# Don't experiment on rental cars **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 10, 2010, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391 "2010-01-10T14:37:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/21 "2010-01-10T23:40:20Z")
So prices only go in one direction now? Did I miss a memo? ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/22 "2010-01-10T23:45:35Z")
No, you missed about 100 years of economic theory and empirical evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Krebbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@Mr.Krebbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Krebbs)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/23 "2010-01-10T23:49:08Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > What is with the current crop of pit lunacy? It seems like every year around the holidays all the community college dropouts get on teh intarwebs to show those know-it-alls how much they value education. I have a BA, thank-you very much. Given your posting history, I doubt that you managed to graduate high school > [@](#): > > Irresponsibility is _not_ subjective. We have this entire body of law called “negligence”, which is _exactly_ an objective definition of irresponsibility. Really? See, I have a 400 square foot apartment, my neighbor has the same, yet owns a pitbull. I consider this irresponsible; we don’t have enough space for a large dog IMO. But I’m not going to call the guy out for it, or treat him like he is a bad person. > [@](#): > > econdly, when you’re such an idiot that you put meat on a shelf in a store, you are recklessly destroying the store’s property. The store could press charges of vandalism or destruction of private property, or whatever the local ordinance is. They could also sue you for negligence and/or intentional tort. All of those constitute illegal behavior. They also constitute immoral behavior, regardless of the so-called “excuse” that the store plans for people to act wrongly. > > Of course, they _won’t_ sue or press charges, because the cost of doing so is more than the loss suffered. But that doesn’t translate into them giving you permission to do so. It wouldn’t hold up in court either, moron. > [@](#): > > You utterly fail to understand this simple concept; I suspect you started this by making a little semi-smartassed response, and then got stuck in and are simply defending your frankly daft assertion because you don’t want to admit you’re wrong. If not, then I am afraid you are nothing more than a puerile buffoon, and I will be along shortly to damage your car/house/etc right up to your coverage limit, because you have given me permission to do so by carrying insurance in the first place. Shit happens, buddy. Sure, it is a valid reason to get pissed off, but getting pissed off by human nature won’t get you anywhere. I have had my vehicles damaged by people who failed to leave their name and insurance, but like I said it happens. Not that I’m happy about it, especially if I report it and my rates go up, but money isn’t all that important to me. If you had a reasonable perspective, it wouldn’t be important to you either. And my response was smart-assed, but it is something I happen to believe. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/24 "2010-01-11T00:01:17Z")
Loss damage waivers are invalidated when one causes intentional damage to the rental car. Why do you think that is? Because the notions that insurance companies insure against _intentional_ and not merely negligent conduct is 100% wrong. Yes, the rental car company buys its own insurance for protections against numb-nut customers, but that in no way, shape, or form provides moral justification to commit the actions that they have insured themselves against. (and, fwiw, it won’t provide you an affirmative defense when you defend the lawsuit instigated by hertz against you) Intentional actions (that are punished or not insured against) are defininitionally stupid and irrational acts that no one in their right mind, and with a good moral compass, would engage in. Insurance companies make assumptions about human behavior when they build their actuarial models - one of these assumptions is that assholes don’t go and fill up a rental car’s gas tank with shit that is not supposed to be put in the gas tank. Which is why they don’t charge you a premium to incorporate this risk - and why they won’t cover you when you engage in this risk. There are no insurance policies written, to my knowledge, that indemnify against the intentional bad acts of their insureds. (in case you want to get cute about the definition of “intentional”, note that most cars mandate a certain type of fule be put in the tank, and that rental car contracts require you to actually put unleaded gasoline in the tank) ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/25 "2010-01-11T00:04:06Z")
Wow, you have a BA? I didn’t know they handed those out from crackerjack boxes. Did you major in intellectual failure? And, BTW, I am pretty sure it _would_ hold up in a court of law, and I’m positive I am way more qualified than you on that matter. I guess “shit happens” must be the new paradigm in ethics and law. Here’s how I see it playing out: Judge: You’ve been accused of putting the plaintiff in a coma by dropping bricks off of a building when you knew there might be people down there. Do you have anything to say? Mr. Krebbs: Shit happens, your honor. Also, he had insurance. Judge: Guilty. Also have some punitive damages. Thanks! D.A.: My turn! I submit that you have no idea what you are even trying to say, other than some simpleminded blather about how we should just be calm and not judge people, man. You **still** don’t even comprehend your own point, either. Hello, McFly! If you think it’s “a valid reason to get pissed off” then it _necessarily_ follows that you believe the behavior is wrong! You are actually claiming that it’s ok to be an irresponsible jerk and to destroy people’s property just because they have taken steps to reduce the damage from your irresponsibility, or even worse your intentional destruction of their property. That is an untenable position that demonstrates just how fucked up your tiny little brain is. You can’t even make a coherent argument in support of your point. Please, do us all a favor and put yourself into seclusion until you are capable of expressing yourself without revealing the severity of your mental retardation. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Krebbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@Mr.Krebbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Krebbs)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/26 "2010-01-11T00:05:48Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > Loss damage waivers are invalidated when one causes intentional damage to the rental car. I’m sure you are correct here. > [@](#): > > There are no insurance policies written, to my knowledge, that indemnify against the intentional bad acts of their insureds. So who do you think pays for it when someone is unable to pay their fine? ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/27 "2010-01-11T00:11:25Z")
> [@Mr.Krebbs](#): > > So who do you think pays for it when someone is unable to pay their fine? What fine? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Krebbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@Mr.Krebbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Krebbs)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/28 "2010-01-11T00:18:36Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > Wow, you have a BA? I didn’t know they handed those out from crackerjack boxes. Did you major in intellectual failure? English, which may qualify for your assessment. > [@](#): > > And, BTW, I am pretty sure it _would_ hold up in a court of law, and I’m positive I am way more qualified than you on that matter. Okay. I’m pretty sure you are far more qualified than someone who works in the industry. It’s a reasonable claim to say you thought an employee would be around to pick it up and you were in a hurry to make a doctor’s appointment. > [@](#): > > I guess “shit happens” must be the new paradigm in ethics and law. No, it’s a fact of life. > [@](#): > > Here’s how I see it playing out: > > Judge: You’ve been accused of putting the plaintiff in a coma by dropping bricks off of a building when you knew there might be people down there. Do you have anything to say? > > Mr. Krebbs: Shit happens, your honor. Also, he had insurance. > > Judge: Guilty. Also have some punitive damages. Thanks! > > D.A.: My turn! Yeah, that isn’t a strawman at all; in fact, it is a perfect analogue of our discussion thus far. > [@](#): > > I submit that you have no idea what you are even trying to say, other than some simpleminded blather about how we should just be calm and not judge people, man. You **still** don’t even comprehend your own point, either. Hello, McFly! If you think it’s “a valid reason to get pissed off” then it _necessarily_ follows that you believe the behavior is wrong! You are actually claiming that it’s ok to be an irresponsible jerk and to destroy people’s property just because they have taken steps to reduce the damage from your irresponsibility, or even worse your intentional destruction of their property. That is an untenable position that demonstrates just how fucked up your tiny little brain is. You can’t even make a coherent argument in support of your point. Please, do us all a favor and put yourself into seclusion until you are capable of expressing yourself without revealing the severity of your mental retardation. It is wrong. But some people don’t have insurance, which is illegal, but it can happen for many reasons. Some people lack the cash to pay for food or that beer they really want, but I feel for people who have a hard time eating or paying for something that happens to make them feel better. Just like I don’t mind giving cigarettes to a panhandler or someone smoking butts from an ashtray. Or aren’t you aware that some people have had a tougher lot in life than yourself? ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/29 "2010-01-11T00:25:35Z")
Ladies and Gentlemen: I present to you the world famous **Mr. krebbs**! Awe, while he makes arguments that he doesn’t even understand! Wonder, as he demonstrates the qualities that have made him the world’s foremost checkout clerk! Tremble, as he proves that being a dick is ok for reasons that have to do with something he lifted out of a DMB song! P.S., **Mr. Krebbs** : Being a shelf stocker at the Piggly Wiggly doesn’t qualify you to analyze legal problems. Being a lawyer does, though. I wonder where we could find one of those? (two, actually) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Krebbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@Mr.Krebbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Krebbs)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/30 "2010-01-11T00:27:04Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > What fine? The fine for the damage, of course. Doesn’t the insurance company end up paying out and then taking up the legal case? ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/31 "2010-01-11T00:27:56Z")
Don’t want to answer my question? Let’s assume, by “fine” you meant “impending judgment in your spectacularly awful trial” and not “impending criminal charges for destruction of property” What happens? If rental car company had “dumbass customer” insurance, then their insurance company will pay them and well henceforth have a subrogation claim to sue your ass on behalf of their insured. They will sue you, win, and have an outstanding judgment. Depending on the exemption laws in your state, you can expect your wages to be garnished and/or assets seized. The rental car company gets a nice business deduction from uncle sam for the insurance that they bought, so at the end both you and society pays. If you’re destitute, they will probably sell their claim/judgment to a 3rd party for 10% of the value. If the rental car doesn’t, you can start reading at 'They will sue you". It’s all the same, except that they don’t get a deduction for their insurance permiums, but they get a write off of their asset and the expenses involved in dealing with you. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Krebbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@Mr.Krebbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Krebbs)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/32 "2010-01-11T00:28:47Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > Ladies and Gentlemen: I present to you the world famous **Mr. krebbs**! > > Awe, while he makes arguments that he doesn’t even understand! > Wonder, as he demonstrates the qualities that have made him the world’s foremost checkout clerk! > Tremble, as he proves that being a dick is ok for reasons that have to do with something he lifted out of a DMB song! > P.S., **Mr. Krebbs** : Being a shelf stocker at the Piggly Wiggly doesn’t qualify you to analyze legal problems. Being a lawyer does, though. I wonder where we could find one of those? (two, actually) You don’t have the brains for legislature: you make too many illegitimate assumptions. You could probably be a cop, however. Furthermore, although I have checked, I have worked primarily in produce and the freight shift, if you must know. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/33 "2010-01-11T00:28:56Z")
> [@Mr.Krebbs](#): > > The fine for the damage, of course. Doesn’t the insurance company end up paying out and then taking up the legal case? civil litigation does not result in a “fine”. get your terminology straight before you try backpedalling. ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/34 "2010-01-11T00:32:01Z")
> [@Mr.Krebbs](#): > > You don’t have the brains for legislature: you make too many illegitimate assumptions. You could probably be a cop, however. Or maybe, if I tried _real hard_, and went to school for a while, and then passed the bar, I could be a lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Krebbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@Mr.Krebbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Krebbs)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/35 "2010-01-11T00:34:02Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > Don’t want to answer my question? > > Let’s assume, by “fine” you meant “impending judgment in your spectacularly awful trial” and not “impending criminal charges for destruction of property” > > What happens? > > If rental car company had “dumbass customer” insurance, then their insurance company will pay them and well henceforth have a subrogation claim to sue your ass on behalf of their insured. They will sue you, win, and have an outstanding judgment. Depending on the exemption laws in your state, you can expect your wages to be garnished and/or assets seized. The rental car company gets a nice business deduction from uncle sam for the insurance that they bought, so at the end both you and society pays. If you’re destitute, they will probably sell their claim/judgment to a 3rd party for 10% of the value. > > If the rental car doesn’t, you can start reading at 'They will sue you". It’s all the same, except that they don’t get a deduction for their insurance permiums, but they get a write off of their asset and the expenses involved in dealing with you. I answered your question, but without the legal jargon. I meant the fine for the damaged property, court fees qualify too. Normally, the responsible party is still expected to pay the former, aren’t they? God, I love idiot assumptions. And your point correlates with mine; the insurance company ends up paying if the responsible party cannot pay damages. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Krebbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@Mr.Krebbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Krebbs)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/36 "2010-01-11T00:35:58Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > civil litigation does not result in a “fine”. get your terminology straight before you try backpedalling. [3 a : a sum imposed as punishment for an offense b : a forfeiture or penalty paid to an injured party in a civil action](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fine) ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/37 "2010-01-11T00:37:30Z")
> [@Mr.Krebbs](#): > > And your point correlates with mine; the insurance company ends up paying if the responsible party cannot pay damages. Actually, the point is not that _someone_ will pay for it. The point is that _you are a douchebag if you think it’s ok_. And I think we’ve laid out a substantial case that you are, in fact, a douchebag. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Krebbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@Mr.Krebbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Krebbs)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/38 "2010-01-11T00:37:45Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > Or maybe, if I tried _real hard_, and went to school for a while, and then passed the bar, I could be a lawyer. So, was the majority of your education in “intellectual failure” as well? ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/39 "2010-01-11T00:40:57Z")
> [@Mr.Krebbs](#): > > And your point correlates with mine; the insurance company ends up paying if the responsible party cannot pay damages. And that gives you justification to knowingly wreck a car because…? What is this were a party who could pay damages? How does that jive with your idiocy? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Krebbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@Mr.Krebbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Krebbs)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391/40 "2010-01-11T00:49:13Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > And that gives you justification to knowingly wreck a car because…? > > What is this were a party who could pay damages? How does that jive with your idiocy? So, you’re just going to ignore the English (rather than legal) definition of fine, huh? No admission that you were wrong? Well, that just makes me so sad. I submit that it’s even tantamount - if not worse - than backpedaling, which I never partook in in the first place. My responses to your question had nothing to do with moral justification; I originally said it was preferable to damaging one’s own car, primarily because one will likely never get his money back on the investment whereas a rental company probably will. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-experiment-on-rental-cars/524391.md?page=3)