Dealer totals car - what now?

[Joey_P]

WRT to my last comment, what I was hinting at is that I don’t see anything about the dealership offering them anything other then the replacement car and $4k. Little Nemo said the dealership gave them $60k, if that was the case then I would suggest they stop talking and walk away, but I don’t think that’s happened.

[Senegoid]

Apparently, the facts of the case aren’t entirely open-and-shut, as the rogue employee hasn’t been charged (as of the article cited by OP) with auto theft. He said he had dealership’s owner’s permission to take the car. Dealership owner, I presume, begs to differ. So that point seems to be still in contention.

[Ruken]

@Joey_P

I see where you’re coming from, but that’s the dealership’s problem.

Is it? The employee was not acting within the course and scope of employment. That said, if they’re liable if an unrelated party steals a car from their party, then it doesn’t matter who the thief is.

[Joey_P]

@Fubaya

The dealer should absolutely take care of this and make it right to make the people happy and to clear their name, but what’s the law on this? If my car gets stolen from the mall, the mall doesn’t owe me a car. I understand it was an employee, but it didn’t happen as part of normal business. Once the theft occurred, I’d think responsibility would rest on the thief.

Apples to Oranges.

What if you took you stayed at a hotel overnight and the hotel had valet parking. You toss the valet your keys and he parks it in the underground garage. The next morning when you leave he pulls your car out, and you find that it’s keyed all the way around and three of the windows are smashed. Let’s further say that one of the employees stopped in last night to pick something up that he left there last night and did it for fun.

Tough luck huh. Hope your insurance is up to date.

[Joey_P]

@Ruken

Is it? The employee was not acting within the course and scope of employment. That said, if they’re liable if an unrelated party steals a car from their party, then it doesn’t matter who the thief is.

That’s getting off track because it wasn’t an unrelated party. It was an employee.

[running_coach]

@Fubaya

The dealer should absolutely take care of this and make it right to make the people happy and to clear their name, but what’s the law on this? If my car gets stolen from the mall, the mall doesn’t owe me a car. I understand it was an employee, but it didn’t happen as part of normal business. Once the theft occurred, I’d think responsibility would rest on the thief.

At the mall, you don’t hand over your keys to anyone or grant them access to the car.

[Ruken]

@Joey_P

That’s getting off track because it wasn’t an unrelated party. It was an employee.

We all know it was an employee. That may not matter if the dealership is liable regardless.
However, if the dealership is not liable just by virtue of possessing the vehicle, the employee was not acting on behalf of the employer. Thus, it is not necessarily obvious that the employer is liable. I’m asking someone to explain how that works.

[Oakminster]

@Joey_P

The problem now is that lawyers are involved and, no doubt, the dealership has better lawyers then the guy who said he can’t afford another car.

:rolleyes:
What is the basis of this ridiculous assertion?

[Fubaya]

I dunno, I’d just like to see the law that says the dealer would be responsible for damage incurred on the stolen vehicle. Unless there was negligence involved, they normally wouldn’t be at fault for a stolen vehicle no matter who steals it.

[Little_Nemo]

@Joey_P

I didn’t see that they got the $60K. If he got what he paid for the car 2 years ago he probably should be happy. That doesn’t happen very often.

You’re right. The article said the couple paid $60,000 for the car when they bought it. The figure apparently stuck in my mind.

But my basic argument remains. The insurer paid the couple what it felt was the market value and apparently didn’t seek money from the dealership. That to me is strong evidence that the dealership is not legally liable.

[Little_Nemo]

@Fubaya

I dunno, I’d just like to see the law that says the dealer would be responsible for damage incurred on the stolen vehicle. Unless there was negligence involved, they normally wouldn’t be at fault for a stolen vehicle no matter who steals it.

And they also are not responsible for anything their employee does. If he had broken into his neighbour’s house in the middle of the night and stolen their TV, nobody would be suggesting the dealer was liable because the guy worked for them.

So any lawsuit is going to have to be based on the argument that the dealership was negligent in its security and didn’t take reasonable steps to ensure its employees didn’t break in to the place after hours. I’m not saying this is impossible but it’s not an automatic win for the couple.

[Johnny_L.A]

@Little_Nemo

And they also are not responsible for anything their employee does. If he had broken into his neighbour’s house in the middle of the night and stolen their TV, nobody would be suggesting the dealer was liable because the guy worked for them.

So any lawsuit is going to have to be based on the argument that the dealership was negligent in its security and didn’t take reasonable steps to ensure its employees didn’t break in to the place after hours. I’m not saying this is impossible but it’s not an automatic win for the couple.

Of course the dealership would not be liable if the guy burgled a house. But the ex-employee had access to the dealership by virtue of being an employee. The thief would not have know that car was there, and would not have known specifically how to steal it were he not employed there. In any case, that the ex-employee did steal a car is de facto evidence their security was not up to snuff.

When the owner of the car turned over the keys to the dealership, a bailment is created. From Wiki:

Liability
No matter how a bailment arises, the bailee will incur liability in the taking of a bailment in some cases insuring the goods. Different jurisdictions maintain different standards of care.

Strict liability
The old common law held a bailee strictly liable for the bailment. The exception to this rule was the case of involuntary bailments (see below), when the bailee is only held to a standard of due care.

Tiered system
In many jurisdictions the system of strict liability has been replaced by a tiered system of liability that depends on the relationship of the bailee to the bailor. The bailee is generally expected to take reasonable precautions to safeguard the property, although this standard sometimes varies depending upon who benefits from the bailment.
[ul][li]If both bailor and bailee are found to benefit from the relationship, such as sending a package, then the bailee is held to a standard of ordinary, or reasonable, care. (mutual-benefit bailment)[/li][li]If the bailment is to the primary benefit of the bailor, such as finding a lost wallet, the bailee must be found grossly negligent to be liable for damage done to the bailment.[/li][li]If the bailee primarily benefits, such as if you borrow your neighbor’s rake to clean your lawn, the bailee must exercise highest care, i.e. is liable for any damages arising from slight negligence.[/ul][/li]Normal care
Some jurisdictions have held bailees to a standard of normal care regardless of who benefits in the bailor/bailee relationship.

Under Delaware law:

A bailee shall deliver the goods to a person entitled under a document of title…

(2) Damage to or delay, loss, or destruction of the goods for which the bailee is not liable;

So is the dealership liable?

ISTM (IANAL) that a person who delivers his car to a dealership has a reasonable expectation that his car will not be damaged while in the dealer’s care. Since the car was in the dealer’s care, it seems reasonable that the dealer is responsible for returning the car undamaged, or replacing the car if it is damaged. If the dealer carries insurance to cover damages that may happen, then that implies that the dealer accepts responsibility. If the dealer does not carry enough insurance, that doesn’t negate his responsibility. IMO.

.

[Oakminster]

@Little_Nemo

So any lawsuit is going to have to be based on the argument that the dealership was negligent in its security and didn’t take reasonable steps to ensure its employees didn’t break in to the place after hours.

I disagree. If I represented the owners, I’d consider an action for conversion. I’d likely plead in the alternative for negligence and whatever else comes to mind.

[epbrown01]

@Amateur_Barbarian

A quick check of a 2012 Camaro ZL1, assuming 25k miles and “very good”: condition, is about $46k. That’s very close to its likely list price of $50-52k.

So I’m not sure where “$60k” comes in unless that was the out the door price with tax, reg, dealer fees, etc. In any case, it’s irrelevant what they paid and/or traded in on it. The insured value is current replacement at most. So if they got $60k as a settlement they should shut up and move on.

The amount they got from their insurer is their issue. The payout was likely what you estimate, paid to the lienholder, who gave them what was left. But the owners treated the car like a prized future classic - it had just 1,200 miles on it (50 miles/month means it likely just went to car shows) and was in like new condition, rather than your typical 2 year old car with 25k miles. They can get another Camaro with the settlement, but they can’t get one just like their car was, even with the $4k goodwill money the dealer offered.

All the mention of how they sold two classics to get it means nothing, though I wonder why they financed the new car after selling a 69 SSto get it - NADA puts a base Camaro SS at over $100k :dubious:.

[Isilder]

@epbrown01

The owners have already been paid by their own insurance company - they should get a double payout?

No. The insurance company may well sue for anything the owners get from the dealer…
They told the insurance company that no one else was liable !

So in fact now the insurance company can get all the payout back, since the owners now say the dealer is responsible…

[Joey_P]

@Oakminster

:rolleyes:
What is the basis of this ridiculous assertion?

Which assertion? I made more then one.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

I so hopelessly confused I’m going to write off this thread. They owned two Camaros, one an all-time classic prize, sold those to buy one that is a modern road-monster but not likely to break any collectible records, financed it even though their sales proceeds should have put them way into the black, marginally insured the car, drove it only as a “show car” or something, left it with a dealer, complained when full replacement value plus some cash wasn’t enough… but “can’t afford another car”?

I give up. Ya can’t fix stupid… and the very fact that it’s a Chebby says everything needing saying. Now, if they’d traded up to a Boss 302 or Shelby 500…

[Little_Nemo]

@Oakminster

I disagree. If I represented the owners, I’d consider an action for conversion. I’d likely plead in the alternative for negligence and whatever else comes to mind.

Interesting. I’ll admit I wasn’t aware of this legal principle. But reading the article, it seems clear that two elements are indisputable - the couple clearly owned the car and the car was clearly damaged. So the issue will be decided based on whether the dealership committed a wrongful act.

I assume there’s no element of intent needed - I don’t think anyone’s arguing that the dealership intended for the car to be stolen. So what standard needs to be met to hold the dealership liable for the theft?

[Little_Nemo]

@Joey_P

Which assertion? I made more then one.

I’m guessing Oakminster has problems with your implication that lawyers were creating this situation or making it worse.

I won’t dispute that there may be times when lawyers seek to create a legal dispute where none existed. But there’s no evidence that’s the case here. All of the parties here - the couple, the dealership, the thief, and the insurer - became involved without any lawyer needed to bring them together. And the issues of the dispute developed without any lawyer needed to bring them up. This is not a case of “lawyers got us into this mess”. But now that the parties have created a legal dispute without help from any lawyers, the sensible thing is for them to bring lawyers in on it.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@Little_Nemo

But now that the parties have created a legal dispute without help from any lawyers, the sensible thing is for them to bring lawyers in on it.

Translation:

Take off and nuke it from orbit…