Would I be liable for damage caused by vehicle failure during a test drive? I recently purchased a vehicle via an online dealer that offers a 7 day test-drive period. While on a test drive, I heard a familiar &quot;Knocking&quot; noise coming from the driver's side front wheel. I happened to know what it was, as I had experienced this once before. The wheel was not attached properly, and the nuts were loose. Another 10 minutes of driving, it would've popped off and rolled down the road. (Again, this has happened to me before and narrowly missed going into someone's windshield - Thankfully that incident resulted only in damage to my wheel and lower arm joint.) I pulled over, tightened the nuts, and drove it the last mile home. I contacted the dealer and told them I would be exercising the 7-day guarantee - I would not be purchasing the vehicle. When it was picked up, I told them on no uncertain terms that the vehicle was not fit to drive until the wheels were inspected by a professional. In addition to this, the company that sold me the car has a &quot;150 point checklist&quot; that specifically claims to have addressed these exact deficient items on the car. My question is, had the wheel come off and caused horrible damage to life and property, who would have been held responsible? The car was not yet registered in my name as it was in a &quot;Test drive period&quot;, I did have insurance, and the problem would not have been my fault (as far as I am concerned, at least. . But what does the law think?) Even though this is a hypothetical, it came very close to happening. If it's relevant, this would've taken place in Texas, United States.
Yes Under Texas law (and pretty much everywhere else) the driver of the vehicle is responsible for ensuring that it is roadworthy. This does not mean that someone else cannot also be liable - the mechanic who fixed the wheel and their employer would also be liable. The claim for damages from a motor vehicle accident lies in the tort of negligence and the standards that the driver has to attain to avoid liability is that of a reasonable person. A reasonable person is not an average person who (probably) just gets in a car and drives but a prudent person who considers the risks to themselves and others and takes reasonable steps to mitigate them. Like looking at the wheels of an unfamiliar car. If the defect were obvious to a layperson from a visual inspection, they would be liable if they had not conducted such an inspection. Similarly, continuing to drive when a car is making a &quot;Knocking&quot; noise even if you didn't know what it was is not something a reasonable person would do. If you knew what the noise was and kept driving we are now moving from negligence into recklessness and the realms of criminal liability like manslaughter.
In Austria they have a law about &quot;Kreditschädigung&quot; (website from the Austrian government, &quot;credit damage&quot;) translated by Google as: Because of credit damage, a person is liable to prosecution if he or she asserts incorrect facts and thereby harms or endangers the credit, the acquisition or professional advancement of another person. A prison sentence of up to six months or a fine of up to 360 daily rates is provided for the offense of credit damage. If you setup a webpage which lists things which might harm somebody's business, you have to proof that every single claim you make is correct (not just your individual experience). So if you have solid proof for each of your claims of your Q&amp;A, you might win a probable law suite. The way you wrote it, it might be difficult to proof because it seems to be your personal experience. See also here for details. (in German).
is there any legal action I can take against the dealership to enforce their compliance with our contractual agreement? Yes, you can sue for breach of contract. You would probably seek an order for specific performance. You could also claim damages but it is difficult to see exactly what damage you have suffered. Is there a reasonable timeline that they must deliver within if a date is not specified in the contract? Yes, where a contract is silent on a date for performance of an obligation they must be carried out in a reasonable time. From the circumstances 4 months is starting to seem unreasonable but they will no doubt argue that it is reasonable- this is something the court would decide.
Some states allow you to just exchange information and then each party files their own accident report with the police and the DOT within an allowed amount of time, so long as the cars are only minimally damaged and nobody is hurt. If one party wants the police there, it is standard to wait. If both decide it not necessary, it is fine to leave. Either way, leaving or staying does not give rise to the avoidance of a finding of fault against one party or another. The state of Wisconsin is a Tort State (as opposed to a no-fault state). These are insurance related issues as opposed to legal issues, but utterly intertwined. The accident reports filed by each party, any police reports and other relevant data will be submitted to the DMV and the insurance, and the insurance companies will assign fault if the DMV or police haven't, either by agreement or inter-company arbitration. Relating to your question, however, you will see the processes required HERE. In part, it states the following: REPORTING AN ACCIDENT TO THE WISCONSIN DOT In some situations, you must report an accident to the Wisconsin Police. If the police were unable to file an accident report, you must complete and submit a Driver Accident Report within 10 days of an accident, if any of the following apply: The accident caused injury or death. Property damage to at least one person's property amounted to $1,000 or more. Damage to government property, other than vehicles, amounted to $200 or more. If you fail to report an accident to the Wisconsin DOT, you may have your license suspended. In the event that another driver offers to pay for damages and asks you not to report an accident, you are still required to file the report in any of the situations outlined above. Your report must include detailed and current information regarding your insurance coverage. The DOT will cross-check this information with the insurance company shown on the report. If you did not have liability insurance when the accident occurred and were unable to provide restitution for injuries or damages sustained due to your negligence, your driving privileges will be suspended. You will be required to file proof of future financial responsibility (SR-22) in order to have your driving privileges reinstated. Make a copy of the accident report form for your personal records. You can mail the original directly to: Traffic Accident Section, Wisconsin Department Of Transportation, Po Box 7919, Madison, WI 53707-7919 As you can see, from your interpretation/description, you were not technically required to deal with the police, but you were required to exchange information, assess and give aid to the extent possible to the other driver, and so if the other called for emergency intervention it may be the other driver disagreed w/ one of these assessments (damage or injury).** If you did exchange information, took photos, etc., you are probably ok. If not, certainly that will be problematic. **I know you are saying there was no damage or injury. However, while you are saying this is what the other driver acquiesced to, it may be that it is not the case either afterward or he/she wanted to avoid (potentially dangerous) interaction at the scene. That said, while you can clearly see the situations by which the police are necessitated, you also indicate the other driver called the police. In that case, you probably should have stayed once you were alerted to that fact, as leaving puts you in the precarious position of only the other driver's side being documented by the police, and your absence may lead the officer to find you at fault or with something to hide. The officer will file a report, either way, of which you must get a copy. If he disagrees with your assessment of the damage/injury and feels you left in the face of those situations proscribed, you will know because you will be arrested or summoned for leaving the scene. That is to be determined by the reporting officer. In the future, if there is an accident and one driver explicitly states the police have been called, you should wait. You don't have to say anything at all to the officer, if you don't want to. In most states, all you need to do is give the officer your driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. It always looks worse to leave the scene knowing they are coming, since it may lead to a determination that it was illegal to do so. Whereas, no additional harm can come from remaining present. So far, I cannot find a state statute there whereby it is explicitly illegal to leave once one driver calls for emergency assistance. If I find this I will amend my answer and cite it.
The correct term for this insurance is personal liability insurance - it is neither compulsory nor common in common law jurisdictions. However, some aspects of it may be bundled with other insurances like homeowners, landlords and contents insurance. Liability for damage in common law flows either from a breach of contract or a tort. Of course, if you intentionally cause harm you have crossed the line from civil liability to criminality and no insurance will indemnify you. For your specific examples: [I]f, say, a candle falls over and I burn my flat? If your lease prohibited you from having open flames then this would be a clear breach of contract and you would have to pay for the damage to the flat (and your own property, of course). If your lease was silent on this, then you would be liable if you were negligent and each party would bear their own losses if you weren't (i.e. it was a pure "accident"). What if a flower pot falls from my windowsill and accidentally kills someone? The passerby has no action under contract as they don't have one. They can sue you, or the landlord, or the body corporate (or all three) for negligence - the landlord's and/or body corporate's insurance would respond and if it included a waiver of subrogation (most do), the insurer could not sue any of the other parties for their losses. What if my trolley bumps into an old lady at the supermarket and I break her hip? What if I walk on my friend's glasses and break them? You have no contract with either of these people so they cannot sue you under one. If they can prove negligence then you have to pay for the damage. If it is, instead a pure "accident" then they bear the cost. However, for the old lady, she is way more likely to sue the supermarket as they will have insurance. It is not as useful in the UK as it is in France due to the need for the plaintiff to prove a breach of contract or negligence. In the UK, you are not responsible for accidents you cause - only accidents you cause negligently.
Your personal liability depends on your state law regarding the family car doctrine, so the answer there is "maybe" (Texas is not a state with that doctrine, so simple ownership of the car does not confer liability). You would be liable if your supervision of the child was negligent, which means approximately that you knew or should have known that she was a bad driver and would cause damage. Still, the insurance company is suppose to indemnify you (plural) against such loses, as long as they are legally required to do so. That would include many considerations, such as whether the driver was covered under the policy, whether the car was being used contrary to the terms of the policy (being used commercially), and so on. The insurance company is entitled to make a reasonable determination of whether they are responsible for the loss (and if so, to what extent). If they actually decline to cover the loss, you would need to sue them to make them comply with the terms of the policy (and your lawyer would give you a detailed explanation of why they are not liable, in case they aren't). The plaintiff works with his insurance company to recover his insured losses, and with his lawyer to recover any uninsured losses. His insurance company works with your insurance company, up to a point, and then the lawyers get involved. Your daughter does not work with his insurance company, and your insurance company probably has said something along the line "only talk to us". The insurance that a driver typically has may cover some of their own medical costs, but does not provide a payment for "pain and suffering": that is an uninsured loss. It is not generally required that drivers carry insurance to cover their own medical expenses – it is required that they insure against damages, in general, suffered by other parties (if the defendant is at fault). So there is probably nothing for the plaintiff to work out with his insurance company. In Texas, if the defendant is entirely at fault, defendant will be liable for 100% of plaintiff's damages. If defendant is 90% at fault, defendant will be liable for 90% of plaintiff's damages. If defendant is 49% at fault, defendant is not liable. Defendant can, in any event, also sue for damages, so if defendant is 49% at fault, defendant can recover 49% of her damages. The insurance companies might be able to talk it out and reach a clear resolution of the matter, but it could be more in their interest to throw the dice and work it out in court. One can always sue at the very start, and drop the suit if it becomes advantageous.
Look at companies such as Haggerty that insure only classic and low mileage cars. They have no issue giving full coverage on your classic car while at the same time you keep your daily driver with another company. Since this is the business model of an entire group of companies that specialize in specialty vehicles, I would think it would be legal.
Regular maintenance does not include repairs for being broken – I have a contract with a company that (for a monthly payment) provides regular maintenance on the furnace, which does not cover the situation where the motor wears out, or whatever. In the worst case scenario of an oil line breech, the tenant would not be liable for the tens of thousands of dollars of cleanup that would be required. Under Pennsylvania law, there is an implied warranty of habilitability, for example the landlord warrants that it doesn't rain inside the house, there is hot and cold running water, and so on. Safe heat is an example of something that is included in a place being habitable. This warranty is not waivable by lease provision (Fair v. Negley, 390 A.2d 240). However, the subjective recommendation of a repair guy has little legal cash value: what is needed is an arms-length evaluation of the safety and functionality of the system. If the recommendation is based on inefficient fuel use and long-term likelihood of eventual system failure, that is probably not sufficient to compel a repair. Excess CO on the other hand is a clear danger. The repairman should be able to at least explain the specifics of the improper setup and the consequences of doing nothing. Documentation of actions taken is a good idea.