As a ford mechanic I can tell you %100 you need a drivers license to even get the job in the first place, the fact that the employer hired him without one is very irresponsible.
On top of they let the kid drive a manual car that didn't know how to drive said car. If he damages the transmission or any part of the car they are on hook for repairs.
When I was 17 I had a job at a car wash & I had my license for less than a year & they wouldn’t even let me move the cars the 6 or so feet to the area where they dried the cars off because for them you had to have your license a couple of years.
@@arbiter1 at my dealership we have some kids that don’t know stick, all they have to do is ask one of us to pull the car in for them, Doesn’t bother any of us, I knew if the kid asked someone would have helped him.
After 35 years as a Master tech and later a service manager, I can only remember ONE technician who wasn't a licensed driver (he had lost his as a result of a "with injuries" accident). And I guarantee that the dealership's insurance policy required ANYONE who drove a vehicle to be insured. I refused to even consider hiring someone without a license.
What wasn't stated was why he didn't have a license. It could be he never applied OR he had had it revoked for infractions. He could have been employed before losing his license. Also, he could have been the janitor or secretary that was grabbed to assist the mechanic on a two person job. A license may not have been required for that. He even could have been the manager's learning disabled son helping out. BUT, he never should have been allowed to assist inside a car without a license.
@@alanmcentee9457 Kid was 19. He probably just never had one and needed work. He wasn't the janitor or whatever, they literally said he was a mechanic, probably his first job at that. People give chances to others when they shouldn't all the time. The hiring manager probably had a hard time finding decent candidates and made a really dumb mistake giving that kid a chance.
My niece got a job as a mechanic at a dealership.. quite a large one with multiple locations. she did that job until they eventually fired here because she had this problem of showing up for work after 12 :) I know as a fact that she had a DWI conviction and warrants for failing to appear at the time of hiring. I know because I paid her fines and forced her to go to court and paid for the lawyer. I also know the only car she had ever driven was a prius. she had that job with a suspended license for almost a year I think before they finally let her go due to her poor attendance record. she still wears the uniforms they supplied when she is doing work for her father rebuilding his house. she hasnt gotten a new license because she cant afford the insurance she says. but she still manages to get wherever she wants to go
Bad memories…. In 1974 I dropped my 1973 VW off at a Troy dealership to have it serviced. They took it for a test drive and Totaled it….. I didn’t receive a loaner and it was left up to my insurance company deal with their mess.
Chrysler dealer tech here (in Michigan), at all of the dealers that i've worked at, a driver's license is required. One reason is as Steve stated, experience and know how. Another reason is that the dealer's insurance company will not bond anyone w/out a driver license or with a bad driving record. That tech that got behind the wheel had absolutely no business getting behind the wheel of any vehicle, period. The insurance company pulls the driving records at the minimum, once a year. Now, the question is, was he told not to get behind the wheel by his boss? That's a huge liability for the dealer if he was not, or he ignored that order. Bet that's one of the reasons for the gag order.
@@davidh9638 I worked at a chain shop. About 1/3 of the Wranglers we had there were stickshifts and for at least a few months there, I was the only guy there who really knew how to drive stick. There were days where I'd have to jump off of what I was doing because we had 3 manual cars there at a time and I was the only one trusted to pull them in and out.
The dealer's negligent, period. Even if the tech who didn't know how to drive would only drive it in the parking lot, he could still hit a wall, a fence, the other vehicles, a person. A man is now dead due to their neglect and they tried to blame anyone but themselves.
So, in Michigan, if you steal a vehicle, get injured, you can file suit against the vehicle owner? Lesson learned, don't get a vehicle serviced in Michigan. If an unlicensed driver wrecks your vehicle, your insurance may not cover you. Bottom line, everyone lost except the lawyers, who win in nearly every civil action.
What I dont get is my sister got his by someone from a no fault state outside of there state. Insurance company fighting it all the way. No fault insurance means you buy insurance to cover yourself. Someone hits you, your insurance covers it not there's. Prevention of lawsuits etc ive heard is this reasoning because if you sue your insurance goes up. So why is it if someone hits you your insurance has to pay for it. But in this case it goes on the insurance of the vehicle owner for the other person which the law says should cover themselves in all cases.
@Absaalookemensch No cause that is someone took your technical without permission, he dropped his car off to the dealer which is permission. I agree that it should be dealer 100% at fault for this cause person they let drive the car didn't have valid license or even knew how to drive a manual. Its negligence on their side to not have someone else able to spend 2-3 min to drive a car in and out for them.
Commercial Drivers License are similar in USA. 🇺🇸 New driver rented a manual truck for his test because his employer only had an automatic for him to drive, yet he didn't want a restricted license to limit his future work options. ✌️
How often do you have to retest? That is the issue I have here in the US. My mother, who is now 88, should not be considered competent to drive a car any longer because her driving skills have eroded with time. I have not taken a driver's test in almost 40 years which I find to be really strange. Every 10-15 years should be mandatory until you reach your 70s and then every 5 years.
We should do this here in the States. Most people do not know how to drive a manually shifted car here. I learned to drive in a 68'Beetle, manual only, with these. I was driving that car by the time I was 12 years old. (I grew up in a mostly rural area.)
@@danielsteward5090 Several times I took my vehicle in for some sort of service and the people there could not figure out how to drive it. Once I was at Goodyear getting some tires on my F-150. When they were done, the lowered the lift, kid jumped in, fired it up, looked back over his shoulder and then drove forward into the wall. I was watching through the big window when this happened. The manager was in the room at the time and his first response was to spin around and see if I saw it. When he saw me you could see the blood drain out of his face.
When I worked at a ford dealer in Ohio I was required to have a driver's license and show I could drive a manual transmission before they would even consider hiring me
Hard to believe the owner would be held responsible, unless he did something careless or negligent. Are we supposed to check driver's licenses of service people every time we get an oil change?
This could only happen in Michigan because of their no-fault insurance. Most of the time N-F works smoothly. This is one of those times when it doesn't.
I've never seen a car dealership not have the requirement of "must have a driver's license". If the dealership has that rule, then YES- all fault should be on the dealership. This is why I hate law- it flies in the face of logic.
Years ago I took my VW GLI (front wheel drive 5 speed manual) through a city required inspection and the guy told me to put it in drive, put on the emergency brake and give it gas, so I did what he said, sort of. Double clutched first, lit the tires up and smoked up the bay. He was going to fail me for the brakes not holding the car, until his manager came out and pointed out I had actually dragged the back tires.
@@davidrush4908 both front and rear do that, take a look at any drag race at the strip. It’s exacerbated in a front wheel drive car, especially when the driver doesn’t have the experience to counter steer with the power application.
@@dangeary2134 True, but the dynamics of the drag strip take everything to extremes. What I was talking about was under "normal' driving conditions. For example even moderate acceleration from a 90 degree turn can rip the steering wheel out of your hands further into the turn and until you reduce power you can't straighten it out. In slick conditions the common wisdom is to reduce power in a skid to counter oversteer, but it's almost impossible to accidentally oversteer a fwd vehicle. You have to apply very light power to allow the front to pull you the way you want to go to counter the understeer. I demonstrated that concept once on ice. I applied the handbrake to lock the rears and could go from oversteer to controlled to understeer with very slight variations of power. Passengers freaked out at first, but it was fun. Another condition I've seen someone else get into was an over controlled oscillation. After dodging an animal, the driver over controlled correcting the previous action, causing them to over control again and again. I reached over and grabbed the wheel and just held it where it needed to be and the oscillation stopped. It should probably be noted that car had a lot of body roll that exacerbated the situation. My point here is that different vehicles can have vastly different handling characteristics and drivers need to understand them. Getting back to the topic of the video, regardless of license status the driver was not qualified to drive a manual because he had no experience. He should have been given some training on manual transmission vehicles before driving them around customer cars, equipment, and most notably around people.
Back in the 90’s I worked for a manufacturer of car floor mats. As a condition of employment General Motors required all employees of the factory to have a drivers license. To be clear, it was not a g m plant, but a condition of the contract with g m.
The main action was a worker's compensation claim (the dealer has to have worker's comp.) Worker's comp. precludes liability actions. Since there was another party who wasn't covered by worker's comp. the estate went after him and his insurance company.
@@machintelligence workers comp wouldn’t pay in this case usually. Driving a vehicle without a license even on private property is excluded. Something we won’t hear anything on also is whenever anything like this happens the dealership does have to follow workers comp rules. Within 24hours a drug test and even in places where weed is legal workers comp still restricts against it and payouts because failing for that could mean he was high at the time. Insurance will always find a way around things. Unless they paid out and are going after the dealership legally due to negligence but you don’t hear about that happens except on even more extreme topics than this n
Once the keys are handed over the owner has no control over who drives their car so how can they be held liable for any damage caused by an unlicensed employee?
I was thinking about this too. In some circumstances it makes sense, if you have a weapon and someone else uses it to injure someone else. You weren't involved in anyway but a court would say that you had a duty and responsibility to make sure that the weapon wasn't used to injure anyone else. With a car it's a grey zone as far as I can tell, in that it CAN be used as a weapon and CAN easily be use to injure someone. In this case, the easy argument to be made is, "I left it with professionals and had an absolute belief that said professionals had it in their best interests to not use the car in an irresponsible way as apposed to my alcoholic cousin Vinnie who's been through 5 cars in 3 years.
"You're 19 and don't have a license? Well, you won't be able to take cars out for a test drive, so we won't be able to pay you the same as the other mechanics." Plausible.
The car was probably in a bay being worked on. He told the kid to start the car. Make sure you push the clutch to start it. So he did. And took his foot of the clutch while it was in gear cause he didn’t know any better.
I agree with you synopsis, and the deceased mechanic should not have been standing in a position to be injured if something went wrong....number one rule when someone is starting or moving a vehicle , especially backing up.....do not stand where you can be run over.....
@@ypaulbrown There are several jobs that require you to trust your co-workers with your safety and vice versa. They should also speak up when they have not been trained on something...before, it's too late!
@@SmittyAZ I agree 100 %...I have worked with too many airhead coworkers during my 50 years of work in the metal fabrication trades......and mechanic trades...I have been lucky and always aware, safety is my job to not get hurt.....even though I have had an injury or two due to others stupidy
@@ypaulbrown My career, we had High Pressure Natural Gas, High Voltage, Chemicals - including Sulfuric Acid, confined spaces, boom trucks, hoists, etc. If we didn't watch out for one another, we wouldn't have all gone home. Of course, there are always knuckleheads that hopefully, will only hurt themselves...
Couple of questions: - Does mechanic get charged with manslaughter? - Does Jeep owner take his vehicle back (not sure my wife would ever drive a car that killed someone)?
I always tell the service advisor that my car is a manual. It’s been more than once that they had to get someone else who knew how to drive a manual car.
A mechanic is going to need to test drive vehicles. Both for pre-work diagnosis and post-repair confirmation that it's fixed. The parking lot is rarely going to be large enough for these test drives.
Exactly. Especially if the complaint is something that happens at highway speeds, or even if you have to get something like the brakes up to temperature to diagnose something like a sticky caliper. You could loop around the lot, but taking a proper test drive would be easier.
Nowadays they probably are…… but still…dealer parking lots are not the normal driving environment….any fool can drive around a parking lot and say a system works….that’s not the real driving environment……I think dealer should be brought up for negligent homicide….in that the dealer knew…or should have known that the lot attendant was unlicensed and furthermore should have been aware of the lot attendants inability to drive a manual transmission…..The fact that there is a NDA means the dealer knew more than they were letting on.
Thank you for your explanation of the many types of law suits that clutter the legal avenues in our country today. Very informative! I've never given much attention to legal proceedings before becoming caught up in this mess. And as you spoke of how long some of these battles have played out, "delay" seems to be the best defense. We are currently on our second trial date, in more than two years.
My late Father ran a full service station mid 70’s-mid 80’s. Mechanic we had was a raging alcoholic, couldn’t wait to get off to get a drink down @ the local bar. Far as I remember he had a license but can’t remember if he had any DUI’s. Didn’t have an apartment but stayed in a run down local motel.
When I was working at a dealership, we had a guy that lost his license due to a DUI. The dealership kept him on, he just had another person (dealership employee) do his road tests for him........The guy was a looser, came to work one day, looked all beat to hell, found out his girlfriend beat he crap out of him!!!!
I did a trade school for auto mechanics about 20 years ago. In the 1st month they tested your ability to drive stick. If you couldn't do it, you had to enroll in a driving class. I found it pretty easy. The test car was an 84 Accord wagon. My 1st car was an 84 Accord sedan, with a stick.
By the time I turned 19 I was a seasoned Kart racer and Dirt modified Racer. And had been driving a manual transmission car since age 12. I'm also a Certified master automotive technician. You don't let unlicensed drivers test drive cars, period, ever.
The only justifiable way a vehicle owner should be sued in a situation like this would be if the owner had modified their vehicle in some way that either resulted in a mechanical failure, or if the owner failed to inform the technician of a modification that results in the technician improperly operating the vehicle's controls.
Yeah, they need to fix the law so this sort of stuff dosen't happen again. I realize it was mainly procedural and the owner wouldn't have been jailed, but I wouldn't want a lawsuit under my name over a death, even if it was a state loophole that simply made my insurance pay for it.
There is no obligation to inform a MECHANIC of a modification to the vehicle. There is something called due diligence. The mechanic should know the vehicle has been modified from an inspection of the vehicle prior to agreeing to service it. If this was not done and questions were not asked the mechanic has not done his due diligence to inspect the vehicle.
That depends on the state. In New York, the owner is liable whoever is driving. In New Jersey, the owner is only liable when the driver is doing something for the owner. Note, however, that liability of the owner and insurance coverage under the owner's policy are different things.
@@TheObsesedAnimeFreaks Motorcycles (and cars): You can buy a hand held tuner and modify the ECU for 100% power from the throttle input vs the factory settings of NEVER giving you the 100% requested. My latest motorcycles have several maps and the modified maps can disable several of the safety features. The Mechanic would never know it. Add 50-75-100 hp and disable safety features and NOT tell the mechanic that should be test riding it?
@@SmittyAZ if you are taking your modified bike to a simple mechanic and not a race shop, that might be your problem never mind the fact that most mechanics aren't dumb enough to just put the throttle on full. Also they would know the bike has been modified sine they have to read the ecu... And the ecu tells all
@@ColonelSandersLite If you catch in a car apparently it can be covered as person injury and you can successfully go after Geico and win a 5 million judgment
I would guess 95% of kids getting drivers license's today don't know how to drive a clutch. I drove with a clutch car most of my life, but neither of my boys (21 and 25) would have a clue. It's hard to even find vehicles with clutches anymore. It's a dying skill.
Even trucking companies hire newbies with no experience to learn how to drive a big rig that's automatic.....than a few years later, these new drivers could not go to another company that have manual 10 speeds because they never were taught to drive them......
They won't have to pay out anything. They have insurance that will cover it. That means everyone that has insurance with that company will have to pay higher premiums because of this dealership's negligence.
@@stephengreen3566 'hey 19 y/o adult, put your foot on that pedal there and don't take it off' takes foot off and guy dies if only the dealership hadn't been so negligent!!!!
Many years ago, as a high school kid working for the city for the summer, I learned to drive a manual transmission in the city's trucks. I've always thought the best way to learn to drive a stick was in someone else's vehicle.
I learned stick when I worked at a dealership. Thing is, they trained me on their parts truck (I was in the parts department), not a customers vehicle. And anytime they had to borrow me to drop a customers vehicle off elsewhere I was mindful of how it was driven because I valued my job.
That doesn't happen anymore because it's a liability. No one wants to pay for a kid getting in an accident when he wasn't even qualified/should have been driving to start.
I learned in a battered 1993 Honda Civic I bought off of OfferUp for $800. The best way to learn is definitely in someone else's car, but the next best thing if you don't know anyone who knows how is to buy a cheap car and learn on it.
I learned much the same way. When I was 18, I agreed to go with a friend of mine down from where we lived in Central California to UCLA, which he was attending, and then I'd drive his truck (an old Ford Courier pickup) back home, because semester parking fees on campus were equal to the GDP of Bolivia. Wasn't until I got in for the drive down that I realized it was a stick. I pointed out that I'd never driven a stick and Jim assured me it was easy. So I learned to drive a stick in LA traffic at 10 pm on a Friday night. By the time I found the freeway, I knew how to drive a stick.
funny, i learned on a Allis-Chalmers Tractor plowing when i was 12. It was a 1936 and my grandfather just rebuilt it and i back it into a camper shell trying to drive it. After that he was like "if your going to drive then you might as well learn by doing something constructive". So every year i plowed our two acre garden. when i was in my early 20's i drove a 28 foot truck between OKC and DFW Toting computer parts. The mix master was a bitch, but you got used to it after a while.
At one time in the past I had a class A CDL. Today I work in a fabrication facility today in the office. Even though I can drive the trucks the insurance says NO. I cannot move a truck on the property without the proper license to operate the vehicle being moved. I have no idea how someone could be employed to operate vehicles without a license.
our justice system needs to be renamed. 'justice' should not be included in the name. the main culprit is the dealership for hiring someone that is not capable of safely doing the job. whomever sued the jeep owner is lower than the scum that feeds off whale droppings. the jeep owner is nowhere near being at fault. i feel for their loss, but this kind of greed is inexcusable.
As far as the person suing the jeep owner, if you watched the previous video on this subject Steve explains why they didn't really have a choice. Due to the way that insurance policies work, you sometimes need to sue someone you don't personally feel is responsible in order to get the proper insurance company to pay out. See the case of the woman who sued her nephew when he knocked her off balance and she broke her wrist. She just wanted the homeowners insurance to cover her medical bills, but they wouldn't pay unless she sued first.
@@uraldamasis6887 i am no lawyer, and i do not play one on TV. but... i do not think there is a law that forces you to sue someone. there is no reason for a decent human being to sue someone that is so blatantly not at fault, whatsoever. the only thing the jeep owner did wrong was choose the wrong dealership.
@@johngalt200 the nephew did cause the accident, therefore he was a fault. the main issue was it was family. back to the jeep incident. i have a conscience that i listen to. if i was told i would have to sue someone that was totally innocent, so i could get a big payday, i would have to say no. i could not even think of entertaining the thought of doing what they did. my parents raised me better than that. screwing someone over is screwing someone over, no matter how you try to whitewash it. i would think there are workman's compensation laws in force.
In the UK, 99% of the time your driving lessons and test is done in a manual. If you sit your test in an Automatic you are restricted to driving automatics on the road until you do another test in a manual.
just FYI i worked at a car dealer in Michigan for over 17 years. first thing that ask when you apply is if you have a valid license. I've watched more than one employee be let go due to the loss of a license even after they had worked there for years. just my experience
I don't think there are ANY states with "No-fault" laws that make any sense. For this Jeep owner to be held liable because the mechanic killed someone with HIS car is ridiculous. In addition, the inability to NOT sue your employer in Michigan is ridiculous; quite often an employer deliberately skates around workspace rules, thus creating a hazardous condition for employees. And there is NO WAY a mechanic could drive on the dealer's property and simulate the conditions encountered in real-world driving.
As a former dealership employee you are required to have a license to work there as either a salesperson or mechanic this to the people that don't know that. I'm sure Steve Lehto knows that but not some people commenting on it.
@@maurer3d So the insurance company did not require that in this case? Regardless of what the insurance company required it looks like negligence by the dealership if they allowed that (not to mention the driver).
Had my license at 14. Can't comprehend why a 19yo wouldn't have a license or why he would be hired. The dealership is totally at fault including the idiot behind the wheel who should have been charged for manslaughter.
It isn't just stick shifts and unlicensed drivers that pose a danger at a repair shop. The older automatic vehicles with a TV cable and adjustable modulator, had to have line and boost pressure set with the vehicle in drive.
I would say the dealership is liable for hiring the KID that didn't have a driver's license. Moreover, the KID at minimum should have been taught by the dealership how to drive a clutch the first day of employment or an agreement that he would not step foot in a vehicle with a clutch. The incident occurred because the dealership was negligent and did not take reasonable steps to prevent the incident from occurring.
Moral of the story: The next time you take a car in for service, make a dealer or repair shop taking full liability for any incidents that happen while the car in in their possession.
So the owner of the Jeep has to deal with possibly not getting insurance, or pay excessive premiums for a long time, and no it doesn’t matter if he was compensated, the damn insurance industry will punish you for ever.
A typically first rate explanation by Steve. It’s nice to hear when a case that initially seems tangled in illogic and unfairness seems to work out fairly and logically. Except for the poor guy who is gone and his family, who can’t really be made whole by money, of course.
workers comp probably paid out seperately. but because of convolutions between various laws i.e. civil and workers comp these workarounds have to be done
I thought that this was going to be about the tragic death of the late actor Anton Yelchin, whose Jeep crushed him against a brick mailbox pedestal as he checked his mail. Man, he was really great in “Charlie Bartlett”.
So this thing was based on the law that says an employee can't sue his employer?.....He didn't. He was dead. So when you take a job in MI, you sign your life away to the employer....and also your family does the same? Why would employers be exempt from liabilities concerning employees? I don't understand that.
Yeah but DRIVING is one thing.. knowing how to operate a vehicle in its mechanical ability to maneuver or occupy different positions safely is quite another.
This is surreal. I have been wrenching since around 1976 and I have never heard of trying to hold a vehicle owner responsible for something a dealer tech has done. Absolutely blows my mind the world has moved on to a place this is even a fevered dream,,, unreal.
i really appreciate the fact that you explain the case, at least under michigan law. i'm from the upper peninsula of michigan. that being said, it's still nice to have a frame of reference to start from.
ON long cases. Here in Orange County CA, we had a probate that lasted 80 years. Probate was opened and then nothing happened. Eighty. years later, the descendants tried to sell or refinance the property. The title company said they did not own the property. Great grandfather (or whomever) was still the record owner.
ive been told by mechanical service employers in Michigan that they cannot hire a mechanic who has no drivers license because the company's insurance company will not cover them....maybe thats why they sued the vehicle owner. Not much they can collect from a 19 year old kid with no drivers license and no liability insurance.
Yep, the law is constructed such that in exchange for providing workman's comp insurance, employers are shielded from civil liability. And while that civil liability can be waived by the court the standard is such that you have to prove that the employer acted intentionally to cause injury or death. It's fucking absurd.
I am guessing a car dealerships liability insurance won't cover employees for the operation of a vehicle if they do not possess a valid driver's license. And if they did, it would be an extra rider and an additional premium for that coverage. A "Garage Keepers Policy" does have some pretty specific terms to it, like all policies do.
It’s an unfortunate case all around, for all parties involved, but I’ve never heard of any dealer not requiring a mechanic to have a valid license. A lot of them won’t even hire you if your license is suspended.
I worked at semi truck and trailer paint and body shop. I was pretty good at metal work but I learned to drive a semi tractor by jumping in, firing that baby up, pushing in the brake, and gear jammin. Several times they went back and forth to UPS picking up trucks, fixing them and driving them back. I have to say it was a blast but I got zero training.
Plumbing shops wont hire a helper if they got no drivers license. ect... (your rendered useless!) Cant drive work truck or equiptment...fetch parts...take injured to hospital in case of emergency...so many scenarios where license is crucial. Besides basic insurances and responsibilitys.
I'm sure states have different laws concerning this, but when I worked at a dealership a customer would sign a form giving the dealership permission to operate the vehicle, but it would be under the coverage of the dealership's insurance in case of an accident. I forget the legal term. I thought this was pretty much SOP, apparently not. I remember a time when I first got my driver's license there was a different one for a manual transmission. If you took your driving test with an automatic trans car, you could not drive a standard. The automatic license had a blue stripe across it.
Honestly, I grew up on a farm, so I learned to drive off-road. So if someone asked me if I was okay of an unlicensed employee driving my vehicle, I'd ask if they were a farm kid or the like. If they told me he couldn't drive stick, I'd say hell no. Automatics just require knowing how to aim and how to brake and most kids can figure that out better than half the adults on the highways these days.
I'm a guy in his mid 20s who didn't get to really learn manual transmissions until I was 19. That being said, most of my cars since (including all my current ones) were manual. I work as a mechanic, so I drive a wide variety of cars for customers, but when driving friends' it family's cars off of work, I sometimes habitually reach for a clutch pedal that's not there forgetting that I'm not in any of my cars.
@Snargfargle I only drive automatic and always set the hand brake (I even use it to help start on a steep up hill). I also shift gears all the time for better control (but not as often as needed with a manual).
@@SkylineFTW97 Yeah, I get that. My finances have been such that I'd only be able to take what I could get for cars, and all of them were automatic. But even though it's probably been 30 some odd years since I drove a stick, once in a while, I'll reach for the gear shift or the clutch. (When I was a kid, my dad was 'You don't know how to drive if you can't drive stick.' Since he'd hit his 70's and is soon into his 80's, he doesn't say that anymore. I miss stick shift. It made driving fun.)
@@Tiewaz Oh yeah. Both of my cars are Hondas, so I definitely paid a premium for the manual. That being said, Honda makes the best manuals, so I say it's worth it.
A while back I was working at a large trucking company. They hired a driver who had never driven anything with a stick shift. He told them that he was willing to receive instruction. We are talking a semi with a 53 foot trailer here. Because of the power involved these use a non synchronous transmission. It took a little while but they found a driver who was willing to teach him. He could drive it the first day soon he shifted expertly. He became a very good and safe driver. Companies can often find very good employees and avoid terrible tragedies just for the cost of a little training.
I had an experience 20 years ago with a lawsuit in Brooklyn where I felt the judge acted very unethically. She revived a law suit that had been abandoned for 5 years and then later acted as the plaintiff's counsel at a settlement conference. It involved an eldery woman that claimed she was injured when a board leaning against the wall in a senior center fell over and hit her. Multiple witnesses testified in depositions that the board had actually hit a woman sitting 3 rows in front of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff claimed she had been hit. Plaintiff's counsel never provided releases for medical records so the plaintiff's deposition never discussed damages. Shortly after the deposition the plaintiff died. Nothing happened for 5 years, but the attorney eventually got the plaintiff's daughter involved and moved to reactivate the abandoned suit. The motion should never have been granted, but the juddge was close friends with the plaintiff's attorney ("Russell"). I was assigned the case just before a settlement conference. There were 3 defendants. We all appeared, but Russel informed us that their was a Medicaid lien against the plaintiff's estate and that he couldn't settle the case until he could reach a deal with counsel for Medicaid. But this was not long after 9/11 and the counsel for Medicaid were based in lower Manhattan and were unable to be in their offices. So the conference was adjourned. Twice more we all appeared and Russel told us he hadn't been able to get a hold of the Medicaid counsel. Prior to the 4th settlement conference, we were informed he had reached an agreement with Medicaid. They would get 1/3 of the settlement, Russel would get 1/3, and the daughter would get 1/3. We three defendant's counsel showed up to the 4th conference only to be told that Russell was busy and couldn't come. But the judge said, "don't worry, I know what he'll take." After negotiations with the judge we agreed that each defendant would pay $5,000 which was nuisance value. The lawsuit was completely baseless and the plaintiff could never prove anything at trial. But it would cost way more than $5,000 just to litigate the case through a summary judgement motion, much less a trial. We were in the judge's courtroom and I made a comment to the court officer that the judge was the plaintiff's attorney today. She turned to the officer, shrugged her shoulders and said "It's Russell." The judge did a favor to her friend by reviving an abandoned suit that was completely baseless and then negotiated the settlement on behalf of the plaintiff when her friend was busy. Anybody else see a problem with that?
First of all, thanks for the paragraph breaks!! Obviously anyone with 2 functioning brain cells can see a problem with that. It is cases like that that really make it hard to have faith in the system. Presiding judge acting as council??!! Of course to do anything about it would cost a lot of money. Some days I want to live on an island and forget about the rest of the world. - Cheers
The owner should bring a lawsuit against the state that goes to the SCOTUS. This should never happen, and if I was the owner, I'd be dealing with lifelong issues because of this garbage.
In Michigan a person is required, BY LAW, to have a valid driver's license _and insurance coverage for_ a vehicle they are simply HOLDING THE KEYS TO if they are off the owner's property. Because in Michidiotagain holding the keys while inebriated is "operating while intoxicated" even if you're not in the vehicle. Which means holding the keys is operating and operating is immaterial of location or situation and not having insurance and license is illegal operation... someone was killed. So this whole shit-u-ation becomes an employment law and trauma lawsuit by the operator against the dealership. And yes, dealership employees can sue other dealership employees, employment cannot remove that right and as an involved party the dealership CANNOT arbitrate.
That is the most stupid law ever, the US has some stupid ones but that one is in the Top 10. So, the car is at the dealer, something happens there and the owner of the car that is miles away is responsible haha. Here in Europe as soon you leave your car at the dealer or repair garage they are totally responsible for anything that happens to the car. In a case like that, the 19 year old will be at fault and the dealer will have to deal with the victim families via insurance and pay any car damages to the car owner. I know that because 15 years ago at a Fiat dealer someone crashed my car in the workshop and caused damages and small injuries and was up to the dealer to sort it out. And the car was repaired at their cost.
I live in the UK. When something happens on the road the registered keeper gets a NIP (notice of intended prosecution) through the post asking them to identify the driver. Then they would get the police at their door, not the owner.
As a ford mechanic I can tell you %100 you need a drivers license to even get the job in the first place, the fact that the employer hired him without one is very irresponsible.
On top of they let the kid drive a manual car that didn't know how to drive said car. If he damages the transmission or any part of the car they are on hook for repairs.
Given how unreliable Fords are, I will Google the facts.
When I was 17 I had a job at a car wash & I had my license for less than a year & they wouldn’t even let me move the cars the 6 or so feet to the area where they dried the cars off because for them you had to have your license a couple of years.
@@arbiter1 at my dealership we have some kids that don’t know stick, all they have to do is ask one of us to pull the car in for them, Doesn’t bother any of us, I knew if the kid asked someone would have helped him.
Only in a union shop
After 35 years as a Master tech and later a service manager, I can only remember ONE technician who wasn't a licensed driver (he had lost his as a result of a "with injuries" accident). And I guarantee that the dealership's insurance policy required ANYONE who drove a vehicle to be insured. I refused to even consider hiring someone without a license.
What wasn't stated was why he didn't have a license. It could be he never applied OR he had had it revoked for infractions. He could have been employed before losing his license.
Also, he could have been the janitor or secretary that was grabbed to assist the mechanic on a two person job. A license may not have been required for that. He even could have been the manager's learning disabled son helping out.
BUT, he never should have been allowed to assist inside a car without a license.
@@alanmcentee9457 Kid was 19. He probably just never had one and needed work. He wasn't the janitor or whatever, they literally said he was a mechanic, probably his first job at that. People give chances to others when they shouldn't all the time. The hiring manager probably had a hard time finding decent candidates and made a really dumb mistake giving that kid a chance.
My niece got a job as a mechanic at a dealership.. quite a large one with multiple locations. she did that job until they eventually fired here because she had this problem of showing up for work after 12 :) I know as a fact that she had a DWI conviction and warrants for failing to appear at the time of hiring. I know because I paid her fines and forced her to go to court and paid for the lawyer. I also know the only car she had ever driven was a prius. she had that job with a suspended license for almost a year I think before they finally let her go due to her poor attendance record. she still wears the uniforms they supplied when she is doing work for her father rebuilding his house. she hasnt gotten a new license because she cant afford the insurance she says. but she still manages to get wherever she wants to go
When I was working in the trade I had coverage on my personal car insurance on vehicles that I didn't own. That included liability.
I'm sure the dealerships insurance carrier had a very long , one sided conversation with them over allowing an unlicensed person behind the wheel .
Bad memories…. In 1974 I dropped my 1973 VW off at a Troy dealership to have it serviced.
They took it for a test drive and Totaled it….. I didn’t receive a loaner and it was left up to my insurance company deal with their mess.
Troy NY?
@@Silverhineko probably Troy, Mi
Chrysler dealer tech here (in Michigan), at all of the dealers that i've worked at, a driver's license is required. One reason is as Steve stated, experience and know how. Another reason is that the dealer's insurance company will not bond anyone w/out a driver license or with a bad driving record. That tech that got behind the wheel had absolutely no business getting behind the wheel of any vehicle, period. The insurance company pulls the driving records at the minimum, once a year. Now, the question is, was he told not to get behind the wheel by his boss? That's a huge liability for the dealer if he was not, or he ignored that order. Bet that's one of the reasons for the gag order.
The dealer was negligent, if they indeed allowed an unlicensed mechanic to operate ANYONE’s vehicle.
Nobody should be surprised by a Jeep with a manual transmission.
@@davidh9638 I worked at a chain shop. About 1/3 of the Wranglers we had there were stickshifts and for at least a few months there, I was the only guy there who really knew how to drive stick. There were days where I'd have to jump off of what I was doing because we had 3 manual cars there at a time and I was the only one trusted to pull them in and out.
Was he actually driving, or just doing doing something in the car for diagnostic purposes.
The dealer's negligent, period. Even if the tech who didn't know how to drive would only drive it in the parking lot, he could still hit a wall, a fence, the other vehicles, a person. A man is now dead due to their neglect and they tried to blame anyone but themselves.
@@lilithdemonia74 Agreed …..
So, in Michigan, if you steal a vehicle, get injured, you can file suit against the vehicle owner?
Lesson learned, don't get a vehicle serviced in Michigan.
If an unlicensed driver wrecks your vehicle, your insurance may not cover you.
Bottom line, everyone lost except the lawyers, who win in nearly every civil action.
What I dont get is my sister got his by someone from a no fault state outside of there state. Insurance company fighting it all the way. No fault insurance means you buy insurance to cover yourself. Someone hits you, your insurance covers it not there's. Prevention of lawsuits etc ive heard is this reasoning because if you sue your insurance goes up. So why is it if someone hits you your insurance has to pay for it. But in this case it goes on the insurance of the vehicle owner for the other person which the law says should cover themselves in all cases.
@@radzer0966 No Fault means irresponsible get away with doing stupid things with decent people paying the price, as always.
@@Absaalookemensch I posted another comment that was longer. Check it out and comment as well. Florida no fault insurance related.
In your example you could sue but that costs money. You would need to prove some type of wrongdoing.
@Absaalookemensch No cause that is someone took your technical without permission, he dropped his car off to the dealer which is permission. I agree that it should be dealer 100% at fault for this cause person they let drive the car didn't have valid license or even knew how to drive a manual. Its negligence on their side to not have someone else able to spend 2-3 min to drive a car in and out for them.
You know what grids my gears? Someone driving my manual that doesn’t know how to drive one
What’s that smell? Lol
@@cdxx420able 😯🤣
😂😂😂😂
Fun fact: in the UK when you go for your drivers license, you go for a automatic transmission or manual (which allows you to drive both) license…
same in australia,
Commercial Drivers License are similar in USA. 🇺🇸
New driver rented a manual truck for his test because his employer only had an automatic for him to drive, yet he didn't want a restricted license to limit his future work options.
✌️
How often do you have to retest? That is the issue I have here in the US. My mother, who is now 88, should not be considered competent to drive a car any longer because her driving skills have eroded with time. I have not taken a driver's test in almost 40 years which I find to be really strange. Every 10-15 years should be mandatory until you reach your 70s and then every 5 years.
We should do this here in the States. Most people do not know how to drive a manually shifted car here. I learned to drive in a 68'Beetle, manual only, with these. I was driving that car by the time I was 12 years old. (I grew up in a mostly rural area.)
@@danielsteward5090 Several times I took my vehicle in for some sort of service and the people there could not figure out how to drive it. Once I was at Goodyear getting some tires on my F-150. When they were done, the lowered the lift, kid jumped in, fired it up, looked back over his shoulder and then drove forward into the wall. I was watching through the big window when this happened. The manager was in the room at the time and his first response was to spin around and see if I saw it. When he saw me you could see the blood drain out of his face.
When I worked at a ford dealer in Ohio I was required to have a driver's license and show I could drive a manual transmission before they would even consider hiring me
Well I hope the Jeep owner's insurance doesn't increase because of this "settlement" . Because it sounds like this would be saying he was "at fault".
This law was probably written by the insurance companies.
Hard to believe the owner would be held responsible, unless he did something careless or negligent. Are we supposed to check driver's licenses of service people every time we get an oil change?
This could only happen in Michigan because of their no-fault insurance.
Most of the time N-F works smoothly. This is one of those times when it doesn't.
I've never seen a car dealership not have the requirement of "must have a driver's license". If the dealership has that rule, then YES- all fault should be on the dealership.
This is why I hate law- it flies in the face of logic.
This is why I have a million$ umbrella policy for liability on top of the automobile liability policy coverage. Thanks Steve!!
I hope that you are using a pseudonym and not your real name. If not, scammers will try to target you.
😢😢😢
Years ago I took my VW GLI (front wheel drive 5 speed manual) through a city required inspection and the guy told me to put it in drive, put on the emergency brake and give it gas, so I did what he said, sort of. Double clutched first, lit the tires up and smoked up the bay. He was going to fail me for the brakes not holding the car, until his manager came out and pointed out I had actually dragged the back tires.
You're an idiot if any of that is even true.
Yea, front wheel drives tend to do that…
@@dangeary2134 They also tend to torque steer or understeer if they have enough power or break loose.
@@davidrush4908 both front and rear do that, take a look at any drag race at the strip.
It’s exacerbated in a front wheel drive car, especially when the driver doesn’t have the experience to counter steer with the power application.
@@dangeary2134 True, but the dynamics of the drag strip take everything to extremes. What I was talking about was under "normal' driving conditions. For example even moderate acceleration from a 90 degree turn can rip the steering wheel out of your hands further into the turn and until you reduce power you can't straighten it out.
In slick conditions the common wisdom is to reduce power in a skid to counter oversteer, but it's almost impossible to accidentally oversteer a fwd vehicle. You have to apply very light power to allow the front to pull you the way you want to go to counter the understeer.
I demonstrated that concept once on ice. I applied the handbrake to lock the rears and could go from oversteer to controlled to understeer with very slight variations of power. Passengers freaked out at first, but it was fun.
Another condition I've seen someone else get into was an over controlled oscillation. After dodging an animal, the driver over controlled correcting the previous action, causing them to over control again and again. I reached over and grabbed the wheel and just held it where it needed to be and the oscillation stopped. It should probably be noted that car had a lot of body roll that exacerbated the situation.
My point here is that different vehicles can have vastly different handling characteristics and drivers need to understand them. Getting back to the topic of the video, regardless of license status the driver was not qualified to drive a manual because he had no experience. He should have been given some training on manual transmission vehicles before driving them around customer cars, equipment, and most notably around people.
Back in the 90’s I worked for a manufacturer of car floor mats. As a condition of employment General Motors required all employees of the factory to have a drivers license. To be clear, it was not a g m plant, but a condition of the contract with g m.
The Jeep dealership needs to come clean and say if they admitted fault on this and paid out. Not hide this whole situation.
The main action was a worker's compensation claim (the dealer has to have worker's comp.) Worker's comp. precludes liability actions. Since there was another party who wasn't covered by worker's comp. the estate went after him and his insurance company.
@@machintelligence workers comp wouldn’t pay in this case usually. Driving a vehicle without a license even on private property is excluded. Something we won’t hear anything on also is whenever anything like this happens the dealership does have to follow workers comp rules. Within 24hours a drug test and even in places where weed is legal workers comp still restricts against it and payouts because failing for that could mean he was high at the time.
Insurance will always find a way around things. Unless they paid out and are going after the dealership legally due to negligence but you don’t hear about that happens except on even more extreme topics than this n
Most jobs require a drivers license , just to get to work.
Once the keys are handed over the owner has no control over who drives their car so how can they be held liable for any damage caused by an unlicensed employee?
Maybe because a stupid law says so?
Because Michigan.
There not dealership paid
@@davidh9638 Of course the laws are created by representatives of voters, therefore the voters are stupid.
I was thinking about this too. In some circumstances it makes sense, if you have a weapon and someone else uses it to injure someone else. You weren't involved in anyway but a court would say that you had a duty and responsibility to make sure that the weapon wasn't used to injure anyone else. With a car it's a grey zone as far as I can tell, in that it CAN be used as a weapon and CAN easily be use to injure someone.
In this case, the easy argument to be made is, "I left it with professionals and had an absolute belief that said professionals had it in their best interests to not use the car in an irresponsible way as apposed to my alcoholic cousin Vinnie who's been through 5 cars in 3 years.
"You're 19 and don't have a license? Well, you won't be able to take cars out for a test drive, so we won't be able to pay you the same as the other mechanics."
Plausible.
Thanks for the update on this screwy case, Mr. Steve.
The car was probably in a bay being worked on. He told the kid to start the car. Make sure you push the clutch to start it. So he did. And took his foot of the clutch while it was in gear cause he didn’t know any better.
I agree with you synopsis, and the deceased mechanic should not have been standing in a position to be injured if something went wrong....number one rule when someone is starting or moving a vehicle , especially backing up.....do not stand where you can be run over.....
@@ypaulbrown maybe not even that. Maybe he told the kid to get in and press brakes/jiggle the steering wheel to make sure it wasn't messed up.
@@ypaulbrown There are several jobs that require you to trust your co-workers with your safety and vice versa. They should also speak up when they have not been trained on something...before, it's too late!
@@SmittyAZ I agree 100 %...I have worked with too many airhead coworkers during my 50 years of work in the metal fabrication trades......and mechanic trades...I have been lucky and always aware, safety is my job to not get hurt.....even though I have had an injury or two due to others stupidy
@@ypaulbrown My career, we had High Pressure Natural Gas, High Voltage, Chemicals - including Sulfuric Acid, confined spaces, boom trucks, hoists, etc. If we didn't watch out for one another, we wouldn't have all gone home. Of course, there are always knuckleheads that hopefully, will only hurt themselves...
I work at a jeep manufacturer we require a valid driver's license to shuttle the vehicles off the end of the production line on our own property
Couple of questions:
- Does mechanic get charged with manslaughter?
- Does Jeep owner take his vehicle back (not sure my wife would ever drive a car that killed someone)?
I always tell the service advisor that my car is a manual. It’s been more than once that they had to get someone else who knew how to drive a manual car.
A mechanic is going to need to test drive vehicles. Both for pre-work diagnosis and post-repair confirmation that it's fixed. The parking lot is rarely going to be large enough for these test drives.
Exactly. Especially if the complaint is something that happens at highway speeds, or even if you have to get something like the brakes up to temperature to diagnose something like a sticky caliper. You could loop around the lot, but taking a proper test drive would be easier.
Nowadays they probably are…… but still…dealer parking lots are not the normal driving environment….any fool can drive around a parking lot and say a system works….that’s not the real driving environment……I think dealer should be brought up for negligent homicide….in that the dealer knew…or should have known that the lot attendant was unlicensed and furthermore should have been aware of the lot attendants inability to drive a manual transmission…..The fact that there is a NDA means the dealer knew more than they were letting on.
No fault laws like that are just absolutely wrong.
Gag orders telle shady stuff went on.
Thank you for your explanation of the many types of law suits that clutter the legal avenues in our country today. Very informative! I've never given much attention to legal proceedings before becoming caught up in this mess. And as you spoke of how long some of these battles have played out, "delay" seems to be the best defense. We are currently on our second trial date, in more than two years.
How many "mechanics" don't have a drivers license because of DUI issues
My late Father ran a full service station mid 70’s-mid 80’s. Mechanic we had was a raging alcoholic, couldn’t wait to get off to get a drink down @ the local bar. Far as I remember he had a license but can’t remember if he had any DUI’s. Didn’t have an apartment but stayed in a run down local motel.
When I was working at a dealership, we had a guy that lost his license due to a DUI. The dealership kept him on, he just had another person (dealership employee) do his road tests for him........The guy was a looser, came to work one day, looked all beat to hell, found out his girlfriend beat he crap out of him!!!!
@@jamessimms415 This is going to sound strange but in the 70s you can get DUIs and not loose your license
I did a trade school for auto mechanics about 20 years ago.
In the 1st month they tested your ability to drive stick. If you couldn't do it, you had to enroll in a driving class.
I found it pretty easy. The test car was an 84 Accord wagon. My 1st car was an 84 Accord sedan, with a stick.
Well our legal system is definitely something…
By the time I turned 19 I was a seasoned Kart racer and Dirt modified Racer. And had been driving a manual transmission car since age 12. I'm also a Certified master automotive technician.
You don't let unlicensed drivers test drive cars, period, ever.
Did I hear that correctly? In the State of Michigan you can't sue your employer for injuries you receive on the job?
not in public civil court. in most states it goes to workers comp board in front of an administrative judge.
The only justifiable way a vehicle owner should be sued in a situation like this would be if the owner had modified their vehicle in some way that either resulted in a mechanical failure, or if the owner failed to inform the technician of a modification that results in the technician improperly operating the vehicle's controls.
Yeah, they need to fix the law so this sort of stuff dosen't happen again.
I realize it was mainly procedural and the owner wouldn't have been jailed, but I wouldn't want a lawsuit under my name over a death, even if it was a state loophole that simply made my insurance pay for it.
There is no obligation to inform a MECHANIC of a modification to the vehicle. There is something called due diligence. The mechanic should know the vehicle has been modified from an inspection of the vehicle prior to agreeing to service it. If this was not done and questions were not asked the mechanic has not done his due diligence to inspect the vehicle.
That depends on the state. In New York, the owner is liable whoever is driving. In New Jersey, the owner is only liable when the driver is doing something for the owner. Note, however, that liability of the owner and insurance coverage under the owner's policy are different things.
@@TheObsesedAnimeFreaks Motorcycles (and cars):
You can buy a hand held tuner and modify the ECU for 100% power from the throttle input vs the factory settings of NEVER giving you the 100% requested. My latest motorcycles have several maps and the modified maps can disable several of the safety features. The Mechanic would never know it. Add 50-75-100 hp and disable safety features and NOT tell the mechanic that should be test riding it?
@@SmittyAZ if you are taking your modified bike to a simple mechanic and not a race shop, that might be your problem never mind the fact that most mechanics aren't dumb enough to just put the throttle on full. Also they would know the bike has been modified sine they have to read the ecu... And the ecu tells all
After the STD everything is possible
So the clap gives you super powers?
@@ColonelSandersLite
If you catch in a car apparently it can be covered as person injury and you can successfully go after Geico and win a 5 million judgment
@@tommays56 I guess that explains the ol' prostitute standing on the street corner cliche then.
I would guess 95% of kids getting drivers license's today don't know how to drive a clutch. I drove with a clutch car most of my life, but neither of my boys (21 and 25) would have a clue. It's hard to even find vehicles with clutches anymore. It's a dying skill.
It's a signature not name.
You can draw anything there.
kid also can't tell time with a face clock. Teach your kid and grandkids how to tell time
Well teach them...
@@lawrencebraun7616 tell *
Even trucking companies hire newbies with no experience to learn how to drive a big rig that's automatic.....than a few years later, these new drivers could not go to another company that have manual 10 speeds because they never were taught to drive them......
What kind of messed up crap is it that you can't go after a business for providing an unsafe workplace
Thank god the dealership is going to have to pay out if the vehicle owner faces penalty.
They won't have to pay out anything. They have insurance that will cover it. That means everyone that has insurance with that company will have to pay higher premiums because of this dealership's negligence.
@@stephengreen3566 'hey 19 y/o adult, put your foot on that pedal there and don't take it off'
takes foot off and guy dies
if only the dealership hadn't been so negligent!!!!
@Born_Stellar don't hire idiots then
Sounds like Michigan law needs some updates
Many years ago, as a high school kid working for the city for the summer, I learned to drive a manual transmission in the city's trucks. I've always thought the best way to learn to drive a stick was in someone else's vehicle.
I learned stick when I worked at a dealership. Thing is, they trained me on their parts truck (I was in the parts department), not a customers vehicle. And anytime they had to borrow me to drop a customers vehicle off elsewhere I was mindful of how it was driven because I valued my job.
That doesn't happen anymore because it's a liability. No one wants to pay for a kid getting in an accident when he wasn't even qualified/should have been driving to start.
I learned in a battered 1993 Honda Civic I bought off of OfferUp for $800. The best way to learn is definitely in someone else's car, but the next best thing if you don't know anyone who knows how is to buy a cheap car and learn on it.
I learned much the same way. When I was 18, I agreed to go with a friend of mine down from where we lived in Central California to UCLA, which he was attending, and then I'd drive his truck (an old Ford Courier pickup) back home, because semester parking fees on campus were equal to the GDP of Bolivia.
Wasn't until I got in for the drive down that I realized it was a stick. I pointed out that I'd never driven a stick and Jim assured me it was easy. So I learned to drive a stick in LA traffic at 10 pm on a Friday night.
By the time I found the freeway, I knew how to drive a stick.
funny, i learned on a Allis-Chalmers Tractor plowing when i was 12. It was a 1936 and my grandfather just rebuilt it and i back it into a camper shell trying to drive it. After that he was like "if your going to drive then you might as well learn by doing something constructive". So every year i plowed our two acre garden. when i was in my early 20's i drove a 28 foot truck between OKC and DFW Toting computer parts. The mix master was a bitch, but you got used to it after a while.
At one time in the past I had a class A CDL. Today I work in a fabrication facility today in the office. Even though I can drive the trucks the insurance says NO. I cannot move a truck on the property without the proper license to operate the vehicle being moved. I have no idea how someone could be employed to operate vehicles without a license.
our justice system needs to be renamed. 'justice' should not be included in the name. the main culprit is the dealership for hiring someone that is not capable of safely doing the job.
whomever sued the jeep owner is lower than the scum that feeds off whale droppings. the jeep owner is nowhere near being at fault. i feel for their loss, but this kind of greed is inexcusable.
Definitely ambulance 🚑 chaser lawyers.
If you watched the previous video, the plaintiff didn't want to have to sue the owner but they said they had no choice.
As far as the person suing the jeep owner, if you watched the previous video on this subject Steve explains why they didn't really have a choice. Due to the way that insurance policies work, you sometimes need to sue someone you don't personally feel is responsible in order to get the proper insurance company to pay out. See the case of the woman who sued her nephew when he knocked her off balance and she broke her wrist. She just wanted the homeowners insurance to cover her medical bills, but they wouldn't pay unless she sued first.
@@uraldamasis6887 i am no lawyer, and i do not play one on TV. but... i do not think there is a law that forces you to sue someone. there is no reason for a decent human being to sue someone that is so blatantly not at fault, whatsoever. the only thing the jeep owner did wrong was choose the wrong dealership.
@@johngalt200 the nephew did cause the accident, therefore he was a fault. the main issue was it was family.
back to the jeep incident. i have a conscience that i listen to. if i was told i would have to sue someone that was totally innocent, so i could get a big payday, i would have to say no. i could not even think of entertaining the thought of doing what they did. my parents raised me better than that. screwing someone over is screwing someone over, no matter how you try to whitewash it.
i would think there are workman's compensation laws in force.
At Bob's Country Bunker, we have both kinds of music... country and western.
Keep movin', movin', movin'
Though they're disapprovin'
Keep them doggies movin'
Rawhide
In the UK, 99% of the time your driving lessons and test is done in a manual. If you sit your test in an Automatic you are restricted to driving automatics on the road until you do another test in a manual.
just FYI i worked at a car dealer in Michigan for over 17 years. first thing that ask when you apply is if you have a valid license. I've watched more than one employee be let go due to the loss of a license even after they had worked there for years. just my experience
I have always been in the understanding that you had to be an insurable licensed driver. Insurable be key.
I don't think there are ANY states with "No-fault" laws that make any sense. For this Jeep owner to be held liable because the mechanic killed someone with HIS car is ridiculous. In addition, the inability to NOT sue your employer in Michigan is ridiculous; quite often an employer deliberately skates around workspace rules, thus creating a hazardous condition for employees. And there is NO WAY a mechanic could drive on the dealer's property and simulate the conditions encountered in real-world driving.
This is the kind of convoluted crap you get when lawyers get involved.
This is a crazy case! I have a hundred reasons to like that WABX•99 sticker 😃
As a former dealership employee you are required to have a license to work there as either a salesperson or mechanic this to the people that don't know that. I'm sure Steve Lehto knows that but not some people commenting on it.
That's a company policy not a law. Companies that have that rule only have the rule because their insurance company requires it.
@@maurer3d So the insurance company did not require that in this case? Regardless of what the insurance company required it looks like negligence by the dealership if they allowed that (not to mention the driver).
@@maurer3d it is too the law in order to drive a car you have to have a license
@@bretthibbs6083 not if you are on private property
@@SlowHippie that only applies to agriculture or on you're own property not car dealerships I know I used to work at one.
Had my license at 14. Can't comprehend why a 19yo wouldn't have a license or why he would be hired. The dealership is totally at fault including the idiot behind the wheel who should have been charged for manslaughter.
It isn't just stick shifts and unlicensed drivers that pose a danger at a repair shop. The older automatic vehicles with a TV cable and adjustable modulator, had to have line and boost pressure set with the vehicle in drive.
Dumbest law ever. Kid driving is liable.
Dealership?
@@daleolson3506 Yes I would say the dealership is liable for hiring a person that doesn't know how to operate the vehicles he is working on.
So is the dealership for hiring an *UNLICENSED DRIVER!*
I would say the dealership is liable for hiring the KID that didn't have a driver's license. Moreover, the KID at minimum should have been taught by the dealership how to drive a clutch the first day of employment or an agreement that he would not step foot in a vehicle with a clutch. The incident occurred because the dealership was negligent and did not take reasonable steps to prevent the incident from occurring.
Kids don't usually have that much money.
I bet Rochester Auto Shop is out of business. No sane person would ever take their vehicle there ever again.
Bob’s Country Bunker. They have both kinds of music. Country AND western!
Moral of the story: The next time you take a car in for service, make a dealer or repair shop taking full liability for any incidents that happen while the car in in their possession.
How. How could you verify that they are telling you the truth and not feeding you garbage.
So the owner of the Jeep has to deal with possibly not getting insurance, or pay excessive premiums for a long time, and no it doesn’t matter if he was compensated, the damn insurance industry will punish you for ever.
I love your sassy assistant
Ikr. Always some snappy joke or even just a pun. I love it.
@@MrMooAndMoonSquirrelToo if she had a Boston accent it would be
A typically first rate explanation by Steve. It’s nice to hear when a case that initially seems tangled in illogic and unfairness seems to work out fairly and logically. Except for the poor guy who is gone and his family, who can’t really be made whole by money, of course.
When a soldier gets sent off to war, he even has some insurance coverage on him that will go to the family, but not so for employees in MI?
workers comp probably paid out seperately. but because of convolutions between various laws i.e. civil and workers comp these workarounds have to be done
I thought that this was going to be about the tragic death of the late actor Anton Yelchin, whose Jeep crushed him against a brick mailbox pedestal as he checked his mail.
Man, he was really great in “Charlie Bartlett”.
So this thing was based on the law that says an employee can't sue his employer?.....He didn't. He was dead. So when you take a job in MI, you sign your life away to the employer....and also your family does the same? Why would employers be exempt from liabilities concerning employees? I don't understand that.
Yeah but DRIVING is one thing.. knowing how to operate a vehicle in its mechanical ability to maneuver or occupy different positions safely is quite another.
This is surreal. I have been wrenching since around 1976 and I have never heard of trying to hold a vehicle owner responsible for something a dealer tech has done.
Absolutely blows my mind the world has moved on to a place this is even a fevered dream,,, unreal.
i really appreciate the fact that you explain the case, at least under michigan law. i'm from the upper peninsula of michigan. that being said, it's still nice to have a frame of reference to start from.
So in Michigan you can't sue an employer for harming you? That is patently absurd.
I worked in a service shop that knowingly hired an un-licensed tech
That didn't turn out well
ON long cases. Here in Orange County CA, we had a probate that lasted 80 years. Probate was opened and then nothing happened. Eighty. years later, the descendants tried to sell or refinance the property. The title company said they did not own the property. Great grandfather (or whomever) was still the record owner.
ive been told by mechanical service employers in Michigan that they cannot hire a mechanic who has no drivers license because the company's insurance company will not cover them....maybe thats why they sued the vehicle owner. Not much they can collect from a 19 year old kid with no drivers license and no liability insurance.
Will the 19 year old mechanic be charged with involuntary manslaughter?
He knew he could not operate a stick shift, but still attempted to do so.
A tragedy for all involved. No amount of money can compensate for the loss of a life.
"Michigan law prevents employees from suing employers for injuries incurred at the workplace"? WTF?
Yep, the law is constructed such that in exchange for providing workman's comp insurance, employers are shielded from civil liability. And while that civil liability can be waived by the court the standard is such that you have to prove that the employer acted intentionally to cause injury or death. It's fucking absurd.
@@tekcomputers Damn that's like a license to be negligent.
I am guessing a car dealerships liability insurance won't cover employees for the operation of a vehicle if they do not possess a valid driver's license. And if they did, it would be an extra rider and an additional premium for that coverage. A "Garage Keepers Policy" does have some pretty specific terms to it, like all policies do.
It’s an unfortunate case all around, for all parties involved, but I’ve never heard of any dealer not requiring a mechanic to have a valid license. A lot of them won’t even hire you if your license is suspended.
Employees can't sue employers for on-the-job injuries? Ridiculous! What has been going on in Michigan?
So, basically a great example of how messed up Michigan's no-fault law is and why MI should just adopt other states' liability rules???
I worked at semi truck and trailer paint and body shop. I was pretty good at metal work but I learned to drive a semi tractor by jumping in, firing that baby up, pushing in the brake, and gear jammin. Several times they went back and forth to UPS picking up trucks, fixing them and driving them back. I have to say it was a blast but I got zero training.
How did you manage that without a CDL?
I used to be a Jeep mechanic and I have never had a drivers license. My employer never even asked me if I had a license.
That's not good
We didn't get to see the bottom half of your shirt after the video! Love all your videos!
First time I've seen emotional.
Must be the thought of unlicensed mechanic grinding his gears, literally.
Plumbing shops wont hire a helper if they got no drivers license. ect... (your rendered useless!) Cant drive work truck or equiptment...fetch parts...take injured to hospital in case of emergency...so many scenarios where license is crucial. Besides basic insurances and responsibilitys.
I'm sure states have different laws concerning this, but when I worked at a dealership a customer would sign a form giving the dealership permission to operate the vehicle, but it would be under the coverage of the dealership's insurance in case of an accident. I forget the legal term. I thought this was pretty much SOP, apparently not. I remember a time when I first got my driver's license there was a different one for a manual transmission. If you took your driving test with an automatic trans car, you could not drive a standard. The automatic license had a blue stripe across it.
Honestly, I grew up on a farm, so I learned to drive off-road. So if someone asked me if I was okay of an unlicensed employee driving my vehicle, I'd ask if they were a farm kid or the like. If they told me he couldn't drive stick, I'd say hell no. Automatics just require knowing how to aim and how to brake and most kids can figure that out better than half the adults on the highways these days.
I'm a guy in his mid 20s who didn't get to really learn manual transmissions until I was 19. That being said, most of my cars since (including all my current ones) were manual. I work as a mechanic, so I drive a wide variety of cars for customers, but when driving friends' it family's cars off of work, I sometimes habitually reach for a clutch pedal that's not there forgetting that I'm not in any of my cars.
@Snargfargle I only drive automatic and always set the hand brake (I even use it to help start on a steep up hill). I also shift gears all the time for better control (but not as often as needed with a manual).
@@SkylineFTW97 Yeah, I get that. My finances have been such that I'd only be able to take what I could get for cars, and all of them were automatic. But even though it's probably been 30 some odd years since I drove a stick, once in a while, I'll reach for the gear shift or the clutch. (When I was a kid, my dad was 'You don't know how to drive if you can't drive stick.' Since he'd hit his 70's and is soon into his 80's, he doesn't say that anymore. I miss stick shift. It made driving fun.)
@@Tiewaz Oh yeah. Both of my cars are Hondas, so I definitely paid a premium for the manual. That being said, Honda makes the best manuals, so I say it's worth it.
Me: "WTF!? He wasn't even there!! How would he be charged for...!? ...Oh, Michigan? Yeah that sounds right."
A while back I was working at a large trucking company. They hired a driver who had never driven anything with a stick shift. He told them that he was willing to receive instruction. We are talking a semi with a 53 foot trailer here. Because of the power involved these use a non synchronous transmission. It took a little while but they found a driver who was willing to teach him. He could drive it the first day soon he shifted expertly. He became a very good and safe driver. Companies can often find very good employees and avoid terrible tragedies just for the cost of a little training.
The owner of the car is out a huge legal bill. I wonder if he can recoup any of that from the dealer.
These days, even Tractor-trailer rigs are mostly auto-shifters ... controlled by computers.
I had an experience 20 years ago with a lawsuit in Brooklyn where I felt the judge acted very unethically. She revived a law suit that had been abandoned for 5 years and then later acted as the plaintiff's counsel at a settlement conference. It involved an eldery woman that claimed she was injured when a board leaning against the wall in a senior center fell over and hit her. Multiple witnesses testified in depositions that the board had actually hit a woman sitting 3 rows in front of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff claimed she had been hit. Plaintiff's counsel never provided releases for medical records so the plaintiff's deposition never discussed damages. Shortly after the deposition the plaintiff died. Nothing happened for 5 years, but the attorney eventually got the plaintiff's daughter involved and moved to reactivate the abandoned suit. The motion should never have been granted, but the juddge was close friends with the plaintiff's attorney ("Russell").
I was assigned the case just before a settlement conference. There were 3 defendants. We all appeared, but Russel informed us that their was a Medicaid lien against the plaintiff's estate and that he couldn't settle the case until he could reach a deal with counsel for Medicaid. But this was not long after 9/11 and the counsel for Medicaid were based in lower Manhattan and were unable to be in their offices. So the conference was adjourned. Twice more we all appeared and Russel told us he hadn't been able to get a hold of the Medicaid counsel. Prior to the 4th settlement conference, we were informed he had reached an agreement with Medicaid. They would get 1/3 of the settlement, Russel would get 1/3, and the daughter would get 1/3.
We three defendant's counsel showed up to the 4th conference only to be told that Russell was busy and couldn't come. But the judge said, "don't worry, I know what he'll take." After negotiations with the judge we agreed that each defendant would pay $5,000 which was nuisance value. The lawsuit was completely baseless and the plaintiff could never prove anything at trial. But it would cost way more than $5,000 just to litigate the case through a summary judgement motion, much less a trial. We were in the judge's courtroom and I made a comment to the court officer that the judge was the plaintiff's attorney today. She turned to the officer, shrugged her shoulders and said "It's Russell." The judge did a favor to her friend by reviving an abandoned suit that was completely baseless and then negotiated the settlement on behalf of the plaintiff when her friend was busy. Anybody else see a problem with that?
First of all, thanks for the paragraph breaks!!
Obviously anyone with 2 functioning brain cells can see a problem with that. It is cases like that that really make it hard to have faith in the system. Presiding judge acting as council??!!
Of course to do anything about it would cost a lot of money. Some days I want to live on an island and forget about the rest of the world. - Cheers
The owner should bring a lawsuit against the state that goes to the SCOTUS. This should never happen, and if I was the owner, I'd be dealing with lifelong issues because of this garbage.
In Michigan a person is required, BY LAW, to have a valid driver's license _and insurance coverage for_ a vehicle they are simply HOLDING THE KEYS TO if they are off the owner's property. Because in Michidiotagain holding the keys while inebriated is "operating while intoxicated" even if you're not in the vehicle. Which means holding the keys is operating and operating is immaterial of location or situation and not having insurance and license is illegal operation... someone was killed. So this whole shit-u-ation becomes an employment law and trauma lawsuit by the operator against the dealership. And yes, dealership employees can sue other dealership employees, employment cannot remove that right and as an involved party the dealership CANNOT arbitrate.
I hope the innocent Jeep owner is not out of pocket any expenses.
Even Walmart requires a driver's liscense and insurance before you can work with cars 🤣
Walmart doesn't do cars?
@everythingpony as someone who worked at the Walmart tire and oil center, I cam confirm Walmart does cars
A drivers license barely shows competence to not get in a wreck while being tested.
Obviously having a driver's license, and knowing how to drive a manual... Could have and most probably would have made all the difference...no?
Ben hanging under the WABX sticker.
That is the most stupid law ever, the US has some stupid ones but that one is in the Top 10. So, the car is at the dealer, something happens there and the owner of the car that is miles away is responsible haha. Here in Europe as soon you leave your car at the dealer or repair garage they are totally responsible for anything that happens to the car. In a case like that, the 19 year old will be at fault and the dealer will have to deal with the victim families via insurance and pay any car damages to the car owner. I know that because 15 years ago at a Fiat dealer someone crashed my car in the workshop and caused damages and small injuries and was up to the dealer to sort it out. And the car was repaired at their cost.
Steve: Be careful who services your Viper!
I'm wondering what happened to the 19 year old tech who was behind the wheel. Some sort of vehicular homicide charges?
I live in the UK. When something happens on the road the registered keeper gets a NIP (notice of intended prosecution) through the post asking them to identify the driver. Then they would get the police at their door, not the owner.