SUA July 2012 PC&D

[Earl Weiss]

The July 2012 issue of Professional Car Washing and Detailing page 8-9 has a news item about a sudden unintended acceleration accident at a car wash.

This involved a customer in their Toyota.

Reported issue involves whether the wash could have done more to protect people from out of control cars. It states others named in the suit, the driver and Toyota have settled and been dismissed.

My insurance carrier just settled a similar case. Our industry and the insurance carriers need to vigorously defend such claims.

Any instance where cars and pedestrians interact has some potential issues. Car washes are no more likely to have such issues and probably less likely.

Establishing precedent of non liability will make the industry a less likely target in the future.

 

[robert roman]

Based on my knowledge of this tragic accident, it would take more than lip service to establish precedent of non liability.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Based on my knowledge of this tragic accident, it would take more than lip service to establish precedent of non liability.

Sorry, for being obtuse. By precedent I mean "Legal precedent" for the unititated this means that the case(s) need to be defended succesfuly at the trial court and appelate court levels. Decisions at the appellate levels when "printed / reported" serve as niding higher authority on the courts of that jurisdictikon and if no such higher court of the same jurisdiction has ruled may be viewed as non binding advisory opinions.

Having cases go to verdict and fighting appeals is expensive so Insurance carriers may settle to conserve expenses. However, in the long run it can serve as money well invested.

 

[robert roman]

The fact that most parties settle out of court doesn’t make it more likely these issues would occur more often at car washes.

Most vigorously defend such claims only if it makes sense, are they in the right. Even then, sometimes it doesn’t pay to go verdict.

 

[mjwalsh]

Sorry, for being obtuse. By precedent I mean "Legal precedent" for the unititated this means that the case(s) need to be defended succesfuly at the trial court and appelate court levels. Decisions at the appellate levels when "printed / reported" serve as niding higher authority on the courts of that jurisdictikon and if no such higher court of the same jurisdiction has ruled may be viewed as non binding advisory opinions.

Having cases go to verdict and fighting appeals is expensive so Insurance carriers may settle to conserve expenses. However, in the long run it can serve as money well invested.

Earl, Robert & others,

I agree. What makes an extra tough reality is when the more powerful whoever won't listen to reason. My dear dad used to say "the bigger they are ... the harder they fall" which is one way of looking at it.

mike walsh king koin of bismarck

 

[Earl Weiss]

The fact that most parties settle out of court doesn’t make it more likely these issues would occur more often at car washes.

Most vigorously defend such claims only if it makes sense, are they in the right. Even then, sometimes it doesn’t pay to go verdict.

OK, my thoughts must not be clear.

Of course:
A. Settlement has nothing to do with likelyhood.
B. Defend onlif you are in the right
C. Here's the biggy- going to verdict and subsequent appeal is always costly and in the short run may be more costly than settlement. However, by going thru the expense to establish legal precedent the returns on that investment can be perpetual.