City employee hits her own car; sues city

[British Prussia]

But whats up with the US litigation culture - you guys seem to sue for everything. Has it lead to a psyche of entitlement and non-responsibility for ones own indiscretions



Thats a great idea. May be go all out and fire her for misuse of her employers vehicle

Canada had a woman sue the people she hit with a car for causing mental anguish.

Seriously? I'd expect that from the Americans but not from the Canadians...

[Galloism]

Does the city not have vehicle insurance on its vehicles?

I'm not sure what's so strange about this. At the time of the accident, she was a city worker driving an official city vehicle. If she had hit anybody else's car, they could sue the city for damages. What makes her so special?

[Purpelia]

Does the city not have vehicle insurance on its vehicles?

I'm not sure what's so strange about this. At the time of the accident, she was a city worker driving an official city vehicle. If she had hit anybody else's car, they could sue the city for damages. What makes her so special?

The special case here is that she brought it up on her self. Basically you should not be allowed to be the victim and the perpetrator in the same case. And get off suing someone else for damages.

[Galloism]

Does the city not have vehicle insurance on its vehicles?

I'm not sure what's so strange about this. At the time of the accident, she was a city worker driving an official city vehicle. If she had hit anybody else's car, they could sue the city for damages. What makes her so special?

The special case here is that she brought it up on her self. Basically you should not be allowed to be the victim and the perpetrator in the same case. And get off suing someone else for damages.

I'll give you another example.

Let's say I own the "We Move Your Sh!t" moving company, a C-Corporation. It has exactly one employee: me. In the process of parking the moving van, I inadvertently back into my Camaro.

Both the company's moving van and my Camaro are insured, but with two different insurance companies. They also have two different policy holders (I hold the policy on the Camaro, and the company holds the policy on the moving van). Now, which insurance company has to pay, my personal policy on the Camaro, or the policy which was holding the insurance on the vehicle and driver that caused the damage, the company policy?

[Purpelia]

I'll give you another example.

Let's say I own the "We Move Your Sh!t" moving company, a C-Corporation. It has exactly one employee: me. In the process of parking the moving van, I inadvertently back into my Camaro.

Both the company's moving van and my Camaro are insured, but with two different insurance companies. They also have two different policy holders (I hold the policy on the Camaro, and the company holds the policy on the moving van). Now, which insurance company has to pay, my personal policy on the Camaro, or the policy which was holding the insurance on the vehicle and driver that caused the damage, the company policy?

Exactly. It opens things up to abuse. It only gets worse if you are employed by someone else. You could damage your own property and than make back the damage with interest by suing your employer. I am a communist, and even I think that is unfair.

[Pope Joan]

I'll give you another example.

Let's say I own the "We Move Your Sh!t" moving company, a C-Corporation. It has exactly one employee: me. In the process of parking the moving van, I inadvertently back into my Camaro.

Both the company's moving van and my Camaro are insured, but with two different insurance companies. They also have two different policy holders (I hold the policy on the Camaro, and the company holds the policy on the moving van). Now, which insurance company has to pay, my personal policy on the Camaro, or the policy which was holding the insurance on the vehicle and driver that caused the damage, the company policy?

Exactly. It opens things up to abuse. It only gets worse if you are employed by someone else. You could damage your own property and than make back the damage with interest by suing your employer. I am a communist, and even I think that is unfair.

I rarely feel sorry for insurance companies (especially AIG and Prudential), but in this case I'd make an exception.

[Galloism]

I'll give you another example.

Let's say I own the "We Move Your Sh!t" moving company, a C-Corporation. It has exactly one employee: me. In the process of parking the moving van, I inadvertently back into my Camaro.

Both the company's moving van and my Camaro are insured, but with two different insurance companies. They also have two different policy holders (I hold the policy on the Camaro, and the company holds the policy on the moving van). Now, which insurance company has to pay, my personal policy on the Camaro, or the policy which was holding the insurance on the vehicle and driver that caused the damage, the company policy?

Exactly. It opens things up to abuse. It only gets worse if you are employed by someone else. You could damage your own property and than make back the damage with interest by suing your employer. I am a communist, and even I think that is unfair.

Now I wasn't saying that's the abuse: I'm asking you a question.

[Purpelia]

Now I wasn't saying that's the abuse: I'm asking you a question.

Well legally speaking the answer would depend on where the incident happens. And given that I am not a driver I can not tell you what the laws are where I am from.

[Galloism]

Now I wasn't saying that's the abuse: I'm asking you a question.

Well legally speaking the answer would depend on where the incident happens. And given that I am not a driver I can not tell you what the laws are where I am from.

We'll say the company parking lot, which both employees of the company park and the company vehicles are parked.

... seems like a logical place.

[Purpelia]

Well legally speaking the answer would depend on where the incident happens. And given that I am not a driver I can not tell you what the laws are where I am from.

We'll say the company parking lot, which both employees of the company park and the company vehicles are parked.

... seems like a logical place.

As I said, it depends on where you are. If I remember right legally the one paying should be the one ensuring the vehicle which caused the incident. And any other conditions do not or at least should not matter. Or was that the other way around. Does your insurance provide payment for damages caused to you in this case? Really, it does not matter one bit. Because in these cases both sides are representing the same person.

And that is actually a major point here. The same person. The fact that the companies are ensuring different pieces of a persons property is irrelevant because the whole thing is the fault of the same person receiving payment.

[Galloism]

We'll say the company parking lot, which both employees of the company park and the company vehicles are parked.

... seems like a logical place.

As I said, it depends on where you are. If I remember right legally the one paying should be the one ensuring the vehicle which caused the incident. And any other conditions do not or at least should not matter.

So, in my example, the moving van caused the accident. Therefore, the company insurance should pay to fix my personal vehicle.

Now, what if instead of it being me that caused the accident, let's say I have other employees and it was one of the employees hitting my car with the company moving van. Does that change things?

[Galter Gulcher]

YAYYY!!!!!!!!!! I am in the majority

[Purpelia]

As I said, it depends on where you are. If I remember right legally the one paying should be the one ensuring the vehicle which caused the incident. And any other conditions do not or at least should not matter.

So, in my example, the moving van caused the accident. Therefore, the company insurance should pay to fix my personal vehicle.

Now, what if instead of it being me that caused the accident, let's say I have other employees and it was one of the employees hitting my car with the company moving van. Does that change things?

Absolutely. If its not the same person doing the actual damage than the case is perfectly fine. In fact, forget your company. Say it were two employees in your company and one used a company van to hit another ones private vehicle. Again, the damaged one should be able to sue and get compensation just fine. Unless of course you can prove they arranged it to make for an insurance fraud.

My only problem is when you do damage to something you insured as well. It's kind of like taking life insurance and shooting your self for the money.

[Galloism]

So, in my example, the moving van caused the accident. Therefore, the company insurance should pay to fix my personal vehicle.

Now, what if instead of it being me that caused the accident, let's say I have other employees and it was one of the employees hitting my car with the company moving van. Does that change things?

Absolutely. If its not the same person doing the actual damage than the case is perfectly fine. In fact, forget your company. Say it were two employees in your company and one used a company van to hit another ones private vehicle. Again, the damaged one should be able to sue and get compensation just fine. Unless of course you can prove they arranged it to make for an insurance fraud.

So what's the difference in them hitting their own vehicle while engaged in company business, if you can't prove he/she arranged it to make for insurance fraud?

[Purpelia]

So what's the difference in them hitting their own vehicle while engaged in company business, if you can't prove he/she arranged it to make for insurance fraud?

The difference is that when you have two people you can reasonably try and make a case that they either did or did not arrange it. But with one person everything is happening inside your head and nowhere else. Thus no one can ever prove you did it on purpose. Thus you can get away with it 100% of the time.

[Washington Resistance Army]

This shit can't be real? Someone tell me this isn't real.

[Galloism]

So what's the difference in them hitting their own vehicle while engaged in company business, if you can't prove he/she arranged it to make for insurance fraud?

The difference is that when you have two people you can reasonably try and make a case that they either did or did not arrange it. But with one person everything is happening inside your head and nowhere else. Thus no one can ever prove you did it on purpose. Thus you can get away with it 100% of the time.

Of course, a person can be disciplined or fired for causing an accident in a company vehicle - intended or not.

Seems like a pretty big risk to take for less than $2,000 in damages.

[Purpelia]

Of course, a person can be disciplined or fired for causing an accident in a company vehicle - intended or not.

Seems like a pretty big risk to take for less than $2,000 in damages.

It's the principal that counts. The actual values in question do not matter one bit. Especially in a screwed up system like the american one where past judgments seem to count more than the letter of the law.


Also, there is the fact that I feel no person should ever be compensated for doing damage to him self or his own property through negligence. It encourages stupidity, negligence and unsafe behavior among the population by removing consequence from ones actions. And is thus unfit for a society of future socialist humans.

[Digital Planets]

[Cyrisnia]

This is stupid beyond all belief.

[Galloism]

Of course, a person can be disciplined or fired for causing an accident in a company vehicle - intended or not.

Seems like a pretty big risk to take for less than $2,000 in damages.

It's the principal that counts. The actual values in question do not matter one bit.

Also, there is the fact that I feel no person should ever be compensated for doing damage to him self or his own property through negligence. It encourages stupidity, negligence and unsafe behavior among the population. And is thus unfit for a society of future socialist humans.

The principle is, that when you are an employee engaged in company business driving a company vehicle, you are acting as that company's agent. As the company's agent, the company generally holds most liability (exceptions exist for things that are intentional, and either illegal and against company policy and practice). This would logically extend even when you are the victim of your own mistake.

[Purpelia]

The principle is, that when you are an employee engaged in company business driving a company vehicle, you are acting as that company's agent. As the company's agent, the company generally holds most liability (exceptions exist for things that are intentional, and either illegal and against company policy and practice). This would logically extend even when you are the victim of your own mistake.

And this is where I feel the line needs to be drawn. No one should be protected from the consequences of their own negligence. It breeds complacency and stupidity among people.

[Galloism]

The principle is, that when you are an employee engaged in company business driving a company vehicle, you are acting as that company's agent. As the company's agent, the company generally holds most liability (exceptions exist for things that are intentional, and either illegal and against company policy and practice). This would logically extend even when you are the victim of your own mistake.

And this is where I feel the line needs to be drawn. No one should be protected from the consequences of their own negligence.

So there should be no such thing as full coverage on a vehicle?

[Purpelia]

So there should be no such thing as full coverage on a vehicle?

As far as I am concerned. When a car accident happens the person that caused it should newer get any compensation. That should be his punishment for being bad.

[Galloism]

So there should be no such thing as full coverage on a vehicle?

As far as I am concerned. When a car accident happens the person that caused it should newer get any compensation. That should be his punishment for being bad.

So full coverage on a vehicle is bad.

Wow. This is new!