me to see this mentality of employees on one hand claiming that they deserve more and more because of all the risk and sacrifice they make and on the other hand take ZERO of the accountability and liability. Loss of a job is NOT accepting liability. Liability is PAYING to make it right. Which I doubt very seriously this guy will. He lost his job. That may be accountable to the employer but is not accountability where it needs to be which is to the owner of the car that was ruined.

Again, assuming that we have an accurate story.
__________________
PQ is offline  
Old 12-31-2013, 12:50 PM   #480
Padre
Only drives on Sundays
 
Padre's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 2SS/RS, Black/Inferno, L99 A6
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Dalton, GA
Posts: 2,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by PQ View Post
BUT, in this case the car was locked up adequately and was stolen after hours. How is the dealership supposed to keep this person out? He has to have the keys at some point when working. Hell, he could simply make a key without the dealers knowledge. The dealer should be screwed for that?
The employer assumes liability when he hires someone. It's why you carry insurance. Every business works this way. You can't operate a business without some trust, and trust assumes liability. No matter your hypotheticals to explain away the keys, it all comes down to the employer trusting his employee. (Besides, Ockham's Razor applies: the simplest, most believable explanation is that the guy always had the keys.)

When I take up a collection in my church, I put in all sorts of safeguards so that the people's gifts go where they are intended... background checks on all volunteers, multiple counters, regular audits, a safe, and an armored truck and guys with guns to take it to the bank. But no matter what I do, there is still SOME risk. I try to minimize that risk, e.g. I probably can't stop a clever pick-pocket from taking a dip in the collection, but there is still risk. *I* am held responsible if there is a loss that *I* COULD HAVE prevented by using due diligence.

While there might be hypotheticals where an employer has NO liability for his employees, this thread is clearly not one of them.

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 12-31-2013, 01:22 PM   #481
United_727
Parts Guru Extraordinair.
 
United_727's Avatar
 
Drives: '11 1LT RS /'00 Z28 (RIP) :-(
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 1,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stecky View Post
Can't speak for NY.
In PA they are.
They only need to drive a car for inspection in NY is if the 3 monitors are not ready (according to NY's maching you plug into the car's OBD port.)
United_727 is offline  
Old 12-31-2013, 04:12 PM   #482
GroundhogSS
 
GroundhogSS's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 Envoy Denali, '06 G35 Coupe
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Cedar Park, Texas
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by United_727 View Post
They only need to drive a car for inspection in NY is if the 3 monitors are not ready (according to NY's maching you plug into the car's OBD port.)
Sorry for continuing the OT but in Texas they're supposed to drive it to test the brakes. They do every year.
__________________
Richard
GroundhogSS is offline  
Old 12-31-2013, 05:06 PM   #483
Msmall143

 
Msmall143's Avatar
 
Drives: Camaro
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: NOVA
Posts: 1,732
Op - so when is the meeting with the dealer?

And I do think you posting on here, and camaro5 members joing together and reacting the way some of us did, did lead to the dealership changing their approach.

Its better they make it right a little late than never
Msmall143 is offline  
Old 12-31-2013, 05:19 PM   #484
PQ
1st State Chevy supporter
 
PQ's Avatar
 
Drives: Hybrid SS Camaro
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 36,838
Send a message via Yahoo to PQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre View Post
The employer assumes liability when he hires someone. It's why you carry insurance. Every business works this way. You can't operate a business without some trust, and trust assumes liability. No matter your hypotheticals to explain away the keys, it all comes down to the employer trusting his employee. (Besides, Ockham's Razor applies: the simplest, most believable explanation is that the guy always had the keys.)

When I take up a collection in my church, I put in all sorts of safeguards so that the people's gifts go where they are intended... background checks on all volunteers, multiple counters, regular audits, a safe, and an armored truck and guys with guns to take it to the bank. But no matter what I do, there is still SOME risk. I try to minimize that risk, e.g. I probably can't stop a clever pick-pocket from taking a dip in the collection, but there is still risk. *I* am held responsible if there is a loss that *I* COULD HAVE prevented by using due diligence.

While there might be hypotheticals where an employer has NO liability for his employees, this thread is clearly not one of them.

Padre
I own a business too, albeit a small business, I understand liability and how it works. I have a payroll to meet, taxes to pay and liabilities including insurance. My insurance company is my parachute after I eat a loss to a customer. Yes, of course an employee is a PART of the business and as such an extension of it. In my opinion this is not a case of that. In a liability sense. Again, I believe the dealer should do right immediately. But not be liable to do so by force because I think they made all reasonable actions to secure the customers car. It should be the dealers decision. I say this because what the guy did was criminal. If this guy did this on company time and in an authorized capacity then I'd say dealer is liable easily. But why do I have to be responsible for an employees criminal behavior officially? I wonder if their insurance company will agree with you here.

My thoughts go to principle though. At this point I can't see ANY hypothetical where an employer has zero liability in the country. It is just expected by most people that the businesses must be responsible for everything. Apparently including an employees criminal doings.
__________________
PQ is offline  
Old 12-31-2013, 05:58 PM   #485
Bigtime53
 
Bigtime53's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 SIM ZL1
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 587
PQ, I have to disagree with you on your thought of the employer not being held liable for this if I read your post correctly. I think the dealer should be held responsible for his employee's actions. I am a small business owner also.I own a hotel and I will promise you that if one of my cleaning girls would come back after hours with a pass key and go into one of my customers rooms and steal something or destroy something that belong's to one of my guest I would be held responsible for her actions. The first thing my insurance company would ask me is how did she have a key to get into the room? It is my responsibilty to collect all of the pass keys and secure them each day after the work day is complete. If I do not do this it is my ass on the line. Now I am sure I could press charges on my housekeeper but it still falls back on me not collecting all of the keys. With that said I believe the dealer did not secure the owner's car keys and should be held liable and therefore make every effort to satisfy the owner of the car that was totaled.
Bigtime53 is offline  
Old 12-31-2013, 07:05 PM   #486
Padre
Only drives on Sundays
 
Padre's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 2SS/RS, Black/Inferno, L99 A6
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Dalton, GA
Posts: 2,394
PQ, in the interest of a debate free New Year's Eve, I think we can both agree the owner needs to rethink his risk management strategy. He may have THOUGHT he had reasonably secured the customer's car, but he has discovered otherwise.

He had two choices from the beginning: make it right and lose some money out of his pocket, or try to win on legalities and potentially lose much more (reputation).

We'll see how it plays out.

Happy New Year! 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 12-31-2013, 07:25 PM   #487
BHW7
 
Drives: 2010 2SS
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 12
A hotel vs. this scenario is not even close to a fair comparison. The cleaning crew doesn't open the business, as say a service employee might do early in the morning. People in this capacity have to have access. I think we all believe the guy who stole the car is the real bad guy and the dealers insurance is certainly involved, If he steals a 2012 used vette instead what does dealer get back?? Fair value of 2012 vette according to insurance company valuation. Here is where the gray area lies.
BHW7 is offline  
Old 12-31-2013, 09:18 PM   #488
Bigtime53
 
Bigtime53's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 SIM ZL1
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by BHW7 View Post
A hotel vs. this scenario is not even close to a fair comparison. The cleaning crew doesn't open the business, as say a service employee might do early in the morning. People in this capacity have to have access. I think we all believe the guy who stole the car is the real bad guy and the dealers insurance is certainly involved, If he steals a 2012 used vette instead what does dealer get back?? Fair value of 2012 vette according to insurance company valuation. Here is where the gray area lies.
I see you missed the point I made. It is a fair comparison because someone is responsible for the keys to vehicles to be secure after hours when the "work crew" leaves just as much as it is my responsibility to lock up the keys when my "work crews,cleaning girls" leave. As far as access to the building where the car was someone {the dealer} dropped the ball on not having an adult with half a brain to be there to give keys to the proper employees during work hours and collect these keys at the end of each day. I have a friend who owns a chevy store and I told him about this and he told me he has two guys each day collect all keys and bring to the main office and they are put in a safe each night. I am sure the dealer has insurance and I feel like the insurance company will give him [the op] fair market price for his car but that is where the dealer should step in and offer him another Z {if he still wants one} and at least let him have it at dealer cost. I know that is what I would do if I was the dealer.
Bigtime53 is offline  
Old 01-01-2014, 09:19 AM   #489
cdjnight
 
cdjnight's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 ZL1 A6
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Council Bluffs, Iowa
Posts: 202
How is the dealer supposed to keep this from happening? For starters they should not give a $10-12 dollar an hour parts guy access to a million dollars in vehicles after hours. A few high end dealerships around my neck of the woods put the keys in a safe at night and the management gets them out in the morning. Second, why the hell he has keys to the shop, alarm code and whatever else is beyond me. I said it when this thread first started. If I owned this place I'd fired this guys boss too! just my two cents. Management was being lazy and gambling with not only new car inventory but customers cars. THE DEALERSHIP SHOULD PAY! period
__________________
cdjnight is offline  
Old 01-01-2014, 12:44 PM   #490
ScooterZL1
 
ScooterZL1's Avatar
 
Drives: Camaro ZL1
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 12
I been following this for the past two weeks. This whole situation is totally out of control. I could not imagine this happening to me and going through what this gentleman went through. The whole result of this outcome was because of this forum why this individual is getting action against his car now. This dealer should be a prime example to other dealers to treat your customers with respect when they spent $60,000 on a ZL1 Camaro. I just hope the dealer takes care of the gentleman and replacing his car. It just really sucks that had to come to this so the guy can get his car replaced. Makes you really wonder how many dealers are doing this to other people out there. I hope that General Motors really looks into this dealer and implements some discipline or send a memo reminding dealers they are responsible when the employees damage customer vehicles. I hope this gentleman gets his car and the issue resolved quickly and I hope that this doesn't happen again at any other dealer period.
ScooterZL1 is offline  
Old 01-01-2014, 12:47 PM   #491
Firerader
 
Drives: 2013 Camaro 2RS/SS 1LE
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Roanoke, Tx
Posts: 130
__________________
2013 2SS/RS 1LE.
Firerader is offline  
Old 01-02-2014, 01:25 PM   #492
ssgirl2010
 
Drives: 2010 Silver 2SS/RS Camaro
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 50
Hoping for good outcomes!!

BTW, OP, was there mods done to the ZL1, or stock?
ssgirl2010 is offline  
Old 01-02-2014, 07:31 PM   #493
xtreme2s
 
Drives: Livernois 2010 2SS/RS
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Iowa City, Ia
Posts: 420
While I did earlier, post my thoughts on this terrible situation. I can assure from now on that where ever I take my Camaro in for "anything" to be done.... That I'm going to be very clear on MY rules of any test drive and its care of car in premises.

While mine is not a ZL1, it is extremely modified Camaro, and to a driver with little experience in high horsepower cars, this crap is what happens. (Look at all the C7 Corvettes that are getting trashed due to stupid or ill-experienced drivers)
xtreme2s is offline  
Old 01-02-2014, 08:19 PM   #494
Evil-Bee-NH
WEEEEE!!!!!!!!
 
Evil-Bee-NH's Avatar
 
Drives: Black 2011 Camaro 2LS
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 1,768
Good luck OP and i hope this gets resolved quickly the way it should've been happy things are turning around for you.
__________________
Roto-Fab CAI | Magnaflow Resonated X-Pipe | Cherry Bomb Glasspacks | 8" Kicker HideawaySub/Amp | Elite Oil Catch Can | Setina Push Bumper
Evil-Bee-NH is offline  
Old 01-03-2014, 11:25 AM   #495
gen=5

 
gen=5's Avatar
 
Drives: 13 ZL1 vert blac fastlane/LPE 750
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: houston
Posts: 1,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundhogSS View Post
Sorry for continuing the OT but in Texas they're supposed to drive it to test the brakes. They do every year.
In texas to do a inspection they only have to drive around the building to make sure the brakes stop,nothing more its done normally as its pulled in the inspection bay,...this is coming from a past shop owner the garages normally have a certain amount of feet marked off,and the car does not have to go over 20mph...most repair shops have it written on the paper work you sign that they are allowed to test drive the cars...BUT I ONLY LET MY TECHS TAKE THE CARS OFF THE LOT...there are way to may young inspectors that see a high performance car and go brain dead,and think its ok to hall butt in it,it has happened to a bet 95% of everyone that reads on this forum,but they just dont know it..dealers unlike smaller shops give too much freedom to their employees with customers cars...I would hear stories all the time from friends how they or someone they knew at the dealer had fun in someones vet,etc....not too long ago a chevy dealer since gone out of business bought out,had a employee racing in a 4th gen(customers car in for service) during work hours hit someone doing over 100mph in front of the dealer,and was killed,happen i think 2004 in houston..i saw the Z28 and it was hard to tell what kind of car it was other than one rim ,and a Camaro sticker...sad...he hit a 18 wheeler i think and paid the price....
__________________
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=346589 CHECK OUT THE BUILDING OF MY RANCH FOR DISABLED VETS, COMPLETE WITH A GUN RANGE &, PAINT BALL COURSE coming...garage for car shows,and a workout & rehab center hopfull
gen=5 is offline  
Old 01-03-2014, 11:35 AM   #496
PQ
1st State Chevy supporter
 
PQ's Avatar
 
Drives: Hybrid SS Camaro
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 36,838
Send a message via Yahoo to PQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtime53 View Post
PQ, I have to disagree with you on your thought of the employer not being held liable for this if I read your post correctly. I think the dealer should be held responsible for his employee's actions. I am a small business owner also.I own a hotel and I will promise you that if one of my cleaning girls would come back after hours with a pass key and go into one of my customers rooms and steal something or destroy something that belong's to one of my guest I would be held responsible for her actions. The first thing my insurance company would ask me is how did she have a key to get into the room? It is my responsibilty to collect all of the pass keys and secure them each day after the work day is complete. If I do not do this it is my ass on the line. Now I am sure I could press charges on my housekeeper but it still falls back on me not collecting all of the keys. With that said I believe the dealer did not secure the owner's car keys and should be held liable and therefore make every effort to satisfy the owner of the car that was totaled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre View Post
PQ, in the interest of a debate free New Year's Eve, I think we can both agree the owner needs to rethink his risk management strategy. He may have THOUGHT he had reasonably secured the customer's car, but he has discovered otherwise.

He had two choices from the beginning: make it right and lose some money out of his pocket, or try to win on legalities and potentially lose much more (reputation).

We'll see how it plays out.

Happy New Year! Padre
Essentially we agree in theory and principle. Just not implementation and legal liability.

We all agree that the business (dealership in this case) should IMMEDIATELY make the client whole. Sounds like all three of us would do just that. I just don't think we so quickly make it a forced issue. Let the business make that decision and live with the consequences. Insurance should be kept by all of us in some way.

Too many of our decisions are being taken from us because 'The People' know best how we should lead our lives. Businesses and citizens.
__________________
PQ is offline  
Old 01-03-2014, 01:08 PM   #497
PrinzII
Future ZL1 Owner
 
PrinzII's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Edge Limited
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by PQ View Post
Wow, so not only are businesses supposed to share ownership with their employees without ANY liability going to the employee but the business is also supposed to be liable FOR the employee 24/7?

If service based jobs could go overseas we'd have nothing left.

It would be a good business decision for the dealer to make it right by the customer ASAP. But we go back to the notion that people should be FORCED to make the decisions they make.

This mentality is sickening to me.
How is doing the right thing by a customer "forced", "coerced" or "under duress"?

If you are a business owner, then you understand the concept of accountability. Whether or not your employee was on the clock or not, he went onto your property and took something in your possession without permission from the owner AND you, the business owner, and ultimately damaged it.

Whilst I understand your point of "making whole", this dealership still needs to be held accountable for its lack of controls to prevent something like this from happening. Suppose this was about a $75k Z/28 or $100k+ ZR1. Would you feel the same way?
PrinzII is offline  
Old 01-03-2014, 01:31 PM   #498
NerdWerx
 
NerdWerx's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 ZL1
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: St. Joe, Michigan
Posts: 49
All this speculation and claims for "making stuff right" aside, I was wondering if there was any update on this from the OP. That is, if you're allowed to discuss it at all.

No one here (as far as I can tell by reading most of the topic) really knows exactly what's going on, except for the OP and the dealer, and possible some legal representation, with the slight possibility of GM being involved as well. Just because the dealer may have come off like a major douchebag to begin with doesn't mean it'll end that way. Personally, I get defensive when I'm accused of something too. Even though, eventually, down the road I may realize that, yeah, it was my fault to begin with.

So...any updates? Anything that can be said at all?
__________________

-NerdWerx
NerdWerx is offline  
Old 01-03-2014, 02:28 PM   #499
PQ
1st State Chevy supporter
 
PQ's Avatar
 
Drives: Hybrid SS Camaro
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 36,838
Send a message via Yahoo to PQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinzII View Post
How is doing the right thing by a customer "forced", "coerced" or "under duress"?

If you are a business owner, then you understand the concept of accountability. Whether or not your employee was on the clock or not, he went onto your property and took something in your possession without permission from the owner AND you, the business owner, and ultimately damaged it.

Whilst I understand your point of "making whole", this dealership still needs to be held accountable for its lack of controls to prevent something like this from happening. Suppose this was about a $75k Z/28 or $100k+ ZR1. Would you feel the same way?
I'm talking about LEGALLY. To be held LEGALLY accountable is forceably.

A business should do right by a client period. BUT should not be forced by law. (in a case like this anyway, where the dealer did secure the car)

In other words if this went to court I do not think the business should be found at fault legally. Not if they could show reasonable actions taken to secure the car. Some of you have a different idea of reasonable control. If it were a non-employee would make no difference to me. The car was stolen.
__________________
PQ is offline  
Old 01-03-2014, 02:58 PM   #500
102SS
waiting at the tree
 
102SS's Avatar
 
Drives: SIM 2010 2SS/RS A6
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Niagara Falls
Posts: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by PQ View Post
I'm talking about LEGALLY. To be held LEGALLY accountable is forceably.

A business should do right by a client period. BUT should not be forced by law. (in a case like this anyway, where the dealer did secure the car)

In other words if this went to court I do not think the business should be found at fault legally. Not if they could show reasonable actions taken to secure the car. Some of you have a different idea of reasonable control. If it were a non-employee would make no difference to me. The car was stolen.
Were the keys in a lock box with only owner access?

Case closed.
__________________
2010 2SS/RS A6 DD K/N CAI
60ft 2.03 13.08 at 107.82 (4/28)
1999 TA NBM A4
12.2 at 110
102SS 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 03:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.