they've just been applied to car leasing. When you own something, you have some responsibilities/liabilities. You own a house, you're required to maintain it according to some code set for the common good. You own a swimming pool, you're required to do certain things for the common good - like control access. You own a cow, you're required to keep it off the highway. You own a car, you're required to use some descretion in who you permit to use it; you give the keys to your alky brother, your partly responsible when he maims somebody. You own and lease a commercial building, you're partially liable if somebody slips and falls. That's just the way it is. So, what's the big whine? The rules that generally apply have been applied - to the special case of auto leasing. When you hold people to their responsibilities, the small spirited ones whine. Will leasing change? Makes sense to me that it would. Will legislation be passed exempting auto lessors from some responsibilities of ownership? Perhaps.
There are always risks involved when money is to be gained. When you buy stock, you get a pretty decent return but risk that the company might go out of business. When you go to work and get paid the next week, you take the risk that your employer may not make payroll. When you withdraw cash from the ATM, you take the risk that your government may become insolvent and your paper money becomes worthless.
A Company getting out of the leasing biz is simply an economic decision. The risk is too great for the potential gain. They aren't being babies about it - it's simply a smart business decision. If they stayed in the leasing business, it could even be considered irresponsible and if they are a public company they may even open themselves up to shareholder lawsuits because of it.
If the legislature holds an emergency session and passes a law absolving the company of some of the risk, it is not a case of business buying laws or anything like that. The citizens that those lawmakers represent would like to continue leasing, and this is the only way to allow that to happen.
This is nothing more than a case of too much risk for the potential gain, and the company realizing that their money is better invested elsewhere. You would do the same thing 100 times out of 100.
It's incredibly insane to think that a leasing company should be responsible, but the law says that they are, so that is just the way it is (for now). There are tons of unjust laws out there, this may be one of them. That doesn't change the fact that leasing is no long as profitable for these companies, and they aren't as interested in doing it anymore.
The best course of action, obviously, is for people who wanted to lease but now cant to call up their senators and reps and complain that some dumb law scared all the leasing companies away.
To sheild Rental car cos......NY enacted a law and surcharge on your personal auto insurance so YOU are liable for any damage etc. on any car you rent anywhere in the 50 states ! Your NY insurance is primary, auto rental cos. insurance is secondary, and credit card coverage is 3rd in line to pay. Of course the rental companies don't tell you this to suck you into THEIR extra insurance coverage....Which they won't have pay anything out of their pockets if you have a accident......
Same deal if you are test driving a car from a dealer....Thats why here in NY they want a copy of your DL and insurance card info. YOU SMASH.....Your personal insurance PAYS !..............
NY enacted another law so your motorcycle insurance WILL NOT cover your medical bills if you have an accident. But they WILL pay for your passenger, m/c, or any one elses property you damage ! Lots of m/c guys have been registering their m/cs in Penn. to get personal body coverage on themselves............
started to "interview" potential customers to determine who is responsible enough to lease to, those same lawyers would sue them for discrimination. Time to make Atlas Shrugged required reading.
zero percent always hurts leasing....but here in Connecticut we had 20+ different independant leasing companies fighting for your business....This does not include the manufacturer leasing sources like GMAC or ford credit, honda finance who were forced to be very compativive. Now, due to potential liabilities every non-mfg leasing company has left the state. When the competition left, so did the reason to be aggresive with lease pricing.
never said that I had all the answers..I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one. I just differ from you on my view of this. I am also not a business owner, so that probably taints my view also. Its just funny to me that when any change that might introduce a little more risk or cost to a business, they fold their tent and go home. I am sure it makes great business sense to do so. Its like in grade school when the whole class got punished because the teacher could not figure out who the trouble maker was. Do leasing companies think every lease they do they will get sued? Probably not, but just in case for that one in a thousand that they do, we just won't do any leases.
I agree with what rivertown said. The leasing companies want all the benefits of OWNING the car, but none of the responsibilities. I do not see any benefit from these lawsuits for consumers, to answer your question, but the leasing company is making the assumption that something bad is going to happen before it ever does. I have never liked leasing personally, and this just points to one more problem that leasing involves, IMHO.
You never cease to amaze me. I'd be interested to hear what you think a business, any business, exists for? It appears from your posts that you believe them to be some sort of social agency.
You make decisions for yourself based on risk and potential returns so why don't you think a business should be able to make the same decisions? If the stock market becomes too volatile for your comfort level and you put your savings into a guaranteed investment instead are you "folding your tent" or "picking up your ball and going home"?
This antiquated law is only in place in a handful of states. As liability lawsuits have skyrocketed into Multi-million dollar awards it certainly does not represent a small increase in the costs of doing business. Also, Leasing companies certainly don't get any benefit from "owning" the car other than the interest they charge. This is no different than if they finance a sale. There is actually quite a risk of them losing money on the lease if the vehicle is not worth a lot at lease turn in. Many companies stopped leasing after they lost their butts on inflated residuals when these vehicles went to auction.
most leasing companies now cover themselves with a form of residual insurance so there is very little risk of losing anything at the end of the lease. I believed just what you posted above, until i was better educated here on edmunds by some of the pro's.
This is pretty funny.. I'm reading this in the sales office right now and we have 2 customers, 2 salespeople, and 1 other manager reading this and laughing their butts off also.
Signed,
Bill, Howard, Nick, Carl, Mr and Mrs Epstein and Mr Trantolo
The persons who benefit directly from liability lawsuits are the folks injured by the actions of others (and their attorneys). The rest of us benefit indirectly when others are held to account for their responsibilities. We don't have to pay to clean up a mess we neither created nor benefitted from, and the general prevalence of damaging actions drops. If a guy with a DUI can't lease a car, for example, we're all better off.
This is as goofy as McDonalds getting sued because some parent fed his kid mcdonalds everyday and they are shocked that the kid got fat.....now it's mcdonalds fault.
Leasing companies didnt just decide to bail because they "might" get sued....Chase Manhattan just lost a case in Rhode Island to the tune of $41 million dollars. This is just one of the many cases that already have been paid out to ambulance chasers.
let's see...no benefit to the consumer, much higher leasing prices, and huge financial windfalls for lawyers....you seem to think this is great. Oh well. I have come to the conslusion that you just post to be the opposite of what any dealer say. Don't let the facts of something stand in the way of your opinions.
I am really not trying to be argumentative with you or anyone else about this. In fact i was starting to fell like it was beat up on masspector day for some reason.
I do not think that these lawsuits are great. And for the most part I agree that they are not good and that the awards are overblown. I just find it curious that these same leasing companies did plenty of leases in the past with no problems when THIS law was on the books then. The law did not change, so why stop doing leases?
It's always more lucrative to sue the deeper pockets. If Joe Public plows his leased Corvette through a red light and T-bones a family of 5 in a minivan and kills 3 of them, why sue the driver who doesn't have the cash or future income to pay a suitable legal decision, when you can sue GM (assuming that they will write off the expense if they lose)?
Keeping on-topic in terms of things automotive... a lawsuit is cropping up here in metro NYC where the family of a gas station attendant is suing ExxonMobil for poor security (the attendant was working graveyard by himself and was robbed and killed). ExMob replied by saying it's the station owner's responsibility, but that owner is not on the complaint as defendant. Just like in the auto leasing situation, the lawyers are suing the brand name with the deep pockets instead of the human responsible for the tragedy.
Problem with the vicarious liability laws and leasing is simple... leasing was heavily promoted and became way too popular. Customers loved the low payments, manufacturers saw it as a way to move more vehicles as prices increased, and banks wrote off the depreciation against their taxes. Win-win-win. No one paid much attention to the fact that it was the bank's name on the title/registration and was required to be listed as co-insured on the insurance policy.
thank you for an excellent to the point post. Maybe I am not the only crazy one here, according to others.
Your last paragraph sums it up nicely. As long as money was falling from the sky, everyone loved it. When joe public is wronged and might get some of that falling money, all the sudden everything changes. Things that make you go, hum.
Lawyers don't file suit, greedy clients do, with the help of lawyers. Talk about personal responsiblity; it rests with the client.
I don't agree with the concept of vicarious liability either, it's stupid. There is nothing the leasing companies can do to make an accident not happen, so there is no redeeming value here.
The McDonald's thing is on a whole 'nuther level. They cannot throw billions of $$ into advertising to entice people, especially kids, to eat their crap and then tell us it's 100% everyone's personal responsibility. It's not that I think it's all McD's fault, but I would argue they share some of the blame. Advertising works, that's why it's such big business.
It's a great legal system if you assume that the money awarded in these cases just comes out of thin air. It doesn't.
I think lawyers should be banned from taking cases ona a contingency basis, as they are in Europe. And I think that the loser should pay for court costs and some of the legal costs of the winning side. Just like in Europe. Then allow groups to sue as legal entities, like in Japan. Voila: a Justice system that makes sense and is less of a free-for-all for shysters.
Hey, with all Republicans in charge, tort reform is of the highest priority. Last I heard, they were going to tackle that as soon as the Democrats weren't in the way. Riiiiiiight.
It looks to me like this wonderful system is likely to continue... and Auto Leasing really is not all that big a deal in the big picture. That law will probably be changed soon.
A car is leased to a guy that has a previous criminal record for:
DUI drugs of any kind hit and run or deliberately running over someone with their car (like that lady that ran over her husband 3 times with the Mercedes because he had an affair)
Then they do a similar thing again. The leasing company could have found out about that record and refused to lease them a car but they didn't. Shouldn't they have known better? What would you do it it were your wife killed a person like this? I hate frivolous lawsuits like the McDonalds fat or hot coffee suits but I don't know how I would react if some guy with multiple DUIs killed my wife.
After re-reading the previous 40 or so posts I'm still confused by some of the posters examples. How much of a background check are the leasing companies required to do? Perfunctory? Detailed? How detailed? You work in a bar so when you had a DUI in the leased vehicle and caused an accident even though up to now you had a clean record the leasing company should have known you were pre disposed to this. I know this is a far out example but how much is too much? If you own a home as a rental and rent it out and the person has good credit and no criminal history and then they use it as a meth lab is the landlord responsible? I understand where several of you are coming from (not agree but understand:-) but this is a real slippery slope and it goes away from personal responsibility rather than placing the blame on the person who actually did the deed. Whew that's a lot for just my .02 worth.:-)
The Leasing company has a lot more than the driver. If a lawyer felt like he could go after the manufacturer or dealer, he might try to do that too. He has the most probabilty of being successful because the leasing company is still technically the owner when the incident happens.
As far as the background check it comes down to what's reasonable. A criminal background check is reasonable. There is no link of bartenders to DUIs. Don't know where that one comes from. They do a credit check. Why is a criminal background check too much to expect?
...to lease a car?? C'mon now BO. And who decides what the limit is? Hmmm, convicted of shoplifting a 12 pack when he was 21. That shouldn't be a problem - he's 47 now and been clean ever since. Wait, wait it says here he drove off in a car - nope nope nope can't have that. He just might run somebody over, or have an accident, or maybe offend somebody.
Leasing companies are leaving those states because the risk factor has changed. The risk of an award based on vicarious liability was lower before. Now that risk is too great for them. Yeah it's their ball (their capital) so they can take it home.
Let's take it one step further. Is GE Capital, one of the biggest leasing companies around, liable for a rail car they own that happens to part of a derailed train? Or for an office chair that breaks.
Here in MA, a case is going to court next week that really extends vicarious liability. A telephone worker and his employer (then Nynex now Verizon) are being sued by the family of a girl who was hit by a car. The worker stopped the then Nynex van he was driving in the left lane when he saw the girl and a friend standing on the double yellow line on a main 4 lane road and outside a crosswalk. They crossed in front of him and were hit by a car passing in the right hand lane. According to a witness in a car behind the one passing on the right, the Nynex worker waved the girls across. Nynex specifically had a rule in their manual about waving pedestrians across. The lawyer for the plaintif is claiming that the Nynex worker now had a personal duty to ensure the safty of the girls all the way across the street. By extension, Nynex did as well since they owned the truck. Hmmm maybe they don't, they just lease. And since the Ny in Nynex stood for New York, then Chase is really responsible.
Oh and the driver that hit her is not on the complaint.
If the plaintiff prevails, I guess we won't be letting anyone cross in front of us.
A criminal background check would be useless. Simply having some kind of criminal record would not prevent any car sale from going through. There is, to my knowledge, no law or regulation preventing a felon, convicted or not, from owning a car.
A conviction might keep them from getting a driver's license, but it won't stop them from buying a car. So why run a check on every buyer?
Back to McDonalds for a minute. Envision this...a 200-pound guy goes to McDonalds and buys a Jumbo McGrease Giganto Meal to go. Is McDonalds supposed to know that the guy used to weigh 400 pounds and will stroke out and have a heart attack if ever eats one more bite of high-lard-content heart-valve putty? I don't think it is their problem. (Disclaimer: I once made $1.15 an hour turning 100-pound bags of spuds into fries for McD's. That was when they still used honest to God animal fat in the fry vats. Yummmmmmm. Really, rally good. And the shakes weren't pre-mixed either.)
And that hot coffee case? If she'd wanted iced coffee see should have ordered iced coffee. Stupidity is still legal, isn't it?
Nobody ever promised me that life would be safe and cozy or that there would always be someone there to keep me from doing something foolish. And I keep getting more and more aggravated by people who demand that somebody pay when life doesn't go their way.
Life...a do-it-yourself experience.)
John
P.S. - Years ago a pickup hauling a soda machine pulled up next to a city bus at a light downtown near city hall. The machine fell over in the bed with a bang and a handful of folks on the bus tried to file claims for injuries sustained in the "wreck". There were rumors at the time that 2 of the folks actually got on the bus after hearing the crash.
This is about leasing. No one is talking about buying. When you buy a car, your name goes on the title, you are responsible for the maintenance and you keep the car as long as you want, drive it as much as you want and sell it whenever you want.
When you lease, the leasee is on the title and thereby can be construed by a lawyer and judge to be the owner of the car. The criminal background check would protect the leasee against liability.
Thee concept of a background check is an interesting idea, if you follow it to the conclusion. Think about it, when you apply for most auto insurance today, they do a check of your record to try and assess the risk of your policy. In addition, most insurers do a credit check..and an adverse score can cause a denial (it happend to me, by about 10 lousy points).
So its all about risk assessmnet. Definately imperfect..but I suppose it eleimates the most aggregious deadbeats and nut jobs.
The second step would be for the leasing company to have the lessee sign an indemnification, (no I have no idea about the legality of this), which would state that the lessee would be responsible for defending any lawusits, and they would mandate certain levels of liability insurance each year of the lease.
Im sure there are plenty of holes in this idea, but the whole liability problem bothers me. I mean, a guy leases a honda. He goes out, gets drunk, and God forbid kills someone. Up until then his driving record has been fine. How is Honda possibly liable? If the car had a material defect, that mught be different.
The two answers to this problem in my view are one, legislate the lessor's liability into oblivion, or require sufficient liability insurance on the lessee's part that there is money "in the pot" that can be sued for in case of an accident.
I did not know that insurance companies ran credit checks. Did you sign something to authorize that check? I am not up on this because I have been with my insurer for almost 20 years.
"...or require sufficient liability insurance on the lessee's part that there is money "in the pot" that can be sued for in case of an accident."
And how many of us would be willing to pay for a policy that may cover a $41 million judgement? That simply passes the liability onto an insurer - another deep pocket for the plaintiff to chase if the leasing company isn't available.
you guys are missing a salient point here. As I understand it, leasing has become less profitable in recent years for a variety of reasons none of which I really understand. The reduced financial returns from automoble leasing coupled with ridicilous damage awards against the deep pockets, has apparently led GMAC et al to terminate lease programs in NYS and other vicarious liability states because the bottom line is being, or may be,threatened even more. The NYS legislature has a long record of taking care of special interests. The only question here is whether the trial lawyers or the leasing companies are more able to afford their definition of "justice". I must say I continue to be fascinated by the energy some folks put into being disagreeable on these boards. Have a nice day everyone.
oh yeah, I can see the consumer reaction when a car dealer tells them they must run a criminal backgroud check on them before they can lease a car....This would be even a bigger bonanza for lawyers than viacarious liability. Look at all the issues of running credit reports, which usually tell the story better than a criminal record anyway....
Also, in the huge percentage of vicarious cases the driver of the leased car was not drunk or anything bad...it's usually just an everyday accident that happens. The kind of acident that could happen to anyone.
where some of you think background checks should be required before you sell or lease a car to someone. Anyone ever sold a $1000 car to the neighbor? You gonna do a background check on the buyer? Are your pockets deeper than the 17 year old that bought your old car? This is off the deep end folks.
I have many neighbors that work at the BMW plant. Most of the BMWs are leased. Leases become less competitive. BMW lays off 200. 200 or 300 more stop spending because they're afraid they're next. These 400 or 500 don't spend at Wal*Mart, or Home Depot, or they don't buy a new Ford or Chevy or whatever. Etc, etc, etc.
We all benefit from a good, robust, expanding economy and damaging the leasing market will not help the economy.
Long live the free market system where we have access to capital.
is not even on the radar screen of the discussion. If you were to LEASE a car to your neighbor, it might apply. Damaging the leasing market is what is happening w/o the background check. This check could be done by the leasing company and the Dealer/salesman would not even have to get involved.
YUP....... Everytime you renew your insurance, change a car etc. (In most cases) Mr. Insurance co. runs a credit check and a C.L.U.E. report. The CLUE report shows any claims, DL record, etc. on you or ANY insurance cos. you use/have used. No difference if its your house, car, boat, etc.
Thats another way of setting your rates ! Ya can't hide from that CLUE report or credit report..........
"I must say I continue to be fascinated by the energy some folks put into being disagreeable on these boards."
I hear that. Apparantly whatever viewpoint a dealership employee espouses, BigOrange and Rivertown are immediately against it, and argue what is usually a ridiculous rebuttal. I've been reading Edmund's for years and post very infrequently, because I have very little to add THAT IS ON TOPIC and I don't wish to clutter the board up.
This specific forum, along with "Inconsiderate Buyers", are meant for Q&A with dealership employees and their stories. Those two need to go buy a car or something.
Comments
When you own something, you have some responsibilities/liabilities.
You own a house, you're required to maintain it according to some code set for the common good. You own a swimming pool, you're required to do certain things for the common good - like control access. You own a cow, you're required to keep it off the highway. You own a car, you're required to use some descretion in who you permit to use it; you give the keys to your alky brother, your partly responsible when he maims somebody. You own and lease a commercial building, you're partially liable if somebody slips and falls. That's just the way it is.
So, what's the big whine? The rules that generally apply have been applied - to the special case of auto leasing. When you hold people to their responsibilities, the small spirited ones whine.
Will leasing change? Makes sense to me that it would.
Will legislation be passed exempting auto lessors from some responsibilities of ownership? Perhaps.
A Company getting out of the leasing biz is simply an economic decision. The risk is too great for the potential gain. They aren't being babies about it - it's simply a smart business decision. If they stayed in the leasing business, it could even be considered irresponsible and if they are a public company they may even open themselves up to shareholder lawsuits because of it.
If the legislature holds an emergency session and passes a law absolving the company of some of the risk, it is not a case of business buying laws or anything like that. The citizens that those lawmakers represent would like to continue leasing, and this is the only way to allow that to happen.
This is nothing more than a case of too much risk for the potential gain, and the company realizing that their money is better invested elsewhere. You would do the same thing 100 times out of 100.
The best course of action, obviously, is for people who wanted to lease but now cant to call up their senators and reps and complain that some dumb law scared all the leasing companies away.
Probably due to low or zero finance rates plus cutback in company auto leases.
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Your NY insurance is primary, auto rental cos. insurance is secondary, and credit card coverage is 3rd in line to pay.
Of course the rental companies don't tell you this to suck you into THEIR extra insurance coverage....Which they won't have pay anything out of their pockets if you have a accident......
Same deal if you are test driving a car from a dealer....Thats why here in NY they want a copy of your DL and insurance card info.
YOU SMASH.....Your personal insurance PAYS !..............
NY enacted another law so your motorcycle insurance WILL NOT cover your medical bills if you have an accident.
But they WILL pay for your passenger, m/c, or any one elses property you damage !
Lots of m/c guys have been registering their m/cs in Penn. to get personal body coverage on themselves............
LAWYERS and lawsuits...........sheesh!!!!!!!!!
I agree with what rivertown said. The leasing companies want all the benefits of OWNING the car, but none of the responsibilities. I do not see any benefit from these lawsuits for consumers, to answer your question, but the leasing company is making the assumption that something bad is going to happen before it ever does. I have never liked leasing personally, and this just points to one more problem that leasing involves, IMHO.
You make decisions for yourself based on risk and potential returns so why don't you think a business should be able to make the same decisions? If the stock market becomes too volatile for your comfort level and you put your savings into a guaranteed investment instead are you "folding your tent" or "picking up your ball and going home"?
This is pretty funny.. I'm reading this in the sales office right now and we have 2 customers, 2 salespeople, and 1 other manager reading this and laughing their butts off also.
Signed,
Bill, Howard, Nick, Carl, Mr and Mrs Epstein and Mr Trantolo
If a guy with a DUI can't lease a car, for example, we're all better off.
But a $41,000,000 Judgement? Are they sniffing glue?
This is as goofy as McDonalds getting sued because some parent fed his kid mcdonalds everyday and they are shocked that the kid got fat.....now it's mcdonalds fault.
Leasing companies didnt just decide to bail because they "might" get sued....Chase Manhattan just lost a case in Rhode Island to the tune of $41 million dollars. This is just one of the many cases that already have been paid out to ambulance chasers.
let's see...no benefit to the consumer, much higher leasing prices, and huge financial windfalls for lawyers....you seem to think this is great. Oh well. I have come to the conslusion that you just post to be the opposite of what any dealer say. Don't let the facts of something stand in the way of your opinions.
I do not think that these lawsuits are great. And for the most part I agree that they are not good and that the awards are overblown. I just find it curious that these same leasing companies did plenty of leases in the past with no problems when THIS law was on the books then. The law did not change, so why stop doing leases?
Keeping on-topic in terms of things automotive... a lawsuit is cropping up here in metro NYC where the family of a gas station attendant is suing ExxonMobil for poor security (the attendant was working graveyard by himself and was robbed and killed). ExMob replied by saying it's the station owner's responsibility, but that owner is not on the complaint as defendant. Just like in the auto leasing situation, the lawyers are suing the brand name with the deep pockets instead of the human responsible for the tragedy.
Problem with the vicarious liability laws and leasing is simple... leasing was heavily promoted and became way too popular. Customers loved the low payments, manufacturers saw it as a way to move more vehicles as prices increased, and banks wrote off the depreciation against their taxes. Win-win-win. No one paid much attention to the fact that it was the bank's name on the title/registration and was required to be listed as co-insured on the insurance policy.
The lawyers noticed.
kcram
Host
Smart Shopper and FWI Message Boards
Your last paragraph sums it up nicely. As long as money was falling from the sky, everyone loved it. When joe public is wronged and might get some of that falling money, all the sudden everything changes. Things that make you go, hum.
kcram's last sentence says it all...
"the lawyers noticed"
Should have said..." The GREEDY lawyers noticed!"
I don't agree with the concept of vicarious liability either, it's stupid. There is nothing the leasing companies can do to make an accident not happen, so there is no redeeming value here.
The McDonald's thing is on a whole 'nuther level. They cannot throw billions of $$ into advertising to entice people, especially kids, to eat their crap and then tell us it's 100% everyone's personal responsibility. It's not that I think it's all McD's fault, but I would argue they share some of the blame. Advertising works, that's why it's such big business.
It's a great legal system if you assume that the money awarded in these cases just comes out of thin air. It doesn't.
I think lawyers should be banned from taking cases ona a contingency basis, as they are in Europe. And I think that the loser should pay for court costs and some of the legal costs of the winning side. Just like in Europe. Then allow groups to sue as legal entities, like in Japan. Voila: a Justice system that makes sense and is less of a free-for-all for shysters.
Hey, with all Republicans in charge, tort reform is of the highest priority. Last I heard, they were going to tackle that as soon as the Democrats weren't in the way. Riiiiiiight.
It looks to me like this wonderful system is likely to continue... and Auto Leasing really is not all that big a deal in the big picture. That law will probably be changed soon.
-Mathias
East Lansing, MI
DUI
drugs of any kind
hit and run or
deliberately running over someone with their car (like that lady that ran over her husband 3 times with the Mercedes because he had an affair)
Then they do a similar thing again. The leasing company could have found out about that record and refused to lease them a car but they didn't. Shouldn't they have known better? What would you do it it were your wife killed a person like this? I hate frivolous lawsuits like the McDonalds fat or hot coffee suits but I don't know how I would react if some guy with multiple DUIs killed my wife.
How much of a background check are the leasing companies required to do? Perfunctory? Detailed? How detailed? You work in a bar so when you had a DUI in the leased vehicle and caused an accident even though up to now you had a clean record the leasing company should have known you were pre disposed to this. I know this is a far out example but how much is too much?
If you own a home as a rental and rent it out and the person has good credit and no criminal history and then they use it as a meth lab is the landlord responsible?
I understand where several of you are coming from (not agree but understand:-) but this is a real slippery slope and it goes away from personal responsibility rather than placing the blame on the person who actually did the deed.
Whew that's a lot for just my .02 worth.:-)
This is really getting silly, guys!
-Mathias
As far as the background check it comes down to what's reasonable. A criminal background check is reasonable. There is no link of bartenders to DUIs. Don't know where that one comes from. They do a credit check. Why is a criminal background check too much to expect?
Leasing companies are leaving those states because the risk factor has changed. The risk of an award based on vicarious liability was lower before. Now that risk is too great for them. Yeah it's their ball (their capital) so they can take it home.
Let's take it one step further. Is GE Capital, one of the biggest leasing companies around, liable for a rail car they own that happens to part of a derailed train? Or for an office chair that breaks.
Here in MA, a case is going to court next week that really extends vicarious liability. A telephone worker and his employer (then Nynex now Verizon) are being sued by the family of a girl who was hit by a car. The worker stopped the then Nynex van he was driving in the left lane when he saw the girl and a friend standing on the double yellow line on a main 4 lane road and outside a crosswalk. They crossed in front of him and were hit by a car passing in the right hand lane. According to a witness in a car behind the one passing on the right, the Nynex worker waved the girls across. Nynex specifically had a rule in their manual about waving pedestrians across. The lawyer for the plaintif is claiming that the Nynex worker now had a personal duty to ensure the safty of the girls all the way across the street. By extension, Nynex did as well since they owned the truck. Hmmm maybe they don't, they just lease. And since the Ny in Nynex stood for New York, then Chase is really responsible.
Oh and the driver that hit her is not on the complaint.
If the plaintiff prevails, I guess we won't be letting anyone cross in front of us.
A conviction might keep them from getting a driver's license, but it won't stop them from buying a car. So why run a check on every buyer?
Back to McDonalds for a minute. Envision this...a 200-pound guy goes to McDonalds and buys a Jumbo McGrease Giganto Meal to go. Is McDonalds supposed to know that the guy used to weigh 400 pounds and will stroke out and have a heart attack if ever eats one more bite of high-lard-content heart-valve putty? I don't think it is their problem.
(Disclaimer: I once made $1.15 an hour turning 100-pound bags of spuds into fries for McD's. That was when they still used honest to God animal fat in the fry vats. Yummmmmmm. Really, rally good. And the shakes weren't pre-mixed either.)
And that hot coffee case? If she'd wanted iced coffee see should have ordered iced coffee. Stupidity is still legal, isn't it?
Nobody ever promised me that life would be safe and cozy or that there would always be someone there to keep me from doing something foolish. And I keep getting more and more aggravated by people who demand that somebody pay when life doesn't go their way.
Life...a do-it-yourself experience.)
John
P.S. - Years ago a pickup hauling a soda machine pulled up next to a city bus at a light downtown near city hall. The machine fell over in the bed with a bang and a handful of folks on the bus tried to file claims for injuries sustained in the "wreck". There were rumors at the time that 2 of the folks actually got on the bus after hearing the crash.
When you lease, the leasee is on the title and thereby can be construed by a lawyer and judge to be the owner of the car. The criminal background check would protect the leasee against liability.
Thee concept of a background check is an interesting idea, if you follow it to the conclusion. Think about it, when you apply for most auto insurance today, they do a check of your record to try and assess the risk of your policy. In addition, most insurers do a credit check..and an adverse score can cause a denial (it happend to me, by about 10 lousy points).
So its all about risk assessmnet. Definately imperfect..but I suppose it eleimates the most aggregious deadbeats and nut jobs.
The second step would be for the leasing company to have the lessee sign an indemnification, (no I have no idea about the legality of this), which would state that the lessee would be responsible for defending any lawusits, and they would mandate certain levels of liability insurance each year of the lease.
Im sure there are plenty of holes in this idea, but the whole liability problem bothers me. I mean, a guy leases a honda. He goes out, gets drunk, and God forbid kills someone. Up until then his driving record has been fine. How is Honda possibly liable? If the car had a material defect, that mught be different.
The two answers to this problem in my view are one, legislate the lessor's liability into oblivion, or require sufficient liability insurance on the lessee's part that there is money "in the pot" that can be sued for in case of an accident.
And how many of us would be willing to pay for a policy that may cover a $41 million judgement? That simply passes the liability onto an insurer - another deep pocket for the plaintiff to chase if the leasing company isn't available.
I must say I continue to be fascinated by the energy some folks put into being disagreeable on these boards. Have a nice day everyone.
Also, in the huge percentage of vicarious cases the driver of the leased car was not drunk or anything bad...it's usually just an everyday accident that happens. The kind of acident that could happen to anyone.
I have many neighbors that work at the BMW plant. Most of the BMWs are leased. Leases become less competitive. BMW lays off 200. 200 or 300 more stop spending because they're afraid they're next. These 400 or 500 don't spend at Wal*Mart, or Home Depot, or they don't buy a new Ford or Chevy or whatever. Etc, etc, etc.
We all benefit from a good, robust, expanding economy and damaging the leasing market will not help the economy.
Long live the free market system where we have access to capital.
Jack
Lawyers follow money like fire follows gasoline.
change a car etc. (In most cases) Mr. Insurance co. runs a credit check and a C.L.U.E. report.
The CLUE report shows any claims, DL record, etc.
on you or ANY insurance cos. you use/have used.
No difference if its your house, car, boat, etc.
Thats another way of setting your rates !
Ya can't hide from that CLUE report or credit report..........
KINLEY: Whats clue stand for again?
I hear that. Apparantly whatever viewpoint a dealership employee espouses, BigOrange and Rivertown are immediately against it, and argue what is usually a ridiculous rebuttal. I've been reading Edmund's for years and post very infrequently, because I have very little to add THAT IS ON TOPIC and I don't wish to clutter the board up.
This specific forum, along with "Inconsiderate Buyers", are meant for Q&A with dealership employees and their stories. Those two need to go buy a car or something.