Leaving your car at an airport and leaving it at a dealer are two totally different things...not a very good comparison. I dont see how were not all on his side(Rock) and some of you guys are defending the dealer.I was already pi$$ed when I read the thread starter...Id be furious if that happened to me.martimus said:
2005 Mustang GT Stolen from Ford Dealership
- Thread starter Rockriguez
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
martimus said:
I honestly believe you are simply ignorant of the liabilities body shops and repair shops take on when they retain a vehicle for repair, especially if it an expensive vehicle require extraordinary care. If these shops did not have any liability for the vehicles in their possession, they would not purchase insurance to cover themselves in case something did happen. I have NEVER entered a shop that had a sign that said something to the effect of "if your car is damaged or stolen, not our problem!"
They are not liable for material possessions INSIDE your car, though. That's your job to remove valuables before handing the car over. But the car itself IS their responsibility.
It is not impossible to show abnormal stress on a clutch, brakes, or tires. The judge may not even require evidence. Once he hears that the man was doing 0 - 85 MPH spints all over town, he may exercise common sense and award the money based on the fact that the car was severely abused. Who knows what other damaged may have occured? He may have been power shifting and grinding gears the whole way. The victim may need his synchros/gear linkage replaced in a couple hundred miles.
If he goes to court, rest assured he will get punitive damages due to gross negligence. The dealership is the one who screens and hires their personel. It's their job to hire and choose responsible individuals to handle a customer's car. It's their job to store the vehicle and keys in a safe and secure place, especially when dealing with a car that requires extraordinary care. Being that the perpetrator drove the car at 1 AM, they obviously failed miserably at this.
SVTdriver
Founding Member
martimus said:
I think there is at least a slight difference between testing the car for whatever problem it has. And getting 85mph speeding tickets at 1am. In car you clearly were not meant to be in that late. At least not when you job closed 7 hours earlier.
05SatinSilver
New Member
- Mar 30, 2005
- 69
- 0
- 0
OBleedingMe said:
I agree with this post, totally. If this was my car, I would most likely be in jail already, for killing the punk who took it. Then the manager, after he offered just a cleaning & a tank of gas. Plus, then he gets mad and brings up a lawyer.
NO WAY would I take Any of this laying down. I would have a lawyer already! Look at the vehicles this guy has bought from the same dealer. He is a Very good customer and because of his history with this dealer, I would think they would comply with his demands quickly, no questions asked! I'm not a sue happy person by any-means, and like most, I get sick-n-tired of the crap you hear on TV, of who is sueing who & for what! Most of it is Bull $hit, but in this case, NO WAY. The dealer is 100% liable for you car. I would demand the computer get checked for rev limiter hits, while I stook right next to them when they check-it! If he even hit it ONCE, that would be the end of the discussions! Make your list right there (whatever you feel is justifiable kie new tires, new clutch, etc..) and tell them, fix-it or we'll see you in court! Sometimes, you just have to say enough-is-enough. I'm just glad you car didn't get in an accident and I'm extremely glad it wasn't my car. Sorry man, I really feel for you.Dave...
The still unanswered question...What damages? Your tires I'm sure are not worn enough to tell, and one night of hard driving on the clutch isn't going to ruin it either. Plus they can rip it apart, and replace it under warranty if there is any. So until you have damages you have no case to sue. If you are worried about the clutch have them replace it under warranty, but they have been backordered. He didn't threaten with a lawyer. In this type of situation they must check with the lawyer to figure out what they are liable for, and that is perfectly understood. You came at him with large demands ($2k), and they must look at all options which includes talking to their lawyer.
I just reread your post. 60miles of driving...that's it. Have fun prooving damages.
I just reread your post. 60miles of driving...that's it. Have fun prooving damages.
05SatinSilver
New Member
- Mar 30, 2005
- 69
- 0
- 0
cdemot02 said:
Dude, are you for real? 
"60miles of driving...that's it." I'll tell you what, let me have your car for "just 60 miles". I'll be you I'll have a Real Good Time with it, and I WILL CAUSE some Serious damage to your ride! You won't see it, but IT WILL BE THERE. I'll grind those gears, dump that clutch (ALOT) burn those tires, power shift (and miss-shift a few time I'm sure) and have a BLAST. All at YOUR expense! Never mind, I just noticed this is your 2nd post
Dave...
'01SilverBullet
Founding Member
The dealer is 100% liable, espcially when their own employee commited the act. It doesn't matter what their sign says, they can still be held liable, and absolutely should in this case. I can put a sign on my car that says, "If I rear end you, I'm not liable for any damage." Then when I get sued, I'll say, "Hey I had a sign, plain as day on my car, I'm not liable." Of course I am liable, sign or not. A sign does not remove you from liability, if it you can be held rightly negligent. And in this case, it's not the beyond the bounds of normal thinking to expect your dealer to take reasonable care to protect your car while it's being serviced, and it's reasonable to think the car won't be stolen by an employee!
I'm no lawyer (my dad is), but I'm pretty sure I'm right about this. I should ask him just for the heck of it.
I'm no lawyer (my dad is), but I'm pretty sure I'm right about this. I should ask him just for the heck of it.
martimus
New Member
OBleedingMe said:
Maybe so... but then again maybe not. The only real test is to take the dealership to court. And I sadly doubt that the court will see things exactly as you do since they'll wait to hear ALL of the evidence rather than just one individuals perception. But I gotta say its funny too see how you'all seem to take your agressions out on the dealers and blow off the thought of getting compensation from the individual... kind of following the pack mentality that the dealership can better afford to compensate you so they're a more likely target.
'01SilverBullet
Founding Member
martimus said:
I have no compassion for either. This man's car was stolen from the dealer by an employee! Why would you have compassion for the dealer? They hired this person.
And no the court will not see things as you do, you are wrong here.
And I'd go after the individual too, although I'm not sure what you could get him for, except for an obvious criminal charge. The dealer is the one you'd go after for negligence, not this dope. It's funny how some of you think this is no big deal, "Oh it's just 60 miles, who cares." It's 60 miles of god knows what kind of driving by someone who basically stole your car from your dealer. Give me a break!
05SatinSilver
New Member
- Mar 30, 2005
- 69
- 0
- 0
martimus said:
Gee, I wonder why Frank Weir went after FORD, for the 'My Color issue? After all, Ford didn't make it, Delphia did! 
Maybe because he left the car with THE DEALER, and not with A$$ HOLE EMPLOYEE! Man, with your way of thinking, I guess I'm glad I'm "following the (other) pack"
Dave...
martimus
New Member
[QUOTE='01SilverBullet]I have no compassion for either. This man's car was stolen from the dealer by an employee! Why would you have compassion for the dealer? They hired this person.
And no the court will not see things as you do, you are wrong here.
And I'd go after the individual too, although I'm not sure what you could get him for, except for an obvious criminal charge. The dealer is the one you'd go after for negligence, not this dope. It's funny how some of you think this is no big deal, "Oh it's just 60 miles, who cares." It's 60 miles of god knows what kind of driving by someone who basically stole your car from your dealer. Give me a break![/QUOTE]
The court won't see things my way? Are you sure? Are you a judge? None of us will know exactly how the court will respond until the judge presiding over the case, or the jury assigned to the case, responds.
If you sue the individual, which you can under prevailing law, you may end up with title to their $3000 beater. But ya know what? $3K will pay for new brakes and tires. Given that we're talking Grand Theft the individual will likely find themselves in jail, its unlikely that they'll miss their car. Any loss incurred by the dealership will most likely be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
And no the court will not see things as you do, you are wrong here.
And I'd go after the individual too, although I'm not sure what you could get him for, except for an obvious criminal charge. The dealer is the one you'd go after for negligence, not this dope. It's funny how some of you think this is no big deal, "Oh it's just 60 miles, who cares." It's 60 miles of god knows what kind of driving by someone who basically stole your car from your dealer. Give me a break![/QUOTE]
The court won't see things my way? Are you sure? Are you a judge? None of us will know exactly how the court will respond until the judge presiding over the case, or the jury assigned to the case, responds.
If you sue the individual, which you can under prevailing law, you may end up with title to their $3000 beater. But ya know what? $3K will pay for new brakes and tires. Given that we're talking Grand Theft the individual will likely find themselves in jail, its unlikely that they'll miss their car. Any loss incurred by the dealership will most likely be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
martimus
New Member
05SatinSilver said:
Dave...
Yup... and thanks to Mr. Weir you and I are paying more for things from FORD. Glad to see you don't mind funding Mr. Weir's frivilous "Get Rich Quick" scheme!!!
Ask yourself: Why did the service manager fess up? Honesty? No. So he could offer you a pittance of a settlement, have you buy off, and then relieve himself of what he must see as a significant liability- you would have accepted the settlement, right?
Also- I would bet $$ that the service managers BOSS or the dealership owner were NOT told about this- and that the service manager is trying to hide what happened on his watch, with his employee, with some free service he can cover. You need to be talking with the owner- not an employee.
The facts:
1. It's a public record that the employee had the car after hours- therefore the dealer is liable for not maintaining reasonable control over a customer's car.
2. Ditto on the public record, the car was "abused" (speeding could be considered by definition "abuse" to the law- 80 MPH is "dangerous" otherwise why have the speed limit?)
3. The ONLY reason the car was taken was BECAUSE they had your keys. They are liable. They hired this bozo and are responsible for his actions. And they know it.
4. You have no way of determining what if any damage or wear was caused during that 60 miles. Inspect all you want, there is no way to measure it. You generously offered to allow for an extended warranty as your guarantee.
Any court would be 100% in your favor.
I would talk with the owner, and generously offer to pay them a reasonable per mile charge for the miles YOU put on the car ($ .20?). Then, they give you a NEW GT as a replacement.
Sounds ridiculous? It won't to a court of law, and their lawyer will tell them so. To them- they will know they can sell your car for near as much as they could have sold the replacement.
But only the dealership OWNER will see this for what it is- a clear case of negligence with some BIG ramifications- the media, the courts, the works.
Also- I would bet $$ that the service managers BOSS or the dealership owner were NOT told about this- and that the service manager is trying to hide what happened on his watch, with his employee, with some free service he can cover. You need to be talking with the owner- not an employee.
The facts:
1. It's a public record that the employee had the car after hours- therefore the dealer is liable for not maintaining reasonable control over a customer's car.
2. Ditto on the public record, the car was "abused" (speeding could be considered by definition "abuse" to the law- 80 MPH is "dangerous" otherwise why have the speed limit?)
3. The ONLY reason the car was taken was BECAUSE they had your keys. They are liable. They hired this bozo and are responsible for his actions. And they know it.
4. You have no way of determining what if any damage or wear was caused during that 60 miles. Inspect all you want, there is no way to measure it. You generously offered to allow for an extended warranty as your guarantee.
Any court would be 100% in your favor.
I would talk with the owner, and generously offer to pay them a reasonable per mile charge for the miles YOU put on the car ($ .20?). Then, they give you a NEW GT as a replacement.
Sounds ridiculous? It won't to a court of law, and their lawyer will tell them so. To them- they will know they can sell your car for near as much as they could have sold the replacement.
But only the dealership OWNER will see this for what it is- a clear case of negligence with some BIG ramifications- the media, the courts, the works.
sociopath5.0
New Member
Its called "vicarious liability". The employer is liable for the actions of his employee for actions taken within the scope of employment OR foreseeable acts taken by the employee. Countless cases exist upholding the dealer's liability for negligence, theft, assault, battery, and damage to customer property when the employee breaks the law. Since the 05 is a desirable car and a hot commodity, it is very foreseeable that an employee might steal it for a joyride or another person might steal it for various reasons. Regardless, the dealer should have taken the simple precaution of locking the car up inside at night or placing it in a secure lot. The dealer failed their customer, and they need to compensate him properly. Car washes and oil changes just dont cut it. An extended warranty and tire and clutch replacement are justified, especially considering the multiple vehicles the man has bought form the dealer. Anything less would be an insult.
MyBlueOval
New Member
- Apr 3, 2005
- 24
- 0
- 0
I've got 2 cents
I have 2 cents so here's my take on the matter:
1) Your dealership is responsible for the action of its employees
2) Asking for an extended warranty is reasonable because you don't know how hard the car was driven (hard, I'm sure)
3) Asking for cash compensation is not reasonable. You should look at the tires and ask for them to be replaced if there is any evidence of wear
4) The employee who took the car should be a) fired and b) prosecuted if a crime was commited. No dealership does 85 MPH test drives at 1 am in the morning.
I have 2 cents so here's my take on the matter:
1) Your dealership is responsible for the action of its employees
2) Asking for an extended warranty is reasonable because you don't know how hard the car was driven (hard, I'm sure)
3) Asking for cash compensation is not reasonable. You should look at the tires and ask for them to be replaced if there is any evidence of wear
4) The employee who took the car should be a) fired and b) prosecuted if a crime was commited. No dealership does 85 MPH test drives at 1 am in the morning.
cdemot02 said:
You've got to be kidding..."2k = large demands"....puhleeeeze! There is another issue involved here that you're conveniently overlooking - principle. As a matter of freakin' principle, one should be able to leave their car a a dealership without it ending up in the hands of some a-hole employee. The dealership is responsible, period. As far as him proving damages - the facts speak for themselves.
