Car owner who left Jeep at dealership gets sued after worker dies during oil change

MOUNT CLEMENS, Mich. (FOX 2) - A man takes his car for an oil change and gets sued - after his car was involved in a deadly accident killing a worker while at the dealership.

On March 13, 2020, the customer took his car to the Rochester Hills Chrysler Jeep Dodge dealership and a young 19-year-old mechanic attempted to change the oil. But something terrible happened.

"He starts the car, removes his foot from the clutch, and you know what happens? The Jeep jumps and kills my client," said attorney David Femminineo.

The vehicle hit and killed employee Jeffrey Hawkins, a married 42-year-old, father of four, and a lifelong mechanic.

"He was an excellent man," Femminineo said. "The 2-year-old who was about 1 at the time of the accident, the time of the death, he'll never know his father."

Mr. Hawkins died instantly in the accident.

FOX 2: "Did the 19-year-old know how to drive a stick?"

"He didn't know how to drive a stick, and he had no license," the attorney said.

FOX 2: "Why did the dealership hire him?"

"That's what I'd like to know," Femminineo said.

But hold on one minute -

FOX 2: "You must be suing the dealership?"

"We can't because of a legal standard that is involved," the lawyer said.

That's because the accident happened at work and involved two employees and you can't sue the boss in that situation.

RELATED: Here's why a Jeep owner was sued after a dealership employee was killed during oil change

But attorney David Femminineo claims that the person responsible is the owner of the car.

FOX 2: "You're suing the owner of the car who's getting his oil changed who did nothing in this case?"

"I have to do that," Femminineo said.

That's the law. FOX 2 reached out to the car owner's attorney - but he had no comment on pending litigation, other than to say he's going to fight this case in a trial at the end of May.

"When you hand your car over to anybody including the valet or the person at the service desk at your local dealership, you better be able to trust that person," the attorney said.

https://www.fox2detroit.com/ne...es-during-oil-change

quote:

That's because the accident happened at work and involved two employees and you can't sue the boss in that situation.

Huh? Even in a case of negligence/recklessness, where the boss/company hired someone without the skills or licensing to drive a car, for a job that required driving a car, and then provided no training for driving a car before expecting them to drive a car, resulting in another employee being killed when they attempted to drive a car?

Piece of shit lawyers.

There are days I wish I went to law school. This is now one of them because I'm having trouble understanding how the dealer can't be sued while the vehicle owner can.

I can certainly understand why the 19yo who killed the 42yo isn't being sued. No money.

It varies from state to state of course, but generally speaking, as far as I’m aware, in most states in order to overcome the fellow servant rule, there has to be a showing of gross negligence, which is quite a high bar. That said, assuming that’s actually the law in Michigan, I’d be pursuing that action. I don’t see how allowing an unlicensed individual to drive cars is anything BUT gross negligence, unless it wasn’t actually part of his job description.

The deceased still has a death claim under the state workers’ comp statute.

As for suing the owner… negligent entrustment? That’s a stretch if ever there was one, but may also be a quirk of ensuring coverage under other policies of insurance under MI law.

A Michigan attorney could better explain what’s going on here, but it’s not necessarily as outrageous as it seems - at least in the sense that it may not have anything at all to do with a “greedy POS lawyer” and everything to do with the laws and insurance policies involved.

-Rob

quote:

fellow servant rule

Fellow Servant Rule Law and Legal Definition
Fellow servant rule is a common law doctrine that barred or reduced the amount of money an injured employee could recover against an employer if an injury was caused solely by the negligence of a fellow worker. An injured employee had to bring a cause for action against the fellow employee causing the injury, not the employer. It absolves an employer from liability to one engaged in his/her employment for injuries incurred or suffered solely as the result of the negligence, carelessness, or misconduct of others who are in the service of the employer and who are engaged in the same common or general employment as the injured employee. Workers Compensation laws have nullified the rule for job-related injuries.

The short story is, Employer can't be sued, 19 year old has no money, only pockets the family of the deceased have access to are those of the owner of the vehicle involved, and, that owners insurance.

Remains to be seen if the jeep owner has any recourse against the dealer, perhaps negligence for allowing untrained workers to operate the vehicle.

Call Morgan and Morgan, For the Money...

Moral is, never buy a stick shift, and change your own oil

Anyone can sue, doesn't mean they will win.

And people wonder why people go nuts with automatic rifles from a third floor window.

I've heard a lot of dumb things today. They've now been eclipsed.

That's a disgusting abuse of the legal system as far as I'm concerned.

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
A Michigan attorney could better explain what’s going on here, but it’s not necessarily as outrageous as it seems - at least in the sense that it may not have anything at all to do with a “greedy POS lawyer” and everything to do with the laws and insurance policies involved.

-Rob

I can’t remember any of the actual details, but I do remember coming across news articles about a few lawsuits where everybody involved (the person doing the suing, the person being sued, and the insurance company) all agreed that the lawsuit was stupid, but that SOMEBODY had to be sued for an insurance payout to happen, and the only person they could come up with to sue made absolutely no sense outside the convoluted legal and contractual bullshit associated with the situation.

What are the options for the car owner in this situation? Hire an attorney to defend them?

Suppose they only had liability insurance on the vehicle. Would their insurance do anything or is it all up to the owner to pay for an attorney?

Time to dust off the ol' Kill Dozer. Hope the lawyers firm is leveled first.

Work comp is "sole remedy" in Michigan, so all the family gets from the employer is the work comp death benefits (generally 80% of after-tax pay for 500 weeks plus some other stuff).
That's why he can't sue the dealership. The only work around that would be if it was an intention act - which it wasn't.

I bet the Jeep owner's insurance company will fight this all the way. No one wants to set a precedent on paying out anything on a bullshit claim like this.
Hopefully this gets tossed on a motion of summary judgment.

To say that giving your car to a reputable dealership is negligent entrustment is beyond thin. Pedestrain PIP benefits might be a possibility - but just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I'm sorry, this is 100% bullshit and a greedy move - either on the family or the attorney's part.

quote:

Originally posted by bryan11:
What are the options for the car owner in this situation? Hire an attorney to defend them?

Suppose they only had liability insurance on the vehicle. Would their insurance do anything or is it all up to the owner to pay for an attorney?

Actually, it's the liability part of his auto policy that will defend him.
The Jeep owner is only SOL if he doesn't have insurance.

So cars have now entered the realm of certain states firearms rules. Someone steals, or in this case temporarily transfers custody of a vehicle, and said party in possession kills someone with it, and just like that you get sued.

Perfect. Next time a neighbor comes over to borrow a cup of sugar and then goes into a diabetic coma and dies I get sued. Great plan. Personal responsibility is on life support.

quote:

Originally posted by highroundcount:

Perfect. Next time a neighbor comes over to borrow a cup of sugar and then goes into a diabetic coma and dies I get sued. Great plan.

Just download a release and hold harmless agreement and have them sign it...

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

quote:

Originally posted by highroundcount:

Perfect. Next time a neighbor comes over to borrow a cup of sugar and then goes into a diabetic coma and dies I get sued. Great plan.

Just download a release and hold harmless agreement and have them sign it...

So more paperwork. Should I get that in triplicate?

Just remind them to press hard on the triple carbon copies while filling it out and signing.

Could be the fellow servant rule, but I think that is abrogated in many states. Even still, if the employer did something negligent, like putting a non-manual transmission driving employee in charge of driving manual transmission vehicles, then you can sue the employer even if the fellow servant rule applies.

What is probably going on is a bar against suit because of the worker's compensation system. The dead guy gets workers-comp money, but can't sue.

Suing the owner is going no where, at least as far as this lawyer sees it. In fact, I would venture to say that suing the owner of the car is getting that lawyer close to sanction territory.

I take back that last paragraph, now that I know how this works in that state.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jhe888,