Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#101

Post by ricardobeat »

dkrich wrote: post #97
jacquesgt wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually is how car insurance works. There's a property insurance component ("collision" and "comprehensive") that insures you against loss or damage to your property. Then there's a more expensive liability insurance component that insures you against liability as a driver of any car. The property insurance portion is optional as long as you own your car outright.

Incorrect. Car insurance generally "follows the car." If you lend your car to your buddy and he gets into an accident, your insurer is the primary. If you don't have insurance on the car, then if he has insurance it may cover some of the associated costs. That all gets settled in court. Collision is not required, but liability is.

Driver liability is primary. The owner's insurance only comes into play in case the driver isn't insured or it doesn't cover full costs. That's the standard at least.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#102

Post by ricardobeat »

Legal blabber aside, the tone in the article is infuriating - standard US media fear-inducing lawsuit crap. Instead of reporting on the legal hurdles or debating the consequences they just want to send a message that it's "dangerous" to engage in new business like this.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#103

Post by CamperBob2 »

rayiner wrote: post #76
fffggg wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't seem any less perverse to me. Shifting responsibility to the operator makes sense for injury resulting from operation. Shifting responsibility to the owner only makes sense for injury resulting from the ownership (improper device maintenance, etc). If you can hold the owner of a car liable for a crash then what stops you from holding the creator of a car liable for a crash? Why not go after Toyota? By th…

If owners are not liable, what stops the owners of inherently dangerous businesses like car rentals from shielding themselves from the inherent risks created by their activity by having judgment-proof operators operate that risk-creating business? The issue here is not regulation of lobbying. It's the very simple fact that driving a car creates substantial risks that have a price. Someone must pay that price. Owners…

If owners are not liable, what stops the owners of inherently dangerous businesses like car rental

How exactly is car rental an "inherently dangerous business," in the absence of a legion of berserk trial lawyers doing everything in their power to make it so?

Seems like a near-perfect illustration of begging the question.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#104

Post by chrischen »

rayiner wrote: post #76
fffggg wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't seem any less perverse to me. Shifting responsibility to the operator makes sense for injury resulting from operation. Shifting responsibility to the owner only makes sense for injury resulting from the ownership (improper device maintenance, etc). If you can hold the owner of a car liable for a crash then what stops you from holding the creator of a car liable for a crash? Why not go after Toyota? By th…

If owners are not liable, what stops the owners of inherently dangerous businesses like car rentals from shielding themselves from the inherent risks created by their activity by having judgment-proof operators operate that risk-creating business? The issue here is not regulation of lobbying. It's the very simple fact that driving a car creates substantial risks that have a price. Someone must pay that price. Owners…

So what if ms fong dies next next? Is the manufacturer now responsible since they are the next step up in the ladder of profiters of the car?

You could assign the consequences of blame arbitrarily like that but it would have negative consequences on society. For example people would be less likely to do anything since association can now always lead to 100% blame. It's like a mobster who tries to get you to repay a relative's debts. That never makes sense and neither does this.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#105

Post by chrischen »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #98
haberman wrote: post #16

It seems perverse that mere ownership of something can create liability. If she had failed to get some maintenance that made the car dangerous to drive, that would be one thing. But there is no indication that this is the case. If a psychopath rents a VHS from Blockbuster and then uses it to bludgeon someone's head in, is Blockbuster liable for that act of violence? Sure, a VHS is not intended to be used this way, bu…

Liability is a function of risk which isn't necessarily a function of fault. In capitalism the returns and risks are, by default, routed to the owner. Shares in a company whose factory gets wiped out by a hurricane you will experience a loss. This isn't the shareholders' fault, but it is a risk assumed by owning the asset. The shareholders could later sue management for being negligent and management could sue the co…

Are you sure your analogy is sound? Ms fong had a 100% share in the car, but she already lost 100% value of the car to an entity at fault which is dead. Like a natural disaster, both entities can not reimburse for the fault, however the ride sharing company has willingly assumed the role of protector in the car case. But now the fault for the damage caused by the car while operated by someone else is more analogous to people getting killed by rubble in the factory during the hurricane. The hurricane can't be sued, and the fault doesn't technically lie with the factory owners, so society doesn't have a right to assign the consequences of fault arbitrarily to the owner now does it?

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#106

Post by [deleted] »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #103
rayiner wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If owners are not liable, what stops the owners of inherently dangerous businesses like car rentals from shielding themselves from the inherent risks created by their activity by having judgment-proof operators operate that risk-creating business? The issue here is not regulation of lobbying. It's the very simple fact that driving a car creates substantial risks that have a price. Someone must pay that price. Owners…

If owners are not liable, what stops the owners of inherently dangerous businesses like car rental How exactly is car rental an "inherently dangerous business," in the absence of a legion of berserk trial lawyers doing everything in their power to make it so? Seems like a near-perfect illustration of begging the question.

[deleted]

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#109

Post by learc83 »

rayiner wrote: post #75
robomartin wrote: post #74

Hypothetical: I lend a hammer to a neighbor. He then goes and, after building the cabinet he needed the hammer for, kills two people with it. Why am I liable for his actions? This is the part of the rent-your-car story I just don't get. She had nothing to do with it. She should have zero liability. That's the part of the legal system that is really messed-up. Liability for this accident should sit squarely on the sho…

The difference is that car accidents are a foreseeable and inherent risk of car operation, but not hammer operation.

Car accidents are foreseeable and inherent, but this guy was driving in the wrong lane, what if he intentionally did it as a suicide (not saying he did, but hypothetically).

What if someone rented a car and intentionally drove it into a crowd of people?

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#110

Post by dkrich »

ricardobeat wrote: post #101
dkrich wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. Car insurance generally "follows the car." If you lend your car to your buddy and he gets into an accident, your insurer is the primary. If you don't have insurance on the car, then if he has insurance it may cover some of the associated costs. That all gets settled in court. Collision is not required, but liability is.

Driver liability is primary. The owner's insurance only comes into play in case the driver isn't insured or it doesn't cover full costs. That's the standard at least.

You insure a vehicle. If the vehicle is insured, then that insurer is the primary, so in the event of a claim, that is the insurance company on the hook.

Now it is true that when you sign an insurance policy, part of the contract makes the insurance company liable for the driver if he is in an accident in another vehicle and for whatever reason there isn't a primary or the primary uses subrogation to recoup damages from that insurer.

But that is not the most common case, and certainly shouldn't be used as the standard for what to expect would happen in this case.

Have you ever heard that women's insurance rates are typically more expensive than men's because they lend their cars more often to others? Now why would that be if the drivers were responsible as opposed to the vehicle insurer? Again, civil law is not black and white. Insurance companies have teams of lawyers in every major city in the country to fight their way out of claims when possible and certainly there are times that they succeed in recouping some damages from other insurers. My point was that this is not the norm. The primary insurance company is the first in line when a claim is to be made.

Post reply on HN