Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by dalke » Sun, May 20, 2012, 5:30 PM UTC

alister wrote: post #28

jiggy2011 wrote: post #10

Perhaps the answer here is to insist that a renter must either have valid insurance already that would pay out to third parties in the event that they were driving any vehicle. Most fully comprehensive insurance in the UK already covers this assuming you have valid fully comp on some car already. For example I (being fully insured on my own car) could drive a friend's car without being specifically insured on it and…

> insist that a renter...have valid insurance [or pay a higher fee] If you don't own a car it is just about impossible to buy a liability insurance policy. I know this. I tried. I tried very hard. I don't own a car myself, but since I often rent a car when I travel, I decided that I'd try to buy a third-party liability policy instead of paying the absurd prices that Avis or Dollar charge (>$20 a day). I called about…

I knew that credit card companies offer some auto coverage as well, but didn't realize until I researched it now that it doesn't include liability insurance.

One of my contracts once required that I have $1 million in insurance company to work for them, including coverage for any employees traveling related to the work. That was 10 years ago though, and 1) I don't recall if the insurance included liability insurance, and 2) I think it only covered travel related to business, so while an odd-ball thought, it probably won't work for you.

What do the people in the NE (NYC, Boston) do? I thought that quite a few don't have cars but instead rent them for trips or for moving. Surely a number of them are in the same boat.

It seems that non-owner liability policies do exist; so says http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/do-i-need-insurance-to-r... . For that matter, GEICO mentions the possibility at http://www.geico.com/information/aboutinsurance/auto/insight... .

And http://www.carsdirect.com/car-insurance/can-i-get-car-insura... "Every insurance provider is required to offer non owner car insurance, so you shouldn't have a difficult time finding this insurance if you need it. Well known providers such as State Farm, GEICO or Progressive are providers you might consider. Some banks offer auto insurance, so those that do will also be able to offer non owner car insurance." ... "Non owners insurance quotes are available from all of the major insurance companies. Progressive, Geico, State Farm, and Nationwide are just a few insurance companies that offer insurance coverage to people who do not own cars. You can also get quotes from insurance consolidators like esurance or netQuote."

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

#62

Post by pwthornton » Sun, May 20, 2012, 5:33 PM UTC

gcb wrote: post #54

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.

Agreed. A Prius can be a great car, but for her particular situation, it doesn't make a lot of sense. The core market for Prius owners are people who drive their cars a lot.

While I'm not a fan of lung-clogging diesels, in this case, it may make a bit of sense. There are people in my area with 20-year-old or so diesel cars. They don't need need the same kind of driving maintenance that hybrids do.

I don't know if she has access to Zipcar or a similar service, but if she does, that would have probably been the best bet. Let someone else deal with the ownership, storage, maintenance and liability.

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

#63

Post by mikeryan » Sun, May 20, 2012, 5:33 PM UTC

gcb wrote: post #47

olex wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Germany, and not all of this is entirely true. Liability insurance isn't strictly unlimited, the coverage limits are just very high - e.g. in Germany, personal damages are covered with a minimum of 7,5 mio. euro (with a maximum limit of 8 to 15 million per person, depending on the insurance company), and total damage is mostly limited at 50-100 mio. euro. For most accidents, these numbers are fairly equal t…

Just for comparison, here in the us insurance for a 25k car and minimal (some 100 or 300k for the described case in the article) plus uninsured driver would be well over 1.2k per month. In other countries i paid that per year for way more peace of mind.

I'm not sure why you're paying $1200 a month for insurance but that's not the norm for US based auto insurance at all.

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

#64

Post by omonra » Sun, May 20, 2012, 5:37 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #52

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. Ass…

What if the car was stolen?

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

#65

Post by [deleted] » Sun, May 20, 2012, 5:42 PM UTC

kalininalex wrote: post #56

[deleted] wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 capi…

[deleted]

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

#66

Post by fffggg » Sun, May 20, 2012, 5:42 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #52

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. Ass…

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 this line of reasoning Toyota is just as culpable as Ms. Fong.

Indeed, some tort actions have gone beyond owners and even pursued manufactures -- particularly gun manufactures.

The idea that an object owner or object creator might be liable for the actions of an object user is unreasonable and perverse. It has a chilling effect on innovation and forces small businesses (who can't afford to lobby regulatory protections such as the Graves amendment) out of the market.

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

#67

Post by rayiner » Sun, May 20, 2012, 5:42 PM UTC

mattstreet wrote: post #60

guard-of-terra wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The DMV is not liable nor should it be. Why should the public bear the inherent costs of a profitable risk-creating activity that yields private profit?

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

#68

Post by guard-of-terra » Sun, May 20, 2012, 5:44 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #57

guard-of-terra wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The risk in this case is destroyed car, but not the health liability. If the car was dangerous, then there should be liability; if it wasn't, there absolutely should not.

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

#69

Post by omonra » Sun, May 20, 2012, 5:45 PM UTC

sethg wrote: post #14

raverbashing wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed "That's why we can't have nice things" Too much liability issues and because of (most likely) an irresponsible driver now they're (or better, someone that can pin any cost on the injured) goes after the car renter, car manufacturer, road authority, etc. They'll probably make a way for Steve Jobs to be liable as well if they can, I guess "no longer theoretical" No crap sherlock. People have been getting injured…

By getting into a car and driving you assume a non zero risk of being injured or killed in a car accident. By getting into a car and driving you assume a non zero risk of being sued for damages caused by a car accident.

Except that in this story she didn't cause the accident.

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

#70

Post by fffggg » Sun, May 20, 2012, 5:46 PM UTC

Someone wrote: post #53

guard-of-terra wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"I do not think it is that clear-cut, even for car rentals"

Well, it is that clear cut. As the article notes there is a law which unambiguously states that car rental agencies are not liable in this scenario: http://gregjohnson89.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/vicarious-liab...

As the article further notes, the only question is whether a loophole in the law's definition may cause Ms. Fong to not qualify as a car rental entity.