At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
An obviously mentally handicapped individual pays for a brand new truck with $30,000 in cash. The salesman breaks into the guys home, steals $100,000 in cash, and gets caught (after the money's gone).
The dealership still should not be liable, since they did not commit the act. They are incompent for not doing a background check, but they did not commit the crime.
The dealership could be liable for selling them the truck, if it turns out that the individual was not mentally able to sign and agree to the sale of the truck.
A business unless regulated by state or federal law to do so, has no obligation to do a background check on an idividual. And the business is not liable for any activities if they are outside the scope of the employees work.
But of course if it did happen, of course the dealership would be sued, along with anyone else that could even have been concerned about it. Since in the US culture we sue any and everyone first and make them prove they are not liable and hope they settle first.
We had this at a church many years ago in MO, a man riding a larger tractor with a mower deck, he falls off, and his leg goes under the mower and is cut off. He sues the church, each member of the building and grounds committe, the manufactor of the tractor ( no seat belt or warning there is no seat belt) and the manufactor of the mower ( no warning not to put your leg under the mower deck)
He wins against everyone, the church because it owned the tractor, the grounds committe since they did not train him how to use the mower properly or warn him not to put his leg under, and the tractor manufactor, and the mower manufactor, they were all held liable in court.
The article appeared in this morning Seattle Post Intelligencer.
He's only "mildly" handicapped, but from what the article says, it was clearly obvious. In fact they drove him home because they didn't believe he had any money. He came out with $30 grand stuffed in a bag. He'd been saving from his SS check for a long, long time. He was living with his mother, but she was sent to a group home and he was left to fend for himself. Apparently, he does have a driver’s license. He also bragged about the other $100,000 that he had in cash at home.
In all, eleven people from the dealership were involved in ripping this guy off. Some even broke into his apt, after the other guys had already broken in and stolen the dough. Then he signed the truck over to one of them. I dunno why.
Then the dealership got sold. The new owners gave him back the $30 grand, but the rest of the money is long gone.
I think he's got a case. Not like the guy who put his leg under the lawn mower, Padre. I think he's got a legitimate case.
The dealership could be liable for selling them the truck, if it turns out that the individual was not mentally able to sign and agree to the sale of the truck.
A business unless regulated by state or federal law to do so, has no obligation to do a background check on an idividual. And the business is not liable for any activities if they are outside the scope of the employees work.
But of course if it did happen, of course the dealership would be sued, along with anyone else that could even have been concerned about it. Since in the US culture we sue any and everyone first and make them prove they are not liable and hope they settle first.
We had this at a church many years ago in MO, a man riding a larger tractor with a mower deck, he falls off, and his leg goes under the mower and is cut off. He sues the church, each member of the building and grounds committe, the manufactor of the tractor ( no seat belt or warning there is no seat belt) and the manufactor of the mower ( no warning not to put your leg under the mower deck)
He wins against everyone, the church because it owned the tractor, the grounds committe since they did not train him how to use the mower properly or warn him not to put his leg under, and the tractor manufactor, and the mower manufactor, they were all held liable in court.
lol...I wanted to give you good feedback for this answer, but it said I have to "spread it around". You hit is right on the head with the background check and the scope of employment issue. the only way I could see the dealership coming into it is if they had some type of notice of a propensity toward this type of conduct from the salesman.
Linear Mode
