RIP 2012 ZL1 #1635

[Padre]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

This mentality is sickening to me.

A no-brainer sickens you?

Padre

[Expunge]

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.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Padre

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.

[Padre]

Originally Posted by PQ

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

[United_727]

Originally Posted by Stecky

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.)

[GroundhogSS]

Originally Posted by United_727

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.

[Msmall143]

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

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Padre

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.

[Bigtime53]

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.

[Padre]

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

[BHW7]

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.

[Bigtime53]

Originally Posted by BHW7

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.

[cdjnight]

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

[ScooterZL1]

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.