A bad day at work and another frivolous law suit

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't understand the statement by the plaintiff's attorney that the business can't be sued for negligence. Of course you can sue your employer for unsafe work practices. A man died because the dealership did not have adequate training and qualification for its employees and/or safety equipment in place.
In Canada no-one can sue the employer if the worker is covered by Workers' Compensation. That arises from the "historic compromise" where employers agreed to pay all costs for workers' compensation (which covers all medical costs, rehabilitation, and disability) in return for immunity from civil suits. The workplace health and safety regulator can fine the employer and bring charges against negligent individuals.

A death is covered by a grant to cover funeral costs and support for dependents (financial support of children to age 18 or so, and training or retraining and/or financial support of a spouse). Payment for pain and suffering is made if there is some period between injury and death, generally not if death occurs in the event.

Every province has different programs but the systems are quite similar.
 
This was also in the Off Topic forum.

 
In Canada no-one can sue the employer if the worker is covered by Workers' Compensation. That arises from the "historic compromise" where employers agreed to pay all costs for workers' compensation (which covers all medical costs, rehabilitation, and disability) in return for immunity from civil suits. The workplace health and safety regulator can fine the employer and bring charges against negligent individuals.

A death is covered by a grant to cover funeral costs and support for dependents (financial support of children to age 18 or so, and training or retraining and/or financial support of a spouse). Payment for pain and suffering is made if there is some period between injury and death, generally not if death occurs in the event.

Every province has different programs but the systems are quite similar.
Wow. Didn't know that.
 
Won’t be necessary for the second one…



He depressed the clutch. Is having the stick in neutral to start a new thing?

From what I remember on my manuals.. if it is in first, which some do to help keep the car from moving (not leave it in neutral and employ the e-brake...) .. it will move with the turning of the engine when the starter tries to start the car.
 
The legal system is flawed, this should be news to no one. Some people literally look for restaurants to fall in.. or ATMs without a notice of fees, to sue...

Me, I have a case, I could go after a fraudster Mobile Mechanic in Ohio employing the "High Moral Standards" scam on Internets, for failure to perform services rendered (? I'm saying that wrong. Asking for, and getting, payment, for some service never done under the agreement, I have a receipt through CashApp and it states what was supposed to be done. He lied) problem is, it is not worth my time nor gas money.. and the judgement would not be worth the paper it is printed on.

The people at the dealership should have been able to safely move a car with a manual? That's just without reading the article, Yahoo does not present the article, they want me to click something.

When I worked at an auction, as a car jockey... they liked that I knew how to drive a stick. I liked the GT500... I wish I coulda bought it myself.
 
From what I remember on my manuals.. if it is in first, which some do to help keep the car from moving (not leave it in neutral and employ the e-brake...) .. it will move with the turning of the engine when the starter tries to start the car.
If you're saying without pressing the clutch pedal, then that's a design safety issue. Can't believe any auto maker in the last 40 years would do a design like that.

In the dealership accident case, the guy depressed the clutch pedal to start the engine when it was in 1st gear, then let the clutch out. He did not put the transmission in neutral before starting the engine.
 
Any car can move inadvertently when the engine is started, so the first thing to do is check for people who may be directly in front or behind it and get them to move clear.

The interesting thing here is that a guy standing directly in front of the car ignored that rule and told the other guy to start it, and somehow he's the victim now, and dead, someone else needs to be blamed.
 
Last edited:
If you're saying without pressing the clutch pedal, then that's a design safety issue. Can't believe any auto maker in the last 40 years would do a design like that.

In the dealership accident case, the guy depressed the clutch pedal to start the engine when it was in 1st gear, then let the clutch out. He did not put the transmission in neutral before starting the engine.

Its possible I had a defective (BMW or Volkswagen, maybe) but I thought there was a time an errant key bump from an 18 or 19-year old schwinney made the car lurch forward. Its possible I'm misremembering but.. I remember one time cringing. The VW needed a new clutch, the BMW ended up stolen. I sometimes wish I could undo stuff but.. looking forward not back. I have a fleet of vehicles liked up if ever.

The error sounds like the employee should have known the car would move if clutch let out while it in any kind of gear on the H-pattern not neutral. Apparently, the Michigan law makes that not the fault of the person doing it. Are we to interpret our own laws? This could probably fill pages and pages. Movies frequently portray the Cobra, name your "dirty cop" that will "get results" because they "know" types.... in this case, sounds like actual application of the actual law for what happened make the vehicle owner on the hook. IANAL.
 
the Michigan law makes that not the fault of the person doing it.
This is a general principle of workplace law. While someone is on a job doing work they were assigned to do, they are not personally liable for accidents.
 
My daughter drives a 2011 manual car and it does not need to be in neutral to start the engine, only that you depress the clutch. You get used to this so you quickly jump into the car and depress the clutch, crank it up, and immediately let out the clutch. Some times a surprise is waiting for you are you lurch forward.
I would have thought by 2019 this safety concern would have been addressed and in this case, someone's life could have been saved.
I don’t see how it as a safety concern, people have to have a little common sense. Everything can’t be full proof safe.
 
Just following orders, right?
It's not always easy to say no to your boss if he makes you do unsafe stuff. Such laws are there to prevent businesses from forcing their workers to do unsafe or illegal stuff and afterwards put all blame on the worker if it goes bad. It's a good law., as the boss has the power to make a worker stop doing stupid stuff if he wants to.
 
I don't know of any manual transmission car or truck with a neutral safety switch. The safety switch is on the clutch pedal.

Several 1980s-1990s Getrag and ZF manual transmissions, typically used on European cars, had neutral safety switches.
They used the same type of switch as the reverse circuit. Sometimes it was exactly the same switch connector, which could lead to mistaken wiring. (Only starts in reverse, reverse lights on when in neutral.)

I'm guessing that there are few enough manual transmissions now that they all have similar switches.

Clutch pedals now typically have both start-of-travel and disengaged switches. The start-of-travel switch is used to disengage cruise control and to alert the ECU for emissions control/rev-limit/rev-matching.
 
When I worked at a tune-up shop, a tech had backed a VW Beetle into the shop, up to the big engine analyzer.

The employee had left it in R and had not set the parking brake.

The lead mechanic, assuming the car had been left in N, reached through the open window and turned the key, intending to let the engine idle while he hooked up the scope.

The car started in gear and lurched back. We got it shut down before it got too far, but it did damage the tool tray that hung under the scope. No damage to the car, fortunately!

We should have had a standard process for setting parking brakes, checking to ensure the car is in N, etc.

Clutch switches for MT cars were just coming in then - I saw the wisdom of them that day.
 
When I worked at a tune-up shop, a tech had backed a VW Beetle into the shop, up to the big engine analyzer.

The employee had left it in R and had not set the parking brake.

The lead mechanic, assuming the car had been left in N, reached through the open window and turned the key, intending to let the engine idle while he hooked up the scope.

The car started in gear and lurched back. We got it shut down before it got too far, but it did damage the tool tray that hung under the scope. No damage to the car, fortunately!

We should have had a standard process for setting parking brakes, checking to ensure the car is in N, etc.

Clutch switches for MT cars were just coming in then - I saw the wisdom of them that day.

Yep, I had a VW as well which is why I reported,

If it is not in N and is in gear you turn the key it will lurch with the turning of the engine.

I never did that again.

Many like to leave it in a forward drive gear AND put the parking brake up, I'll always e-brake it but also in Neutral, extra safety step.. been in auto cars that won't start unless you press the brake pedal, as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top