The basic idea of worker’s comp is that most employees would be EXTREMELY reluctant to sue their employers for workplace injuries, and that’s assuming they could afford a lawyer in the first place. Having the system bureaucratized and shielding individual employers from lawsuits in exchange for mandatory participation in the insurance pool is the tradeoff.
It also avoids a situation where worker A sues worker B for injuries, who in turn sues worker C (who trained worker B) who in turn sues worker D (who was the manager on shift during the training), who in turn sues worker E, et cetera. AND, it being a no-fault system gets past the question of contributory negligence, which is fatal to any action in a lot of states.
Basically, this kind of system makes it much more likely that workers in general will get made whole. The administration can be good or bad but the principle is very much not corrupt. You’d never get it passed today.
The burden of proof for responsibility when a car injures someone is always on the owner and their insurance company. So the owner’s insurance company is the one which has to prove the vehicle was used for an unintended purpose and the mechanic deliberately tried to kill the boss with it.
A conviction of the driver would be useful there. Unfortunately there can be 4-5 lawsuits springing up from this incident which will have a faster timeline than the criminal action against the mechanic. If the insurance defense lawyers don’t act fast enough or aren’t fully aware of the facts behind the incident, they would probably settle cases just to get it off their desk without realizing what went on.
Is this similar to that story of that lady who got tackle-hugged by her nephew and had to sue her nephew’s family in order for her insurance company to cover her medical bills? (The internet was smearing the poor lady and the whole family had to go on tv and defend the aunt)
Aren’t they strongly insinuating that the business (which can’t be sued for reasons, but still has liability to the car owner) was criminally negligent for hiring someone who didn’t know how to operate the vehicle, and not training said person?
Maybe we can give the kid a pass for driving without a license since there’s no mention whether or not they operated the vehicle on public roads. Except for the idea that having a license would be an indication of at least some level driving ability, though not necessarily to the level of operating a manual transmission.
Obviously this is about collecting insurance money, the part that is insane is which party’s insurance company they’re going after. Doesn’t the auto shop have insurance?
As you allude to the devil is in the details. Worker’s compensation administration is pretty anti-worker in most places. Between extremely low limits, having to use a doctor selected by workers comp or sometimes the employer, disagreements regarding the degree and permanence of disability the worker is rarely made while.
According to an article in Jalopnik, the car owner already won an indemnity judgment against the dealer and won’t be held responsible regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit:
So good news for the car owner but still a bizarre web of legal maneuvers. And it obviously would have been better if the car owner hadn’t needed to go through the trouble of suing anyone to protect themselves.
Per this article dated May 5 1:01 PM (my thoughts in [ ]):
"Indemnity means that, if the judge rules against the car owner, the dealership would pay the balance. In that separate lawsuit, a judge has ruled that the dealership must provide indemnity for the Jeep owner. [Oh goodie]
But even that is tricky. [Goddammit]
Now that the dealership has been ordered to provide indemnity, the attorney for the dealership is representing the Jeep owner in the trial. [WTFingF]
The dealership is going to appeal the indemnity ruling. [FUCKERS!]
If indemnity is overturned, the owner of the Jeep would be fully responsible for the money awarded to the Hawkins’ family." [Justice is served to the one with the deepest pockets]
That’s not how I’m reading this (in terms of insinuations, anyway). The bar for criminally negligent homicide is pretty high, as it should be. By design, it’s not at all the same standard for civil negligence.
If it’s what it looks like (dumb kid pumps a pedal he doesn’t fully understand and kills someone he had no reason to kill) then however tragic and financially disastrous, it doesn’t seem like something anyone should go to jail for.
Yeah, I don’t get this part. The dealership’s attorney would have had to get the car owner to sign off on representing both, and I’m surprised it’s even allowed at all since the dealership is appealing the indemnity ruling. Regardless, if you ever find yourself in a similar situation, get your own lawyer. It might be tough here, if the Jeep owner doesn’t have a lot of money because this isn’t the kind of case they’d do on contingency.
