Originally Posted by Javelin
I see what you are saying... but I am not hearing any logic. They made a false claim
Whether an employer is liable for the criminal actions of his or her employee depend very much on the details of the act. I don't know enough about this particular act to know whether or not the dealership should be made to pay.
More to the point, unless someone in this thread is privy to details that the rest of us are not, neither is anyone else.
When my guy got drunk and drove a car through a house, the dealership's insurance paid the liability claim. That was a clear case--he was driving a dealership-owned car, so anything he hit while he was driving the car, the dealership was liable for.
If he'd driven his dealership-owned car to someone's house and assaulted that person, the dealership would NOT have been responsible, in any way. If the person who was assaulted chose to sue the dealership, and the story made the news, the GT crowd would be up in arms about how sue-happy the country is.
All I'm asking is that people stop and think for a second before calling for blood. Is that really too much to ask?