Who's liable in this wreck?

Question

My dad works for a nationwide corporation. He has a company truck and my sister was driving it. She was hit by someone pulling out into the road. It was her fault.

My sister is not insured, nor is my dad. The company he works for, which owns the truck, expects him to pay the damages. Legally, though, is he or my sister liable or is it only the owner of the truck?

For instance, if he refused to pay the damages, they would obviously fire him. Would he still be in danger of being made to pay damages, though? Or would the company only be?

Answer 1

Your dad is on the hook, sorry.  There will likely be a lawsuit, because the claimant wants to get paid, and deserves to get paid (to a certain extent).  They won't be able to collect from your dad, so there will probably be a suit filed against the company, your dad, and your sister.

And if your dad/sister don't pony up, there will likely be a cross-complaint filed by your dad's company vs your dad and sister.

And if the other person had uninsured motorist coverage, expect that insurance company to try and recover from your dad, too.

He made a really bad mistake.  I can't tell you what is going to happen, but depending on the mentality of the person your sister hit, this has the potential to be a huge mess.

Answer 2

When he signed that he became liable for anything that happened if someone else drove it.

Answer 3

You added the edit before I read the question, therefore I am going to tell you that your answer is in the agreement your father signed. Read it again:

Your words....

He signed this:

"Company vehicles are to be driven only by Company employees who are at least 18 years of age and have the department head's approval in Oklahoma......

An employee who allows and unauthorized person to drive a Company vehicle may be held responsible for any and all damage to the vehicle and/or third party damage resulting from such unauthorized use."

Yes, he must pay and could be fired for breaking the rules.

Answer 4

Your sister was probably not supposed to be driving it.  The insurance on the vehicle would cover employees of the company driving company vehicles.  Your sister is not an employee of the company, so she would not be covered, so she would not be allowed to drive the vehicle.

The person your sister hit will probably sue the company, because they would get more out of that than suing your sister, who probably doesn't have any money.  If that happens, it wouldn't be too surprising if your dad got fired.  Hopefully not, but it sounds very likely, whether your dad pays for the damages or not.

Answer 5

Sad to say, in the end, your father will be liable.  At the moment, the company is liable for the damages to the other vehicle, since it was their vehicle which caused the damages.  However, given what your father signed, he will ultimately be held responsible by his employer. If the damages are substantial, they make take legal action against your father if he refuses to pay.

As well, he may be disciplined or fired by the employer for allowing your sister to drive a company owned vehicle.

Answer 6

I don't think that statement he signed would hold up in court.

I'm trying to figure out how it happened that she was in the main road, someone pulled out, and there was a collision, and it was her fault.  Normally, it would have been the person entering the road at fault.

Now, legally, assuming that paper doesn't hold up in court, both the owner of the vehicle, and the driver of the vehicle, can be made to pay damages.  Neither of those is your dad.

So I think that the company insurance would pick it up, then go after your sister for reimbursement.

Answer 7

When I read the first line, I thought, "Why would the sister be driving a company vehicle?".

Your father is on the hook, especially since he signed an agreement not to allow others to drive the vehicle.  The company insurance undoubtedly does not cover non-employees.  

Even if he pays for all the damage, your father could find himself out of a job for violating company policy.

Answer 8

Not only did your father break company rules, he violated it's trust.

The victim in this case can sue your sister, and the company, since it was a company-owned vehicle.

Lawyers look for deep pockets, and will go after both. They want to settle out of court, and the company will probably agree, because it would probably cost a lot more for legal defense.

Your father will probably lose his job, if that happens.

Being a multi-line agent, and having written personal as well as commercial vehicles, a large percentage of claims came from "loaned" vehicles.

There was an agent with whom I was acquainted, who had written a personal auto policy with high limits ($500,000) of liability. The owner of the vehicle loaned it to a friend, and the friend had a tragic accident, which was determined to be his fault. The insurance company paid out the maximum amount to the victim.

Since that agent was self-employed, and owned his agency, the company that was represented in this case put his agency on moratorium, because that claim caused his loss ratio to skyrocket to well above 100%. He couldn't get it under control, so the company canceled his contract. He finally sold the agency, but suffered a terrific loss in the sale.

I, personally, had an insured who let her brother borrow her car. He had his son and nephew in the car at the time when he tried to outrun a train at the crossing. He said he "didn't see" the train, and ran into the side of it. It was after dark. There were no safety barriers at the crossing, but the signal lights worked. It totaled the car, and put the injured nephew in the hospital. Thank God that nobody was killed. The boy recovered.

The moral of these stories is: DO NOT LOAN VEHICLES to anyone. If you do, it will turn around and bite you. If someone needs transportation, drive him/her. Do not loan your car or truck to anyone. Period.