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

91–100 of 144 posts

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

#91

Post by ScottBurson »

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…

f 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.

Except that in this case there's another party: RelayRides, the rental management company. I think their own actions indicate an awareness that they will have to foot the bill for this... not just because Ms. Fong-Jones could probably recover her own costs, if any, in court, but also because the survival of their business depends on it.

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

#92

Post by dlgeek »

delinka wrote: post #20
steve8918 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In my state, you can't get auto insurance without a car. You can be a licensed driver, you can have money to hand the insurance company for your premium, but if you don't own a car, you can't get car insurance. I don't know if you could get general liability insurance that would also cover you driving other people's cars. But if it's the car that's insured, why do specific drivers have to be listed on the policy? The…

That's odd, in NC where I was originally licensed, you had to prove insurance coverage before they would issue you a license.

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

#93

Post by mjg59 »

mjg59 wrote: post #88
alister wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

...but, as noted elsewhere, this does seem to generally exclude liability coverage so really isn't very helpful to you.

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

#94

Post by WalterBright »

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.

You're suggesting that the person at fault is the person who has money.

This is fundamentally unjust.

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

#95

Post by Mvandenbergh »

Tooluka wrote: post #58

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?

Nobody would be sued, the owner of any property bears the risk of its accidental destruction unless they transfer some or all of that risk to an insurance company.

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

#96

Post by Someone »

fffggg wrote: post #70
Someone wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ent…

I did not click through that law, but only read the (emphasis added) "In any event, she has done her own legal homework and points to a federal law that can shield rental car companies from liability for accidents that happen while someone is renting the car.", and concluded (possibly incorrectly) that that law isn't watertight.

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

#97

Post by dkrich »

jacquesgt wrote: post #9
dkrich wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that's not how car insurance works. You purchase a policy to insure your car (and in most cases other drivers in your family). Car insurance doesn't insure the individual against whatever vehicle he may be operating on any given day. That's why your car insurance is based upon the make/model/year of your car, as well as which state it is registered in, how many miles you drive it per day, etc. It also seems f…

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.

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

#98

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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 construction company or risk advisor who said hurricane insurance is bull, etc. But the risk first comes to roost with the owners. A similar outcome would be expected if a tree on the factory premises toppled over and killed a pedestrian.

The principle difference between my example and the RelayRides case is the limited liability afforded by a common stockholder versus unlimited liability of a sole proprietorship (which is what you operate as if you directly interact with RelayRides as a natural person).

P.S. Those of you piping up about how this could never happen in Europe, note that this is because European countries tend to have higher insurance caps. In this case I would expect, in my completely un-qualified opinion, RelayRides to be ultimately responsible for implying that a $1 million liability cap was sufficient.

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

#99

Post by neworbit »

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 pay more like $200 a month for a significantly more expensive car in Palo Alto. I have a clean driving record and a mainstream insurance policy. You should get competitive bids!

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

#100

Post by nknight »

Estragon wrote: post #40
alister wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'm really curious about the actuarial basis of this policy.

I'm pretty sure the basis is "You don't own a car? You some kinda communist?".

Large corporations don't react well to things that are unusual. Only 8% of US households do not have a car[1]. 1/6th of those are concentrated in New York City alone, home to just 1/38th of American households and the only American city where fewer than half of households own a car, the rest are scattered throughout the country, with smaller concentrations in various other urban areas.

Statistically, Americans have cars. I'd lay decent odds that if alister were in New York, though, he wouldn't have had any trouble.

[1] http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_natio...

Post reply on HN