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

51–60 of 144 posts

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

#51

Post by gcb »

steve8918 wrote: post #4
bcl wrote: post #3

I don't understand why they aren't going after the dead guy's insurance. He's the one who was at fault, not the owner of the car, so his insurance should be the one to pay for the injuries.

If the person didn't have their own car, I would be surprised if they had their own car insurance. The victims could sue the estate, but there might not be a lot of money in it.

The insurance company can't have the cake and.eat it too.

Either the owner pay as if she wasn't doing a business, or the dead guy's pay as if he was driving a rental. Mine is pretty basic and i can pay my deductible for rentals.

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

#52

Post by rayiner »

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…

It seems less perverse when you think of tort liability as assignment of the costs of risk, rather than punishment for negligent behavior. When someone drives a car, this creates risk. Who should bear this risk? Somebody has to, the only thing the tort system decides is who. If you don't assign the risk to the owner of the dangerous instrumentality, then you assign it to either the operator or the general public. Assigning the risk to the public essentially socialized the costs of this activity (which generates private benefits), so as a practical matter the tort system allocates the risk to the owner and operator. Under this system the operator has a responsibility to use the dangerous instrument carefully, while the owner has the responsibility to carefully choose who operates the dangerous instrument.

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

#53

Post by Someone »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #38
newbie12 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She has clear liability. She agreed, after reviewing the request, to rent her car, for a profit, to someone who was a reckless driver and did serious harm to others (and, sadly, himself). I hate the U.S. tort system but some liability in this case is pretty reasonable.

No there isn't. You neither can nor should screen buyers and renters. This simply isn't your job. And it harms the business the big way. When people rent cars they also rent the risk.

I do not think it is that clear-cut, even for car rentals. If the car owner knows or should have known that the one renting it was a clear danger, I think he should have some responsibility. I also think law agrees with that. If it does not, why then does one have to show a driver's license to rent a car?

The gray area:

- if the owner could have known of the danger, how much effort do we think he should make to find out what the danger is?

- how high a risk increase can the owner let go? For example, if a 18 year old with a whiskey bottle in hand and a couple of obviously drunk friends wants to rent 'the fastest sports car you have', is it sufficient to check that the guy has a driver's license and does not look drunk or high? Would a check that he is not drunk be sufficient?

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

#54

Post by gcb »

pwthornton wrote: post #49

Zipcar and similar car clubs makes a lot more sense than car sharing. You essentially join Zipcar and share the liability and car ownership costs. $1 million is not enough coverage in the case of a catastrophic accident, and the law and insurance companies have not caught up to car sharing. I would not rent my car out unless the liability issue was better taken care of. But then again, I don't get car sharing vs. car…

The main thing is: - she don't need the car often - buys expensive new car - buys a car that can't sit for a long time

If she researched a little more she would have not got a new hybrid but some old diesel. It's probably cleaner than agasoline hybrid doesn't generate all the upfront manufacturing garbage and batteries that are awful for the environment and reuse a car that is already made anyway.

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

#55

Post by staunch »

sliverstorm wrote: post #37
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…

Ownership implies responsibility. For precedence, see pets and children.

Guardianship is probably the word in the case of children ;-)

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

#56

Post by kalininalex »

[deleted] wrote: post #48
xxpor wrote: post #36

If you wanted to rent your car out like this, how hard is it to set up an LLC so if god forbid something like this happens, they can't come after you personally?

[deleted]

There's nothing inherently wrong with a single-member LLC. The only issue with it is it's a relatively new entity and the body of legal precedents is not large, so it's hard to predict how a court would rule in any particular case.

Instead, you could use an S-corporation with the same result, but much better legal visibility.

The issue is, however, that you're now operating your own rental company. You'd need to capitalize it, buy commercial insurance, purchase various licenses, etc. This is probably not what clients of RelayRides had in mind.

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

#57

Post by rayiner »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #46
rayiner wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system creates liability for owners of instrumentalities that inherently create a risk to society, like cars. Should to owners of a coal plant be liable if it explodes and injures people living nearby? Even if they weren't the ones who were operating it at the time?

If they lease or sell it, they should not.

If they sell their ownership interest they clearly don't have liability. If they lease it, they are profiting from the operation of the dangerous instrument, why should they be insulated from the risks of that operation?

Again, realize that the tort system does not create the costs. Operation of dangerous things has inherent costs. Ownership of property implies the right to receive the benefits for that operation, so it should imply the obligation to bear the risks of that operation.

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

#58

Post by Tooluka »

It is beyond my understanding how could Ms. Fong-Jones even considered being responsible. This a complete bullshit. It is like suing knife salesman for each harmful incident involving knifes he sold.

Also I don't understand why people here say that "In car sharing, someone must bear the cost of this risk.". If lightning would stuck that car, who would they sue, Zeus?

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

#59

Post by rayiner »

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…

Also: bludgeoning someone to death is not an inherent risk of operation of a VHS tape. A fatal car crash is an undesired, but extremely common, foreseeable, and mostly unavoidable risk inherent in the operation of a car.

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

#60

Post by mattstreet »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #38
newbie12 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She has clear liability. She agreed, after reviewing the request, to rent her car, for a profit, to someone who was a reckless driver and did serious harm to others (and, sadly, himself). I hate the U.S. tort system but some liability in this case is pretty reasonable.

No there isn't. You neither can nor should screen buyers and renters. This simply isn't your job. And it harms the business the big way. When people rent cars they also rent the risk.

I agree, the agency that is supposed to be screening these people is called the DMV.
Post reply on HN