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

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

#81

Post by SkyMarshal » Sun, May 20, 2012, 6:39 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.

> 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

I was under the impression old diesels were dirtier than gasoline engines. New clean deisels like in Audi's no, but old ones? But you're saying they're cleaner?

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

#82

Post by kalininalex » Sun, May 20, 2012, 6:39 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #65

kalininalex wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

Setting up a company to shield one's assets is perfectly lawful. In fact, many entities out there exist for this very purpose. However, to accomplish it, one must follow certain rules. Simply filing the paperwork is not sufficient. The intent is not important. Either the entity is properly setup and run and shields personal assets, or it's not.

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

#83

Post by rayiner » Sun, May 20, 2012, 6:43 PM UTC

fffggg wrote: post #80

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…

Judgement-proof operators? Nowhere was it suggested that operators ought be judgement-proof. In fact, I suggested the exact opposite. The issue is exactly one of lobbying. As the article notes, the auto insurance industry has successfully lobbied to pass the Graves Amendment, which nullifies vicarious liability for auto rental. The article mentions this, and you can read more here: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/…

Judgment-proof in the sense that the operator has no assets with which to pay the judgment.

The operator here is liable. But if the operator has insufficient assets to satisfy the damages, the owner is a more sensible person to bear the costs of the accident than the injured party.

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

#84

Post by rayiner » Sun, May 20, 2012, 6:45 PM UTC

WildUtah wrote: post #79

rayiner wrote: post #45

I don't get the people complaining about the tort system. The tort system didn't create the losses here, the car and the driver created the losses. The people being severely injured created the losses, and frankly for severe injuries to 4 people in an accident that killed one person, $1.5 million is not an unreasonable estimate of the actual economic loss in this situation. The tort system is just allocating this los…

Individuals are largely shielded from taking responsibility for the dangers and costs of car crashes in the USA by special exceptions and allowances. Companies and commercial renters are not so protected. That makes consumers drastically underestimate the real costs of their car use and RelayRides is going to face a hard task in keeping it covered up for their individual providers. Both civil and criminal liability f…

I agree. The solution is fewer restrictions on tort liability, not more. If people bore the costs of driving, they would drive less.

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

#85

Post by jpeg_hero » Sun, May 20, 2012, 6:46 PM UTC

fffggg wrote: post #80

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…

Judgement-proof operators? Nowhere was it suggested that operators ought be judgement-proof. In fact, I suggested the exact opposite. The issue is exactly one of lobbying. As the article notes, the auto insurance industry has successfully lobbied to pass the Graves Amendment, which nullifies vicarious liability for auto rental. The article mentions this, and you can read more here: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/…

By "judgement-proof" I believe he meant that the operators probably don't have much money and therefore you could win a case against them, but you could not collect. This is contrasted with the owners of the hypothetical car rental firm that would have assets that could be taken.

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

#86

Post by rayiner » Sun, May 20, 2012, 6:47 PM UTC

guard-of-terra wrote: post #68

rayiner wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, the health liability is a risk of car operation. Accidents happen, and they injure people, even in the absence of negligence or poor maintenance. Driving creates a risk of injury to others, inherently.

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

#87

Post by fffggg » Sun, May 20, 2012, 6:51 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #83

fffggg wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judgement-proof operators? Nowhere was it suggested that operators ought be judgement-proof. In fact, I suggested the exact opposite. The issue is exactly one of lobbying. As the article notes, the auto insurance industry has successfully lobbied to pass the Graves Amendment, which nullifies vicarious liability for auto rental. The article mentions this, and you can read more here: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/…

Judgment-proof in the sense that the operator has no assets with which to pay the judgment. The operator here is liable. But if the operator has insufficient assets to satisfy the damages, the owner is a more sensible person to bear the costs of the accident than the injured party.

It appears you're suggesting a structure of a business, where the owner isn't leasing to an unrelated party. An employer is liable for the actions of his employees (even non-employee employees) through entirely separate and much more appropriate channels.

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

#88

Post by mjg59 » Sun, May 20, 2012, 6:52 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…

If you have any sort of credit record then most of the annual-fee credit cards provide rental insurance, and the fee is typically less than a small number of days of paying the rental agency.

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

#89

Post by njharman » Sun, May 20, 2012, 6:54 PM UTC

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's not mere ownership. It's owning something you rent to a 3rdparty. You should be responsible for decisions.

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

#90

Post by cantankerous » Sun, May 20, 2012, 6:58 PM UTC

I'd personally feel more comfortable putting my car into a car-share pool if I had to transfer the title to the pool in exchange for payouts and some kind of guarantee of a way to get the title of my car back to me should I want to retake ownership. Shouldn't this alleviate the personal liability issue? The deaths involved are most certainly a tragedy, but I find it impossible to fault Ms. Fong for any wrongdoing.