loaner car gone bad

[jdking76]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
While my car was being repaired my mechanic gave me a loaner car to use..he didnt finish my car in time and i was going out of town and needed to leave that night. He told me i would be responsible for the car and i needed insurance to cover it. So i called my company and they added car. On the way back a sensor came on in the car and he wanted my husband to pay 230 to fix it but he said he would take half and my husband paid him half..the car belonged to another customer..can he charge us for this? Is there anything we can do

 

[BL]

You are not going to get a quicker answer by reposting .

Having said that , I'm not sure if the mechanic had that right or permission to loan you a customer's car in the first place. I sure wouldn't want my car being loaned out if it's in for repairs, tune up, whatever.

And having said that , you may find it difficult to get your vehicle out of there if you do not pay .

Did the mechanic disclose to you this was a customer's car?

If so perhaps you should pay .

If not perhaps renegotiate for no or lower cost. You did use it .

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
While my car was being repaired my mechanic gave me a loaner car to use..he didnt finish my car in time and i was going out of town and needed to leave that night. He told me i would be responsible for the car and i needed insurance to cover it. So i called my company and they added car. On the way back a sensor came on in the car and he wanted my husband to pay 230 to fix it but he said he would take half and my husband paid him half..the car belonged to another customer..can he charge us for this? Is there anything we can do

Listen! Please forget about who owned the bloody loaner! If you aren't confused by the unschooled guesswork from "BL", you ought to be.

(First, let's assume for discussion that the mechanic personally has some recognizable legal claim, which he does not as I will explain below.*)

Then the critical legal issue here is that the mechanic represented, and your husband had no reason to question, that he was authorized to grant his customers the temporary use of the vehicle. A usage that falls under the category of bailment.

In this instance the mechanic lender is the bailor and your husband is the bailee. And the laws of bailment are such that your husband would only be responsible for damage occurring to the vehicle due to his failure to exercise ordinary care. In other words, the mechanic would have the burden of proving that whatever mechanical dysfunction is found to be the cause of the activation of the "engine sensor light" was due to his negligent use of the vehicle.

And unless there is convincing evidence that the dysfunction was due to your husband's failure to maintain engine oil and coolant at proper levels, your husband bears no liability.


[*] HOWEVER, please be aware of the fact that under theses circumstances the mechanic, not being the registered owner of the vehicle, would have no standing in court on any grounds!

Why? Because of a universal principle of American Jurisprudence that all judicable claims MUST be brought in the name of the real party in interest. Otherwise, your husband could be put to the expense of defending separate claims brought on by the mechanic as well as by the owner of the vehicle. And or the owner's insurance carrier under the theory of subrogation should an insurable loss have occurred.

 

[justalayman]

In this instance the mechanic lender is the bailor and your husband is the bailee. And the laws of bailment are such that your husband would only be responsible for damage occurring to the vehicle due to his failure to exercise ordinary care. In other words, the mechanic would have the burden of proving that whatever mechanical dysfunction is found to be the cause of the activation of the "engine sensor light" was due to his negligent use of the vehicle.

And unless there is convincing evidence that the dysfunction was due to your husband's failure to maintain engine oil and coolant at proper levels, your husband bears no liability.

your one size fits all claim of no liability for the sensor is not necessarily correct.

there was a contractual agreement that the user would be liable for the car.

i was going out of town and needed to leave that night. He told me i would be responsible for the car and i needed insurance to cover it.

Now while that might be limited to damage due to an accident or such where as insurance would cover the damage is an unknown. A contract can surely bind a party to be liable for all consequences resulting from such a situation, including whatever sensor is involved here. It is a simple; you return it in the condition it was delivered. If that was the understanding, then (presuming the shop did have the right to lend the car) the OP can surely be held liable to the shop owner for all consequences occurring during the use of the vehicle. OP accepted that by not limiting the liability or simply refusing the offered use of the vehicle.

Now would you like to discuss why the knowledge of ownership might make a difference or why the shop owner might have a claim against the op regardless of ownership or why the true owner of the car may not have any claim available against the OP? There are problems with a one size fits all statement, especially when there is such limited information.

 

[latigo]

your one size fits all claim of no liability for the sensor is not necessarily correct.

there was a contractual agreement that the user would be liable for the car.


Now while that might be limited to damage due to an accident or such where as insurance would cover the damage is an unknown. A contract can surely bind a party to be liable for all consequences resulting from such a situation, including whatever sensor is involved here. It is a simple; you return it in the condition it was delivered. If that was the understanding, then (presuming the shop did have the right to lend the car) the OP can surely be held liable to the shop owner for all consequences occurring during the use of the vehicle. OP accepted that by not limiting the liability or simply refusing the offered use of the vehicle.

Now would you like to discuss why the knowledge of ownership might make a difference or why the shop owner might have a claim against the op regardless of ownership or why the true owner of the car may not have any claim available against the OP? There are problems with a one size fits all statement, especially when there is such limited information.

As always I appreciate your wise observations. And I admit that some of mine were offered in haste to counter the earlier discouraging response. But I have a concluding comment.

It seems to me that if it is reasonable to assume that the customer became an absolute insurer of the condition of the car based upon the verbal expression that he was to be "responsible" for it, then it should be equally reasonable to conclude that the shop owner "is not the real party interest" when we are presented with the fact that "he is not the owner of vehicle".

Have a pleasant Veteran's Day and bless them all.

 

[justalayman]

Well, I'm half way there at least. Now to the op, shop owner, car owner issue:

We don't know if the shop owner had the authority to lend the car. In reality it doesn't matter though. Only if the op new the shop owner did not have the authority to lend the car does it make a difference.

If the op was not aware then we have a situation where he can rely on the shop owners apparent right to lend the car and becomes an innocent party.

If op is aware the shop owner does not have the authority to lend the car then the op is complicit in the conversion of the other customers property and can be held liable for the damages and issues such as we have here to the true owner of the car. The shop owner would be equally liable for the same.

If the op was an innocent user of the vehicle and the shop owner actually had the right to lend the car to determine who is liable would be based upon the agreement between the true owner and the shop owner.

If the shop owner did not have the authority to lend but the op was not aware of thst the shop owner would be liable to the true owner for all damages and issues.

So, depending on the understanding of the agreement between shop owner and op, op may be liable to shop owner for all damages and issues or possibly just damages if the shop owner had the authority to lend the car. The issue between the shop owner and true owner would not change that.


And this was typed on my phone and proof reading is a pita so none of this may make sense once read


And the same wishes concerning Veterans Day

 

[Zigner]

Let's assume that the OP WAS, in fact, responsible for a mechanical failure of the vehicle that had nothing to do with negligence on the part of the OP.

The OP would be responsible for returning the vehicle in the same condition it was given to him (as has been posited.)

The OP was given a vehicle that had a part with a remaining life of 50 miles (or however long it took for the sensor to give out) - the OP only needs to return the car with a sensor that has 50 miles of remaining life. In effect, the OP is only responsible for a tiny portion of a relatively inexpensive item on the car.

 

[justalayman]

Let's assume that the OP WAS, in fact, responsible for a mechanical failure of the vehicle that had nothing to do with negligence on the part of the OP.

The OP would be responsible for returning the vehicle in the same condition it was given to him (as has been posited.)

The OP was given a vehicle that had a part with a remaining life of 50 miles (or however long it took for the sensor to give out) - the OP only needs to return the car with a sensor that has 50 miles of remaining life. In effect, the OP is only responsible for a tiny portion of a relatively inexpensive item on the car.

Op borrowed a car with no trouble lights a flashing. I suppose one could argue a used sensor would be an adequate replacement but if one cannot be sourced op gets the full boat on the bill.

Of course shop owner already offered to split the cost so op is already at $115.

I suppose op can look at it this way; he would have paid around that for a rental so in the end all that happens is op had to rent a car effectively.

 

[Zigner]

Op borrowed a car with no trouble lights a flashing. I suppose one could argue a used sensor would be an adequate replacement but if one cannot be sourced op gets the full boat on the bill.

Of course shop owner already offered to split the cost so op is already at $115.

I suppose op can look at it this way; he would have paid around that for a rental so in the end all that happens is op had to rent a car effectively.

When one rents an apartment, they don't have to pay new prices for used carpet.