Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again with this horrible line of reasoning. Please re-read the OP. The OP specifically states that he told the driver NOT to use the car a long time before the incident. This is pretty much the opposite of "letting" someone use your car. So both of your quotes are 180 degrees from correct. There was no permission here. If there ever was permission (which is arguable at best), it was revoked years before the accident occurred. There are a few other more complex topics at play here too but if you can't even read four sentences in an OP then it's not worth diving into the more interesting stuff, such as who "owns" a car when it is purchased by one party but registered by another.
It's cute when non-lawyers try to use overly general websites like nolo to prove real lawyers wrong about legal issues, but how bout you just let the big boys handle this one, m'kay?
Don't strain yourself patting yourself on the back. In most jurisdictions, the OP would have had to make some much stronger affirmative action to remove the driver's access. Just saying "oh, don't drive it any more" while continuing to let the driver keep possession of the car, keep possession of the keys, while the OP seemingly continued to pay insurance premiums and registration fees for a car that was never in his or her possession will far outweigh any value to the OP making the claim that s/he told the driver to stop using the car.
And by the way, I practiced insurance defense and insurance coverage law for almost 2 decades. So why don't you let the real lawyers who know the field handle this one, m'kay?
Don't strain yourself patting yourself on the back. In most jurisdictions, the OP would have had to make some much stronger affirmative action to remove the driver's access. Just saying "oh, don't drive it any more" while continuing to let the driver keep possession of the car, keep possession of the keys, while the OP seemingly continued to pay insurance premiums and registration fees for a car that was never in his or her possession will far outweigh any value to the OP making the claim that s/he told the driver to stop using the car.
And by the way, I practiced insurance defense and insurance coverage law for almost 2 decades. So why don't you let the real lawyers who know the field handle this one, m'kay?
Again with this horrible line of reasoning. Please re-read the OP. The OP specifically states that he told the driver NOT to use the car a long time before the incident. This is pretty much the opposite of "letting" someone use your car. So both of your quotes are 180 degrees from correct. There was no permission here. If there ever was permission (which is arguable at best), it was revoked years before the accident occurred. There are a few other more complex topics at play here too but if you can't even read four sentences in an OP then it's not worth diving into the more interesting stuff, such as who "owns" a car when it is purchased by one party but registered by another.
It's cute when non-lawyers try to use overly general websites like nolo to prove real lawyers wrong about legal issues, but how bout you just let the big boys handle this one, m'kay?
I made a post about this earlier around p. 7 but many states require strong evidence with a burden on the car owner to prove against explicit and implicit consent. Michigan even allows that knowledge of the car being driven can suffice for the purposes of liability in cases of negligence. The fact that the car is registered and appears to be owned by OP means that she had reason to know that the car continued to be driven, she would have knowledge of whether insurance was being paid etc. Surely you as an attorney should know that sweeping generalizations like Zero Liability are never given and that the appropriate response is almost always it depends.
I haven't litigated these types of civil suits in a long time, I do transactional work.
OP registering and insuring someone else's car in his/her name is enough to prove explicit consent.
I guess those internet law degrees just don't go very far anymore.
LOL!
And this is where the crazy train ends. The car hasn't been insured by the OP in over two years, registered by the OP in at least as long, and the OP revoked any permission. Further, it's not stated whether the OP even owns the car beneficially (ignoring state registration).
Ugh, I give up trying to argue with those who type with their eyes closed. On to better threads.
OP- if you're still reading this, hopefully your attorney disposes with this nonsense case in a few hours.
And this is where the crazy train ends. The car hasn't been insured by the OP in over two years, registered by the OP in at least as long, and the OP revoked any permission. Further, it's not stated whether the OP even owns the car beneficially (ignoring state registration).
Ugh, I give up trying to argue with those who type with their eyes closed. On to better threads.
OP- if you're still reading this, hopefully your attorney disposes with this nonsense case in a few hours.
Past 2 years has no relevance whatsoever..... because it's all AFTER THE FACT! The only thing that matters is what happened prior to the accident and the fact remains OP kept the car in his/her name, insured it in his/her name, never tried to repo the car, never filed a release of liability..... all of which clearly proves CONSENT.
Maybe you should choose a different career because you don't seem to be very good at this. Even other lawyers are poking huge holes in your defense.
Again with this horrible line of reasoning. Please re-read the OP. The OP specifically states that he told the driver NOT to use the car a long time before the incident. This is pretty much the opposite of "letting" someone use your car. So both of your quotes are 180 degrees from correct. There was no permission here. If there ever was permission (which is arguable at best), it was revoked years before the accident occurred. There are a few other more complex topics at play here too but if you can't even read four sentences in an OP then it's not worth diving into the more interesting stuff, such as who "owns" a car when it is purchased by one party but registered by another.
It's cute when non-lawyers try to use overly general websites like nolo to prove real lawyers wrong about legal issues, but how bout you just let the big boys handle this one, m'kay?
You are asserting far more than the OP stated. I would in fact suggest that the whole affair of the refusal to insure and instruction not to use the car where all in a relatively short period of time a couple of years ago. Not certain of that...but much more likely than a long separation between the stop directive and the accident. I suspect OP saw the problem coming and tried to get out from under.
Coming from a family of lawyers and having had a legal staff in a past life and considerable experience in the use of lawyers I would tend to suggest the lawyers here actually show the problem. One lawyer in a room you can have a few opinions. Two lawyers in a room it expands exponentially. Get to three and any theory is possible.
A few years ago I hired a lawyer from one of the major firms locally for representation in a copyright matter. We had a good initial meeting, began to put it together and he wrote me a letter making it clear that he completely forgot our initial conversation and had not the foggiest of how the law worked in this particular matter. I requested an other more knowledgeable counsel of the firm who then fired me as he was a partner and their subject expert. Went off and hired a sole practitioner who won while attempting to rip me off in the process. Lovely people these lawyers.
And this is where the crazy train ends. The car hasn't been insured by the OP in over two years, registered by the OP in at least as long, and the OP revoked any permission. Further, it's not stated whether the OP even owns the car beneficially (ignoring state registration).
Ugh, I give up trying to argue with those who type with their eyes closed. On to better threads.
OP- if you're still reading this, hopefully your attorney disposes with this nonsense case in a few hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by acercode
Past 2 years has no relevance whatsoever..... because it's all AFTER THE FACT! The only thing that matters is what happened prior to the accident and the fact remains OP kept the car in his/her name, insured it in his/her name, never tried to repo the car, never filed a release of liability..... all of which clearly proves CONSENT.
Maybe you should choose a different career because you don't seem to be very good at this. Even other lawyers are poking huge holes in your defense.
acercode is right, the fact that the car was insured and registered AT THE TIME of the accident, means the OP still has liability in the case.
acercode is right, the fact that the car was insured and registered AT THE TIME of the accident, means the OP still has liability in the case.
Not known. Nothing stated by OP implies the insurance was in effect. If it was and it was CA or similar OP is covered...CA limits the liability of an owner for another driver. So she or he would be covered. If no insurance than much messier. Liability of the driver was permitted up to 15k.
Again in CA. So not necessarily the same elsewhere.
OP, if you ever return, send me (or any mod) a private message and I'll open it back up so you can provide an update to what happened.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
