Tech caught abusing customer's Ford Cobra (1 Viewer)

[Steve Schaffer]

Stopping at the bank in a customer's car is unprofessional and uncalled for--I agree and never do it. But we are talking about stopping at the bank, not screwing in the back seat, not burning up the freeway at 140mph, not smoking cigars in an asthmatic customer's car.

I think there are way too many people hiding greed behind principles in this society, grasping at straws to get a quick unearned windfall via frivolous lawsuits and raising the costs of goods and services for everyone else.

My 401k has been decimated by crooked CEOs and failed government regulators, my trust has been violated a hell of a lot more than if someone took my car to the bank during a test drive-- where's my 6 figure settlement?

 

[Jeremy Illingworth]

Sorry to tell you guys but if you have car that has gotten repaired, it has been hot rodded around a little.

I'm never going to feel safe about taking my 79 Cougar in for service again. Who knows what those mechanics are doing with all 135 hp?

jeremy

 

[Mark C Sherman]

I needed some body work done on my car a few months back. I was going to be out of town for a week so I ask My brother if he could Drop it off for me. He took my car and About 5 minutes later he called me from his house saying that my car handles great at 140. Man I hope I get 6 figures out of him.

 

[MickeS]

That just about sums up the problem.

/Mike

 

[Charles J P]

I think that some of you moaning about frivolous law suits are ignoring the concept of punitive damages (on purpose or because you really don't understand). The point is not necessarily to make the plaintiff rich, but rather to make the defendant pay if found guilty. The plaintiff getting rich is just a nice side effect. As it has been discussed, if the money went to the state or someone else, who the hell would bother to sue??? Then these big companies would get away with murder because the person actually effected would have no reason to try to punish the wrong-doer. Since this is a movie forum, what would have happened with PG&E if the plaintiffs didn't have a chance at collecting much more money then their actual medical bills? The bulk of what they were awarded was not for medical bills, but was punitive damages to PG&E

As far as the 112,000 goes, it depends if that was exactly what the plaintiff asked for or if he asked for a new car, and the judge awarded him that money instead, as a punishment to the dealership.

Many of say you don't think that punitive damages should go to the plaintiff, (which is about as political a statement as many others I've seen threads closed over, but...) but like I said, that's the way the system works right now.

If you knew that a person sued asking for a new car, but the judge decided to grant him 2X the value of the car + value of time, + attorney fees (which would work out to about $100000 for a 30,000 car) would you be OK with that?

 

[Mike__D]

I am accepting NO less than six figures on my lawsuit

I see your point, but see other's points as well. Personally, if I saw my car being driven by tech at the bank, and it WAS part of his test drive, I wouldn't bitch too much. I would NEVER imagine seeing this as a six figure lawsuit!! Let's get real!! People are so friggin sue happy, there's no doubt about it. People like this I have ZERO respect for.

If you want the dealership to pay in some way, write a well thought out letter to the vehicle manufacturer. Most dealerships get perks from the manufacturer because of satisfied customer responses. Negative can only hurt them and at the very least, make them aware of the problem (and in the bank case, very MINOR, compared to the ladies Cobra driven at 140mph w/ tech bragging about it on the 'net).

Mike D.

 

[MickeS]

Why would ANYONE feel that they need money themselves in order to punish someone else?
And why would anyone need a new car after theirs has been parked outside a bank?

I mean, let's get some perspective here... geez.

/Mike

 

[Charles J P]

Yes, I do agree that there IS a difference between the bank drive through and the 140MPH beating, however, I would bet that I see the difference as smaller then you do. They are both wrong, unprofessional, inappropriate, and unnecessary. Its kinda like trying to explain to a kid why you shouldn't tell someone they're fat when they are, but other "lies" are not OK. Its hard to define levels of right and wrong.

 

[Dominik Droscher]

if the money went to the state or someone else, who the hell would bother to sue???

Well, I think if someone does not want to get into the trouble of suing because he doesn't get a six figure payoff then he doesn't need to sue. You go to court to get justice and compensation. If you go there to earn money, there is something wrong. My point is that the chance of getting rich is a IMO false motivation which is too often used.

A drawback would of course be that plaintiffs and lawyers would be more hesitant to crusade angainst major organisations and companies, but how many cases in this category are there?

I don't want to attack Tim and I don't want to claim that he wouldn't sue if he didn't have the outlook to a six-figure payoff (with 1/3 for the lawyer IIRC). I think that his trial is justified even though some of you may disagree. I just think that he (and his lawyer) shouldn't get the punitive damage penalty.

 

[Todd Hochard]

Charles,

PG&E isn't even in the same league as driving a Mustang to a bank. Not even the same SPORT!

As it has been discussed, if the money went to the state or someone else, who the hell would bother to sue???

People with integrity and principles, of course.

Todd

 

[Charles J P]

PG&E isn't even in the same league as driving a Mustang to a bank. Not even the same SPORT!

I used it as an example of what might happen if punitive damages were awarded to someone besides the plaintiff or if punitive damages were eliminated alltogether, not as a comparison to the Mustang cases. When you actually read my post, get back to me.

 

[MickeS]

Charles, I think Americans have enough sense of justice and what's right to keep bringing wrongdoers to justice, even if they don't reap financial rewards for it. Other countries can do it, so could we.

At least I hope so, it would be sad if money was the only reason to try and get justice.

However, in Tim's case it's not even about punitive damages, since it's settled outside the courtroom, so the discussion about the principles that the punitive damages are based on is moot in this case. Tim's offered $112,000 so the company can avoid being brought to justice. Yay.

/Mike

 

[Charles J P]

True, and a system without punitive damages wouldnt necessarily prevent companies from buying their way out of the courtroom.

 

[Dominik Droscher]

True, and a system without punitive damages wouldnt necessarily prevent companies from buying their way out of the courtroom.

Good point. Would even make it easier for them as they could get away with less money than they would have to pay in court as the plaintiff just does not expect so much. Hmm, something to think about.

 

[Lee L]

If you want the dealership to pay in some way, write a well thought out letter to the vehicle manufacturer. Most dealerships get perks from the manufacturer because of satisfied customer responses. Negative can only hurt them and at the very least, make them aware of the problem (and in the bank case, very MINOR, compared to the ladies Cobra driven at 140mph w/ tech bragging about it on the 'net).

Negative comments definitely hurt the dealership. I had a GMC Truck that had lots of little problems that the dealer was just crappy about. I was bringing it in for service and had like 5 things that I wanted checked/fixed under warranty in addition to the 30,000 mile service. Becase my handwriting is bad, I typed the 5 or 6 into a list and printed it to give to the service tech, trying to be nice. When I came back, the service writer was very condescending and said something like "looks like someone wants to get his whole truck fixed just before the warrranty runs out." (36,000 mile warranty). I was a little upset given these people were not good in the past and what is the point of a warranty if you can't actually get things fixed.

About a week later, I get a survey in the mail from GM. I filled it out honestly and included a note about some of my experiences and non-fixes to my truck. The next time I brought the truck back a couple of months later when a part finally came in, the service manager told me to not come back to the dealership anymore because his bonus is based on customer sat and I had "taken money out of his pocket." Ha! Ha! bastard. Needless to say, I did not feel too badly for him. That dealer is out of business now incedentally.

 

[Ryan Spaight]

The next time I brought the truck back a couple of months later when a part finally came in, the service manager told me to not come back to the dealership anymore because his bonus is based on customer sat and I had "taken money out of his pocket."

That's a very unique method of increasing customer satisfaction.

Ryan

 

[Mike__D]

Lee L's post backs up my point. I'm sure there are many, many more cases like his.
I still don't understand the bank incident. Let me look at this again. "I am accepting NO less than six figures on my lawsuit" because he saw his car parked at a bank. Nope, still don't see it. It's ridiculous really. And the fact the case got settled... ahhh, forget it.
I'm gonna spill some coffee on myself, eat way too many Big Macs, walk on some random person's property, tripping and breaking my leg, then take my car to the dealership and hope I see the tech smile as he test drives my car. I should be rich and have a new car in about 6 month's. Ahhh, now I get it. :rolleyes
Mike D.

 

[Charles J P]

That dealer is out of business now incedentally.

Yes, very much incedentally, rather than coincedentally, I'm sure.