I'm not in the repair business, and I own no TSLA stock; I have no incentive to peddle FUD, and actively support right to repair. Crucially, right to repair does not mean an absence of or indemnification from liability.
Funny, that's exactly what I did.
> I'm reiterating the opinion they provided
So am I.
I repair and modify things, typically light commercial vehicles and the equipment mounted to or towed by them. I work on the economic low end of the market so I get all the stuff that real shops want nothing to do with and have had to consider how liable I am for my work. I have had these sorts of discussions in a non-professional context (i.e no money changed hands) with an attorney who specializes in businesses in social services settings (so the advice is probably biased toward whatever he finds his clients defending against most often) and aside from the typical disclaimers[0][1][2][3][4][5] that any responsible lawyer will give you I feel confident enough in my analysis that I put my money where my mouth is making similiar repairs in my day to day life.
The general gist of things is that for a successful lawsuit there has to be some evidence that the work you performed caused the injury and even if so there then also needs to be a precedent of strict liability or you would to have had to do something negligent or check the boxes for some other tort, but I've been advised negligence is the one you really have to watch out for in a professional setting. Negligence is a fuzzy concept but it suffices to say that proving it to the standard required for a civil suit would be a very uphill battle for a reasonably standard repair procedure performed in a reasonably standard setting.
Strict liability scares me far more than a lawsuit arising out of alleged negligence. I can do good, defensible work and stand by it. I cannot know all the areas of law where strict liability may be an issue. I cannot control whether my customers use the things I have repaired for them in a strict liability context (e.g. fumigation, overhead lifting) which could make my party to a lawsuit.
No I didn't pay for the advice but for the volume and riskiness of work I do I'm content.
[0] if you're not paying for it it's not legal advice
[1] nobody can make guarantees about what will happen in court
[2] you have the wrong demographics to get sympathy from judges in this state, they'll expect you to know better than to cut corners so don't cut corners
[3] bad facts, bad case law, hope your malpractice kills a skinhead and not a single mother or you'll be the case law
[4] just defending yourself can be no more than a consultation fee or it can be ruinously expensive
[5] if a megacorp or the state sues you everything goes out the window because the playing field is so unlevel.
CA is a joint and several liability state. Joint and several liability is the legal doctrine that each defendant in a personal injury claim may be held responsible for ALL the victim's economic damages. Importantly this can occur if you are fractionally at fault.
You've parked 10 feet off the side of the freeway, 16 feet away from any lane. Someone is going 80 miles an hour, passing cars, then (likely) falls asleep and veers sharply off the road, then along the side of the road and hits your parked truck.
Even though you are fractionally at fault you are on the hook for everything.
From actually seeing cases first hand
1) If you have money
2) you have a connection to an accident however small, particularly a fatal one, and very particularly with any kind of sympathetic angle (wife and children bereaved and at risk of being homeless etc
then you will be named in the lawsuit. And at least in CA - even if the husband was 90% at fault (to a normal person the one who did things wrong). YOU could pay out everything
You're definitely not wrong, "don't be the only party with the money" was one of the things my law professor drilled into us but for a consumer getting their car (or whatever) repaired they don't really have to worry about being the guy with the money since any shop will have a ton of money via insurance and insurance will have a ton of practice defending frivolous claims.
I also forgot the "anyone can sue anyone for anything, doesn't mean they win, doesn't mean it won't cost you money to fight them" disclaimer.
This is unique in CA - other party can be 90% at fault - so you’d think they’d have to pay (some states do whoever is 51%+ pays). But you can actually be the one paying rather than getting paid even if they hit you.
No its not, its the pure comparative fault rule followed by 13 states.
> - other party can be 90% at fault - so you’d think they’d have to pay
And you’d be right, if you suffered damages. If they were 90% responsible and you were 10% responsible, they’d have to suffer 9× the compensible injury that you did to net anything, because California is a pure comparative fault state.
> (some states do whoever is 51%+ pays).
Incorrect.
Some states do each of:
* Whoever is >0% at fault cannot collect from other parties (pure contributory negligence).
* Whoever is at least 50% at fault cannot collect from other parties (one modified comparative fault rule.)
* Whoever is at least 51% at fault cannot collect from other parties (another modified comparative fault rule.)
None require 51% fault to be required to pay.
Husband / driver falls asleep at the wheel while trying to speed home (going 70-80MPH). Weaves and then veers sharply off the freeway, hitting a parked vehicle parked well clear of the roadway and killing themselves, damaging the parked vehicle and causing pain and suffering to driver of parked vehicle.
Wife and family brings suit against driver and company owning parked vehicle for damages including funeral and burial costs, unreimbursed medical expenses, other out-of-pocket expenses, loss of income and financial support, loss of insurance coverage, loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support.
Questions you may wish to consider.
Family bringing case has no money - there is no chance of collection. Guy falling asleep and running off the road was only source of income.
Company owning parked vehicle has money - there is a high chance of collection on any judgement.
Who will pay out in CA. The guy causing the situation by running off the road and smashing into a parked vehicle at 80 MPH? Or the company owning the vehicle he smashed into.
In CA - the answer may surprise you. And the size of awards may surprise you.
Most states are either joint and several liability states or (more commonly, and as California actually is), modified joint and several liability states.
> And at least in CA - even if the husband was 90% at fault (to a normal person the one who did things wrong). YOU could pay out everything.
No, because California is also a comparative fault state, so if the decedent (for wrongful death claims) abd/or plaintiff (for any claims) is 90% responsible, other actors who might be jointly (for economic damages) or severally (for non-economic damages) liable would only be liable for up to a total of 10% of the resulting damages (any tortfeasor for the full amount under joint liability, or the amount of their proportionate responsibility for several liability.)
It is important to note that you can then sue the other at fault parties for whatever you had to pay that was above your fair share.
For example if I'm 90% at fault and you are 10% at fault in something that causes $1 million damages to someone and they come after you and win $1 million, you can turn around and sue me for for $900k.
I might not have $900k and so you might still end up screwed but in that case it is either you who gets screwed or the person you and I injured, and the idea behind joint and several liability is if we have to screw someone it should not be someone who was at fault.
Another part you are forgetting is these are often designed to save govt money. Should a rich person slightly involved pick up the tab, or should the kids be homeless and costing $ in social services kind of thing.
Note though that YOU can be the one 90% at fault and the person you hit has to pay if you are broke (wife will sue because you died ) Ralph’s grocery caught this type of case all the way and lost
The rest either have pure joint and several liability in which each defendant is responsible for the full amount of damages (Alabama, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia), or like California have modified joint and several liability in which defendants above some threshold fault percentage are responsible for the full amount of damages (Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin).