Check out some similar questions!

excon · Jan 20, 2007, 08:08 AM

Hello:

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).

Is the dealer liable?

excon

PS> Seattle PI - today.

ScottGem · Jan 20, 2007, 08:37 AM

Not in my opinion.

mr.yet · Jan 20, 2007, 08:45 AM

No, the individual who broke into the home would be liable in my opinion.

excon · Jan 20, 2007, 08:50 AM

Hello again, guys:

What if the salesman had a criminal record and the dealership didn't do a background check?

excon

mr.yet · Jan 20, 2007, 08:55 AM

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.

shygrneyzs · Jan 20, 2007, 09:48 AM

How did the obviously mentally handicapped person come up with $30,000 in the first place and how in the world did he/she get a driver's license?

Aside from that, no the dealer is not at fault. Just the cheesy saleman.

Fr_Chuck · Jan 20, 2007, 09:59 AM

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 committee, 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 committee 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.

excon · Jan 20, 2007, 10:26 AM

Hello again:

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 don't know 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.

excon

sideoutshu · Jan 20, 2007, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

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.

shygrneyzs · Jan 20, 2007, 10:39 AM

I forgot to ask, is this man his own guardian? Was his Mother ever his guardian?

Fr_Chuck · Jan 20, 2007, 11:14 AM

With the added info that "several" people from the dealership was involved, not just one salesman alone, one could perhaps link it as a criminal enterprise even under some Federal guidelines and sue them that way, but not the new owners, only the old owners, ( unless the new owners when they bought the company included any and all outstandings debts and liablitlies which is uncommom)

chippers · Jan 20, 2007, 11:28 AM

In this day and age, every employer especially in retail should do a background check. But this sounds fishy. You would think a car dealership of all with their merchandice wouldve done a back ground check.
I "ve never heard of a dealer driving a customer home to prove they had the money before. Let alone sll a car to someone without a drivers license, or insurance.
Once they saw he did have the money, they conspired against him to rob. Its criminal and if found guilty, the conspirators could be ordered to pay restitution.
Not to mention social service needs to look into getting this gent a state appointed guardian and maybe into a halfway house for mildly handicapped people. Hope they rot in he@@:mad:

ScottGem · Jan 20, 2007, 04:09 PM

A car dealership is not required to a criminal check on an employee. The only way I can see the dealership being liable for the break in is if the breaking was discussed at the dealership and the owners became aware of it.

excon · Jan 23, 2007, 07:27 AM

Hello again:

UPDATE-------UPDATE----------UPDATE

The Huling Brothers, who sold the dealership, have said that they are going to give the guy back ALL his money.

Gee, ain't the world wonderful?

excon

shygrneyzs · Jan 23, 2007, 01:59 PM

Thanks for the update and it is wonderful. Am happy for this guy and hope he can keep any other wolves at bay.