Originally Posted by devildog2067
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?
I think that his lawyer has a case against both to be honest. But the money is with the dealership so that's probably where the interests in litigation will be emphasized.
As far as sue-crazy... well that's just the world we live in and there is nothing the GT community or anyone else is going to have much say in.
Disclaimer: This writer is not a lawyer. This product is meant for entertainment and fan or political fiction purposes only and writer accepts no liability. All material should be considered as infotainment only. Writer does not own any characters, topics or subject matter in this story. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is for entertainment only. If rash, irritation, redness, or swelling develops, discontinue reading immediately and consult your physician.