Wrecked in a Test Drive.... - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

84300DT · #31 08-22-2002, 03:47 PM

glad nobody was hurt randall, seems a case of unavoidable 'pilot error' which could happen to anyone / anytime /anywhere. that's why they call them 'accidents'. it doesn't seem like anyone was being reckless there.

especially glad it wasn't your benz though, that would have been something to really cry over.
Bob

#32 08-26-2002, 02:44 AM

"So I guess if my neighbor borrows my chainsaw and falls out of a tree while using it I'm responsible because I OWN the chainsaw?"

[yes, if you were present during the accident (accompanying the neighbour) and the neighbour was "test driving" your chain saw at your invitation; the cousin did not borrow the car, he was test driving it, with a company representative accompanying him in the car intent on selling. Different situation.]

- What a bunch of horse poop. If that's what my neighbor thinks then I might as well test the chain out on his neck as well as any lawyer that wants to waste court time defending the neighbor (before I saw his head off). As far as the car goes, if YOU drive the car it's YOUR responsibility. TWO other witnesses in the car are probably on YOUR side so that doesn't prove you weren't speeding. Sounds like whoever posted this was trying to build a case in their own mind of "not my fault." The worse thing anyone can do is lie to themselves and then try to defend it. I am not saying you were or weren't speeding necessarily, just accept responsibility for YOUR own actions. I am just trying to think, what are the chances of an "awd" subaru with new tires and abs and maybe traction ctrl sliding off the road wrecking around a turn if the driver is #1 doing the speed limit or #2 driving responsibly?? Any mathemeticians out there with the numbers on that one??

"Excellent! Are we, by chance, in the same trade?" - Gee let's all embelish in morality a bit more!

Mercedes Fred · #33 08-26-2002, 08:04 AM

Then what is the basis for responsibility, moral or legal?

IN the uninteresting case of the wayward chainsaw, if you were "test driving" the chainsaw, the owner would be responsible to ensure that the neighbour knows hjow to handle a chainsaw and would object if the neighbour decides to operate it unsafely. WHy? because they own the chainsaw. If the neighbour decides to test drive on his neck or someone elses, then this is assualt or suicide or whatever and a criminal matter, and the basis for responisbility lies elsewhere. If the neighbour borrows the chainsaw, he owns it temporarily and is therefore responisble for all actions. A test drive scenario is a strange, special case. As the salesman was in the back seat, he is responsible to protect the company car, likely mandated by the insurance company, and as far as i know, an insurable interest is based on ownership, not whoever is driving the car.

COnsider too that unless the driver actually went out and intentionally spread oil all over the road to make conditions unsafe, there is no causal connection between the unsafe road conditions and the driver. Everyone was in the wrong place at the wrong time and the owners insurance companies are resp[onsible for these unusual events, i.e., tough luck. Yes, it makes us feel better when we can blame someone but quite often its hard to hold someone personally responsible for a rain shower.

84300DT · #34 08-26-2002, 08:16 AM

come to think of it - the dealer's umbrella insurance policy has got to cover the car (any any other damages to other property or cars) no matter if it was the salesman driving or a customer. weather is 'force majeure'

#35 08-26-2002, 01:00 PM

"If the neighbour decides to test drive on his neck or someone elses, then this is assualt or suicide or whatever and a criminal matter, and the basis for responisbility lies elsewhere."

Painfully true but not the point. The logic Mercedes Fred is using is the reason legal system is in such dis-array now and why rapists and serial killers get off on a technicality. It's a whole different plane and definition of logic that can easily divert common sense and the concept of taking responsibility for one's own actions. Logic such as this is what may eventually destroy the heart soul and meaning of the constitution as the founding fathers had defined it many years ago.

Part of this ties into a mindset of "philosophizing" concepts until they make no sense or confuse the issue. This is where lawyers really shine. The motivation for most of this il-logical logic is the lawyers/clients greed for MONEY. This il-logical logic then gets written into law and then regurgitated by other "law-scholars" in attempts to show everyone how intelligent they are and/or diswade true morality and common sense even further. I don't consider it a question of legal vs moral. Go back to the constitution and it principles and history upon which this country was founded and do a review.

Take for example the lady that spilled McD's coffee on her lap and profited (yes "profited") off of the incident. Common sense tells you that it's YOUR responsibility to handle the cup in such a way as not to burn yourself. A lawyer who wants to capitalize the most on this incident will package it and sell it to the court in such a way as to create a shadow of a doubt. He does this by taking the truth, dancing on the fine line of common sense and injecting philosophy and doubt into the equasion. Our legal system is not totally wrong or bad. Many if not most of it does make logical and moral sense. However, many of our legal claims today are saturated with stupidity and it's only going to come back to hurt us if this trend continues

Mercedes Fred · #36 08-26-2002, 02:55 PM

The basis for responsibility in a criminal matter is not an ownership issue, but rather on the doer of the deed, which the state must prove in court etc. etc. IN those cases, we have no choice on whether we are responsible or not, for if found guilty responibility is forced upon you, you are forced to own the consequences of the action.

outside of breaking the law, we are free to choose whether to take responsibility for our actions, and as such would clearly include being free to not take responsibility. My view is that one way we make people be responsible is with ownership, so in cases like weird weather conditions that lead to unsafe conditions and an accident, the owners insurance companies become responisible.

Think about it this way...the salesman of the subarbia did not ask the client if they had car insurance, but rather if they had a valid drivers licence. It would be impracticval for a potential buyer to arrange temporay insurance for themselves to test ddrive a vehicle if they are to be made responsible here.. Also consider the other victims in the accident: if the driver was responsible, but had no "temporary test driver" insurance who could the victims turn to to get repair bills covered? Becuase the owner of the vehicle must insure the same, everyone's happy. The salesman is the owner, was in the car, is the insurance holder, therefore is the responsible party, unless the driver does some illegal thing.

#37 08-26-2002, 03:23 PM

Sounds like the text verbatum. Next time I have a legal question I know where to go. That's what's great about this forum. You should change your name to Legal Fred. Just kidn.

"Also consider the other victims in the accident: if the driver was responsible, but had no "temporary test driver" insurance who could the victims turn to to get repair bills covered?"

That would be tragic, I agree. But that's the risk the "victims" assume when they get into their car and drive down the road. Hundreds of cases every year where people get into accidents and have NO insurance, let alone "temp test driver." They end up suing the driver of whom has no money to sue for anyway unfortunately.

"outside of breaking the law, we are free to choose whether to take responsibility for our actions"

Just curious though, I want to know your stand. Do you personally take responsibility for your own actions or do you do this only when convenient or mandatory by law?

I guess I mostly dis-agreed with your saying it was the saleman's fault. The salesman was not driving so in any case, it is NOT the salesmans fault- I agree with the rest of the posts that it's clearly the fault of the driver no matter what the law says .

Technically, it should go on the drivers insurance. But you are saying legally, it's going to go onto the dealership's insurance. This may well be true.

Gilly · #38 08-26-2002, 10:48 PM

The problem I see in comparing the test-drive with the chain saw scenario is that:
Yes the person allowing a chain saw to be tried out should be assured the person using it is somewhat familiar with operating one. Maybe not that exact one, but familiar with what you should and shouldn't do with one, the basic safe operation of a chain saw. If not, they should demonstrate how it operates first, then allow the person to perform some basic operation with it under close supervision.

The same can be said about taking the car for a test drive. A salesman should (by most state laws, if not the dealers policy) ask to see the persons drivers license prior to the roadtest. This sets a "base line" if you will, that the person is competent to drive automobiles. It may not prove that he/she is neccesarily a "good" driver, nor really all that familiar with the vehicle in question. But it should establish that with a minimum of care, the driver should be able to keep it between the lines and obey traffic laws to the extent that the driver will not A) Be a hazard to other road users, or B) Damage the car. You wouldn't really expect the salesman to have to "demonstrate" how to drive the car, once the safety-critical controls have been pointed out, especially if these controls are somewhat out of the norm.

Gilly

#39 08-26-2002, 11:48 PM

Gillybenz is right, a chainsaw is a little different than a vehicle test run. I think what you are saying is that the general assumption that you have a drivers license assumes you have the ability to drive and have driven before. I don't know of any state that issues a chainsaw license though. Ps what does "Location: Abrasive since 1961 mean?"

Gilly · #40 08-27-2002, 12:03 AM

Well, I'm not all that "slick" with a computer first of all. (No computer license?)
I was accused on one of these threads awhile back of being somewhat ABRASIVE in my writing style at times (pre-coffee? maybe).
Anyways, it's not the first time I've been accused of being somewhat abrasive, so I thought I'd give everyone a heads up on this potential. I ended up putting it under my location, I probably could fit it elsewhere, like as a signature, i've seen guys with pretty long signatures around here. I think my signature is long enough though, just enough to show my qualifications as an abrasive Mercedes mechanic. This way the potential for my abrasiveness doesn't get lost in the clutter too, but mainly I'm a computer klutz who also happens to be abrasive AND a Mercedes mechanic. The "since 1961" is just the year I was hatched.

Gilly

mushedroom · #41 08-27-2002, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TXBill

Re: Re: Wrecked in a Test Drive....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by airfoill

Randall,

Now come on. The car didn't lose control, you did. Take responsibility for your actions.

Herb

'82 240D
'87 300SDL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ditto.

__________________
Bill
COLOR]

TRIPLE DITTO

Jim Anderson · #42 08-27-2002, 04:30 PM

A guy goes into a hardware store asking for a saw that could cut a lot of wood. The salesman sells him a chain saw not knowing the guy didn’t know how to use one. The guy comes back complaining the chainsaw doesn’t cut worth a darn. So the salesman says “Let me try.” He starts it up, and the guy exclaims “What’s that noise?”

mushedroom · #43 08-27-2002, 05:09 PM

or worse,
the guy comes back with a law suit for the tool shop because he sawed his arm off...
who's at fault...
is the salesperson negligent for not expressly mapping out a How To?
or does negligence fall on the haunches of the customer who assumes his own responsibilities for his own actions or mistakes once he has left the premises of the store?

this goes back to the lawsuit where a customer won or at least won in a settlement from McDonalds whereas she scalded herself while driving with coffee after leaving the drive thru, and she won simply cause the lid did not give any hot coffee cautionary warnings or the like.....

however a chainsaw would more likely have all the warning stickers on it...if not the chainsaw manufacturer would mostlikely be liable for negligence in one factor....

now going to the car...

when i used to sell cars, our dealerships had a blanket coverage policy for theft, damage, abuse, etc.

whether the customer was at fault or not, the dealership automatically assumes liablity and responsibility under this blanket policy. now on the other hand if the customer was going well out of the reasonable limits of a standard test drive, with the noted objections of the salesperson, then said customer can be held liable and be sought after by a court of law for damages and responsibility, in which case said customer's current insurance policy should cover damages...

but for the most part i think the salesperson was just making sure to release the customer of being at fault only to verify that he/she did not outlandishly go out of his/her way to destroy or "joyride" the vehicle, in which case the dealership insurance covers all damages and will cover the damages of the explorer drive....

all that said, there is the headache factor that the explorer driver will have to endure and the salesperson could lose his/her job....

enjoy!!!!

-fad · #44 08-27-2002, 05:49 PM

appears quite clear:

>Subaru driver (operator) is at fault for operating the car in a manner which beheld the outcome:

the driver's action(s) moved the car over the road (whatever driving conditions happened to be present); the car did not move itself thus be the root cause to the accident, the weather itself did not move the car and be the root cause the accident (these are examples of 'contributing factors' to the accident along with with poor judgement, inadequate skill level, inadequate knowledge, etc.); the driver s/b licensed- which indicates a minimum vehicle operating skill level and knowledge level (applicable laws/ etc. in the driving test) to operate a vehicle;

...even though no report/ ticket/violation was issued by a law enforcement offical to the driver at the scene, this in itself does not absolutely indicate a final determination as to 'responsibility' (broadly defined)- - perhaps there was just not enough evidence at the scene to make a determine if any law was broken....

hopefully the auto dealership w/ have insurance to make themselves whole- - after all they own the car while its on the lot

best regards
-fad

mushedroom · #45 08-27-2002, 06:04 PM

true, driver is at fault but it is a burden of proof on the dealership's behalf to prove whether or not the test driver is a competent driver, and in releasing the car to be driven by such driver, it also accepts that said driver is a competent driver in which case it is the dealerships burden if said driver is in an accident.

it's kinda like falling down on someone's front lawn and impaling yourself on their sprinkler system...who's at fault? you for falling, or the property owner for not making the sprinker system safe...

in any event, in a court of law a defense attorney could easily argue that the dealership was negligent in it's judgement in releasing the car to be driven by said defendant, to which the court would rule in favor of the defendant.

but all in all that's what insurance is for...
and no dealership is allowed to run any business without blanket coverage insurance in the millions.

hope this helps...