FTO AUSTRALIA

just like to clarify an argument i was having the other day.

if u take your car to a workshop to get something done and the people working on it damage it or crash it whos liable?

i was casing the point that if u havent signed a disclaimer or anything to say the workshop isnt liable, it is the workshops responsibility to fix it

has anyone ever had this experiance? or a different opinion

The workshop is Liable to any damages they cause. Usually it is covered by the workshops insurance.

I know becuase it has happened at my work

exclusion clauses often exist however doesnt always mean they we be viewed in law to apply. if they are excessively harsh or attempt to exlcude the complete liability of someone(s) they can often been seen as ineffective in situations such as this.

different situations hold different circumstances of couse but in the situation you have just put forth, with no diclaimer signed etc as aboce said i would defs agree with.. to elaborate

.. employee of the workshop liable yet the employer is vicariously liable. Hence the owner of the shop (and not the employee who damaged the car) would be liable so long as the actions of the employee (worker) which caused the damage were in his course of work ...

confusing??
end of day - the shop itself or the owner of business.

thanks dzyrme/messy i think thats clarified it

Messy, i dont know where you copied that garbage from?

To put it simple, the driver of the vehicle is the liable one. At the end of the day, he/her was driving the vehicle so how can it be his boss' fault if he crashes. If the matter was to go to court then the judgement will be entered in both the drivers name as well as the business' and it's up to the judge who pays what and how much.

i always thought that it's the business that has to pay YOU for your canr being dmged in their care. but there's obviously options for the business to deal with the employee if it was because the employee was being an idiot when he/she caused the dmg (i.e. fire them or maybe even sue them to recover the cost etc)

Cbrown1986 wrote:Messy, i dont know where you copied that garbage from?

To put it simple, the driver of the vehicle is the liable one. At the end of the day, he/her was driving the vehicle so how can it be his boss' fault if he crashes. If the matter was to go to court then the judgement will be entered in both the drivers name as well as the business' and it's up to the judge who pays what and how much.

mate you should really read up on vicarious liability and you would get where messy got the info from.
If the matter went to court it would be the owner of the vehicle vs the business...
then the business goes to court vs the staff that drove the car..

two separate judgments and 2 separate cases...

If it went to court it would be jointly and sevrely. When someone is doing something for someone else and your are being remunerated for it, there is agency involved. Agency pretty much means you're both liable.

I go through this sort of sh*t day in, day out.

i wasn't disputing that... but when someone is employed and they represent themselves as part of the business they are in, in the eyes of the law they are "the business"...

if while carrying on their duties, they perform anything other than what they are employed to do, and they do any damage, then they have breached the understanding with their employer therefore the employer can seek compensation for such damage the employee caused due to their negligence.

thats my 2 cents...

i ate a big red candle

Yes, the employer can look at issuing against the employee, but I dont know how well it would go in court. And that would be a seperate issue that wouldnt involve the owner of the vehicle, only between the employer and the employee..

I think thats where you're getting at anyway..