
Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical - branola
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/your-money/relayrides-accident-raises-questions-on-liabilities-of-car-sharing.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&pagewanted=all
======
newbie12
RelayRides is not carrying enough insurance. Individual coverage from car
owners is inadequate, and car owners can't be expected to purchase commercial
car rental insurance just to participate in RelayRides.

This kind of reminds me of AirBnB, where new forms of renting rely, in part,
on deceiving users about the risks. RelayRides and AirBnbB business models
rely in part on the savings from inadequate insurance coverage, where
individuals are suckered into taking on commercial risks while still carrying
only individual insurance and having unlimited personal liability.

~~~
kfk
I used AirBnB a couple of times, I think is a good idea. Prices aren't cheap
at all, but you get an appartment with utilities and not a B&B room. However,
I too keep wondering on the risks associated with renting. They are just
difficult to estimate. The renter may put a bomb in the appartment, how do you
protect yourself financially from this?

For this to make sense the number of the appartments (or cars) destroyed or
damaged must me low enough that the cost for repairing is way lower than
AirBnB revenues. Not sure this is possible with only 10% fee on renting
although.

------
haberman
It seems perverse that mere ownership of something can create liability.

If she had failed to get some maintenance that made the car dangerous to
drive, that would be one thing. But there is no indication that this is the
case.

If a psychopath rents a VHS from Blockbuster and then uses it to bludgeon
someone's head in, is Blockbuster liable for that act of violence? Sure, a VHS
is not intended to be used this way, but a car is not intended to be crashed
either.

~~~
rayiner
It seems less perverse when you think of tort liability as assignment of the
costs of risk, rather than punishment for negligent behavior. When someone
drives a car, this creates risk. Who should bear this risk? Somebody has to,
the only thing the tort system decides is who. If you don't assign the risk to
the owner of the dangerous instrumentality, then you assign it to either the
operator or the general public. Assigning the risk to the public essentially
socialized the costs of this activity (which generates private benefits), so
as a practical matter the tort system allocates the risk to the owner and
operator. Under this system the operator has a responsibility to use the
dangerous instrument carefully, while the owner has the responsibility to
carefully choose who operates the dangerous instrument.

~~~
fffggg
This doesn't seem any less perverse to me. Shifting responsibility to the
operator makes sense for injury resulting from operation. Shifting
responsibility to the owner only makes sense for injury resulting from the
ownership (improper device maintenance, etc).

If you can hold the owner of a car liable for a crash then what stops you from
holding the creator of a car liable for a crash? Why not go after Toyota? By
this line of reasoning Toyota is just as culpable as Ms. Fong.

Indeed, some tort actions have gone beyond owners and even pursued
manufactures -- particularly gun manufactures.

The idea that an object owner or object creator might be liable for the
actions of an object user is unreasonable and perverse. It has a chilling
effect on innovation and forces small businesses (who can't afford to lobby
regulatory protections such as the Graves amendment) out of the market.

~~~
rayiner
If owners are not liable, what stops the owners of inherently dangerous
businesses like car rentals from shielding themselves from the inherent risks
created by their activity by having judgment-proof operators operate that
risk-creating business?

The issue here is not regulation of lobbying. It's the very simple fact that
driving a car creates substantial risks that have a price. Someone must pay
that price. Owners and operators of dangerous instrumentalities are much more
appropriate to bear that price than injured third parties. Owners are much
more likely to be able to bear the cost than operators. If you shield owners,
than you are practically shifting the burden to the public. I.e. socializing
the costs. Yes it's great for small businesses to shift the costs of their
profit-making activity to the public.

Ms. Fong's ownership of the car gives her the right to profit by renting it.
It is fair to link that right with the obligation for risks created by that
profit-making activity.

~~~
fffggg
Judgement-proof operators? Nowhere was it suggested that operators ought be
judgement-proof. In fact, I suggested the exact opposite.

The issue is exactly one of lobbying. As the article notes, the auto insurance
industry has successfully lobbied to pass the Graves Amendment, which
nullifies vicarious liability for auto rental. The article mentions this, and
you can read more here:
<http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/49/VI/A/301/I/30106>

Car rental owners _are_ shielded by this lobbied-for legislation. The only
question is whether Ms. Fong will qualify as a rental agency for the purposes
of this law.

This is precisely a case where an industry has lobbied for an exemption which
may exclude others from competing in said industry. It is a textbook example
of regulation preventing disruption of an established industry.

~~~
rayiner
Judgment-proof in the sense that the operator has no assets with which to pay
the judgment.

The operator here _is_ liable. But if the operator has insufficient assets to
satisfy the damages, the owner is a more sensible person to bear the costs of
the accident than the injured party.

~~~
WalterBright
You're suggesting that the person at fault is the person who has money.

This is fundamentally unjust.

~~~
tzs
When a joint enterprise accidentally injures a third party, generally all
possible outcomes are fundamentally unjust. That's what makes tort law
interesting.

------
rayiner
I don't get the people complaining about the tort system. The tort system
didn't create the losses here, the car and the driver created the losses. The
people being severely injured created the losses, and frankly for severe
injuries to 4 people in an accident that killed one person, $1.5 million is
not an unreasonable estimate of the actual economic loss in this situation.
The tort system is just allocating this loss to the parties involved.

The fact of the matter is that cars are dangerous instrumentalities. A car
accident can create enormous costs. In car sharing, someone must bear the cost
of this risk. With its $1m of liability insurance, RelayRides is taking on a
fixed amount of risk, and allocating the rest to the car owner. I think you'd
be stupid to take on this risk without more compensation than what RelayRides
provides, but that's what Ms. Fong signed up for.

~~~
WildUtah
Individuals are largely shielded from taking responsibility for the dangers
and costs of car crashes in the USA by special exceptions and allowances.
Companies and commercial renters are not so protected. That makes consumers
drastically underestimate the real costs of their car use and RelayRides is
going to face a hard task in keeping it covered up for their individual
providers.

Both civil and criminal liability for killing and injuring others with a car
non-commercially are incredibly cheap. The usual penalty for killing someone
with a car is no penalty at all, even though over one hundred people a day die
from driver negligence.

~~~
rayiner
I agree. The solution is fewer restrictions on tort liability, not more. If
people bore the costs of driving, they would drive less.

------
libria
> _On one hand, she is certainly an inviting target. After all, she has worked
> full-time at Google and is now finishing her degree at M.I.T. She probably
> has many millions of dollars of income ahead of her that a lawyer could try
> to garnish._

Absolutely disgusting. Our system punishes those brilliant and capable minds
that can drive the nations economy. Meanwhile, underachievers everywhere can
sleep peacefully.

Unless her car was in a state of disrepair, any lawyer (off the record) would
have to admit she couldn't be responsible. But hey, assigning liability is so
much more lucrative than truth.

Also,

> _"RelayRides rejects any suggestion that it is acting in a self-interested
> manner. “Our interest is in protecting Ms. Fong,”"_

and

> _When I asked the company whether this meant cutting a check to Ms. Fong-
> Jones if she ended up personally liable, Alex Benn, a lawyer who oversees
> insurance for the company, had this to say: "What happens in any sort of
> accident with insufficient coverage?..."_

seem at odds.

~~~
newbie12
She has clear liability. She agreed, after reviewing the request, to rent her
car, for a profit, to someone who was a reckless driver and did serious harm
to others (and, sadly, himself). I hate the U.S. tort system but some
liability in this case is pretty reasonable.

~~~
guard-of-terra
No there isn't. You neither can nor should screen buyers and renters. This
simply isn't your job. And it harms the business the big way. When people rent
cars they also rent the risk.

~~~
rayiner
The system creates liability for owners of instrumentalities that inherently
create a risk to society, like cars.

Should to owners of a coal plant be liable if it explodes and injures people
living nearby? Even if they weren't the ones who were operating it at the
time?

~~~
guard-of-terra
If they lease or sell it, they should not.

~~~
rayiner
If they sell their ownership interest they clearly don't have liability. If
they lease it, they are profiting from the operation of the dangerous
instrument, why should they be insulated from the risks of that operation?

Again, realize that the tort system does not create the costs. Operation of
dangerous things has inherent costs. Ownership of property implies the right
to receive the benefits for that operation, so it should imply the obligation
to bear the risks of that operation.

~~~
guard-of-terra
The risk in this case is destroyed car, but not the health liability. If the
car was dangerous, then there should be liability; if it wasn't, there
absolutely should not.

~~~
rayiner
No, the health liability is a risk of car operation. Accidents happen, and
they injure people, even in the absence of negligence or poor maintenance.
Driving creates a risk of injury to others, inherently.

------
atirip
Well, this shows how fucked up US system is... In Europe this absolutely
cannot happen. First, everybodys is health is insured by state, so whatever
injuries in whatever car accident anybody may have, there's no claims to
present to anybody - state pays everything. Secondly, one in Europe shall not
fear any "pain-and-suffering suits", and even more when you are just the owner
of the vehicle. Third, liability insurance is unlimited so if you totally
trash somebody's Ferrari with your Yugo, no fear, you are fully covered.

~~~
olex
I live in Germany, and not all of this is entirely true.

Liability insurance isn't strictly unlimited, the coverage limits are just
very high - e.g. in Germany, personal damages are covered with a minimum of
7,5 mio. euro (with a maximum limit of 8 to 15 million per person, depending
on the insurance company), and total damage is mostly limited at 50-100 mio.
euro. For most accidents, these numbers are fairly equal to "unlimited".

About health insurance - I'm not quite sure how you come at the conclusion
that state pays everything. Injuries in an accident are paid for by the liable
party's liability insurance, the same as in the U.S.

~~~
gcb
Just for comparison, here in the us insurance for a 25k car and minimal (some
100 or 300k for the described case in the article) plus uninsured driver would
be well over 1.2k per month.

In other countries i paid that per year for way more peace of mind.

~~~
mikeryan
I'm not sure why you're paying $1200 a month for insurance but that's not the
norm for US based auto insurance at all.

~~~
gcb
I'm not. I pay 300 a year, but i don't even cover my car.

But yesterday i did the car coverage for a used 09 bmw 128iC.

Couldn't get any lower than that on several websites

------
uptown
I think she's extremely naive to put her new car back into the pool before
finding out how the courts handle this incident.

~~~
geoffschmidt
I think she's thinking logically. From the perspective of a RelatRides lessor,
fatal accidents are low probability events. That she experienced such an event
yesterday doesn't change the probability that she'll experience such an event
tomorrow. She's only naive if every single RelayRides lessor who reads this
story is also naive to continue using the service.

~~~
uptown
She's naive because she's choosing to re-enter a partnership based exclusively
on the perceived benefits (make money, save the world, etc.) without having a
clear interpretation of the associated risks. Worse yet, she doesn't even have
a clear answer on what her current liabilities are from her previous vehicle.
I'm amazed her insurance company offers her a policy given her apparent
disregard for liability she's potentially assuming on their behalf. I agree
with your last sentence.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
> I'm amazed her insurance company offers her a policy given her apparent
> disregard for liability she's potentially assuming on their behalf.

Insurance policies generally explicitly exclude commercial leasing of the
vehicle, otherwise rental companies would already be ripping them off.

------
bcl
I don't understand why they aren't going after the dead guy's insurance. He's
the one who was at fault, not the owner of the car, so his insurance should be
the one to pay for the injuries.

~~~
steve8918
If the person didn't have their own car, I would be surprised if they had
their own car insurance. The victims could sue the estate, but there might not
be a lot of money in it.

~~~
delinka
In my state, you can't get auto insurance without a car. You can be a licensed
driver, you can have money to hand the insurance company for your premium, but
if you don't _own_ a car, you can't get car insurance. I don't know if you
could get general liability insurance that would also cover you driving other
people's cars.

But if it's the _car_ that's insured, why do specific drivers have to be
listed on the policy? The way I understand it is even if I'm not listed on
someone's policy and I'm driving _their_ car, _their_ auto insurance covers my
fuck up when I cause an accident.

Doesn't seem right, but I suppose that's the way it works.

~~~
jacquesgt
When you're driving someone else's car, their collision/comprehensive
insurance covers damage to their car (although there's a chance their
insurance company will decline to pay or decide to sue you depending on the
circumstances). Your liability insurance covers personal injury and property
damage that you cause to others.

Drivers are listed for two reasons. The first is because a big chunk of car
insurance is liability insurance. The second is because the probability of the
insurance company having to pay to repair or replace your car depends on the
likelihood one of the drivers will cause an accident.

This is all made more complicated by the fact that personal injury lawsuits
are a numbers game. If the driver didn't have insurance and their estate has
very little money, it doesn't matter that making them liable is a slam dunk
case. It's not worth the effort. On the other hand, if the car owner has
insurance, is alive, and has a lifetime income potential in the tens of
millions of dollars, that's worth a lawsuit even if the probability of success
is lower.

It feels scummy, but most personal injury lawyers are investing in cases.
They'll be happy to take a lower probability chance on a bigger return. It's
not all that different from venture capital, although you could argue pretty
easily that VCs are a more positive force for social good and value creation.

------
robomartin
Hypothetical: I lend a hammer to a neighbor. He then goes and, after building
the cabinet he needed the hammer for, kills two people with it.

Why am I liable for his actions?

This is the part of the rent-your-car story I just don't get. She had nothing
to do with it. She should have zero liability. That's the part of the legal
system that is really messed-up. Liability for this accident should sit
squarely on the shoulders of those directly involved in causing it. The only
way she should be liable is if the car had a known defect that caused the
accident.

~~~
rayiner
The difference is that car accidents are a foreseeable and inherent risk of
car operation, but not hammer operation.

~~~
learc83
Car _accidents_ are foreseeable and inherent, but this guy was driving in the
wrong lane, what if he intentionally did it as a suicide (not saying he did,
but hypothetically).

What if someone rented a car and intentionally drove it into a crowd of
people?

------
Tooluka
It is beyond my understanding how could Ms. Fong-Jones even considered being
responsible. This a complete bullshit. It is like suing knife salesman for
each harmful incident involving knifes he sold.

Also I don't understand why people here say that "In car sharing, someone must
bear the cost of this risk.". If lightning would stuck that car, who would
they sue, Zeus?

~~~
Mvandenbergh
Nobody would be sued, the owner of any property bears the risk of its
accidental destruction unless they transfer some or all of that risk to an
insurance company.

------
jiggy2011
Perhaps the answer here is to insist that a renter must either have valid
insurance already that would pay out to third parties in the event that they
were driving any vehicle. Most fully comprehensive insurance in the UK already
covers this assuming you have valid fully comp on some car already.

For example I (being fully insured on my own car) could drive a friend's car
without being specifically insured on it and were I to get involved in an
accident (that was my fault) then damage to third parties are covered but
damages to my friend's car are not unless his insurance specifically covers
me.

If the renter doesn't have this insurance already simply increase the amount
they have to pay to rent in order to cover it.

~~~
alister
> insist that a renter...have valid insurance [or pay a higher fee]

If you don't own a car it is just about _impossible_ to buy a liability
insurance policy. I know this. I tried. I tried very hard.

I don't own a car myself, but since I often rent a car when I travel, I
decided that I'd try to buy a third-party liability policy instead of paying
the absurd prices that Avis or Dollar charge (>$20 a day).

I called about 10-15 insurance brokers, and not one of them had ever written a
"non-owner" policy. The standard answer I got was, "You have to own a car to
get liability insurance; yes, it'll cover you for other vehicles you drive,
but you have to have your own car for us to create a policy for you".

I realize that you are in the UK, so the situation might be different there.
But in the US (and Canada), I think that RelayRides would have to be the one
to provide the coverage, because the average RelayRides user (who likely lives
in the same city and doesn't own a car) won't have his own liability insurance
(and couldn't get it even if he wanted it!).

~~~
mjg59
If you have any sort of credit record then most of the annual-fee credit cards
provide rental insurance, and the fee is typically less than a small number of
days of paying the rental agency.

~~~
mjg59
...but, as noted elsewhere, this does seem to generally exclude liability
coverage so really isn't very helpful to you.

------
wazoox
The egregious part is the limited insurance coverage ($1M from the rental
company and $300K from the renter). This probably wouldn't happen in Europe.

~~~
legulere
Don't know about the rest of Europe, but here in Germany we also have limited
insurance coverage.

By law the minimum for person damage is 7.5 million €, for property damage
1.12 million €. Usual sums are 50 or 100 million €.

So in the end it's very unlikely for something like that to happen in Germany.

------
ricardobeat
Legal blabber aside, the tone in the article is infuriating - standard US
media fear-inducing lawsuit crap. Instead of reporting on the legal hurdles or
debating the consequences they just want to send a message that it's
"dangerous" to engage in new business like this.

~~~
finneusbarr
Articles like this tend to create a risk-averse culture, causing people to be
afraid of failure. An article that was more negative towards the lawyers/tort
law would be much better, I think.

------
mratzloff
As an aside, I've never heard of this service but it sounds like a terrible
deal for the owner. I assume the $10/hour is supposed to help offset wear and
tear, although I hope the renter has to at least replace the gas they use.

------
pwthornton
Zipcar and similar car clubs makes a lot more sense than car sharing. You
essentially join Zipcar and share the liability and car ownership costs. $1
million is not enough coverage in the case of a catastrophic accident, and the
law and insurance companies have not caught up to car sharing.

I would not rent my car out unless the liability issue was better taken care
of. But then again, I don't get car sharing vs. car clubs.

If you need your car so little that you can rent it out, why not just join
Zipcar or another car sharing club?

~~~
gcb
The main thing is: \- she don't need the car often \- buys expensive new car
\- buys a car that can't sit for a long time

If she researched a little more she would have not got a new hybrid but some
old diesel. It's probably cleaner than agasoline hybrid doesn't generate all
the upfront manufacturing garbage and batteries that are awful for the
environment and reuse a car that is already made anyway.

~~~
SkyMarshal
_> If she researched a little more she would have not got a new hybrid but
some old diesel. It's probably cleaner than agasoline hybrid_

I was under the impression old diesels were dirtier than gasoline engines. New
clean deisels like in Audi's no, but old ones? But you're saying they're
cleaner?

~~~
gcb
Not suggesting a 50s diesel. But anything up to the price of a prius would be
better.

Point is, even a gasoline suv pollutes less than a prius overall if you don't
use it that often.

Just arguing that as an engineer, you should look at other solutions instead
of jumping the bandwagon. Let pointy hairy bosses and ruby on rails guys do it
instead.

~~~
SkyMarshal
*>Just arguing that as an engineer, you should look at other solutions instead of jumping the bandwagon.

That's what I'm doing. I really want a diesel for my next car, but a clean
diesel. Just wondering if there are any less expensive options than a new or
relatively new Audi.

~~~
gcb
Previous diesels were awful because of the stuff we had in the diesel itself.
The engines are still the same, mostly. any year car you get that still have
good compression will give you a clean burn (if it's too lean, you get too
much nitrogen oxide, to rich you get carbon and shoot).

if you want to go the extra mile you can either buy the hamburguer smelling
vegetable conversion kits (too much hassle to refil imho) or you can spend
extra and put a modern catalytic system in the old car and be done with it.

a 2000 VW, Audi, mbez will do wonders and cost from 6 to 12k.

------
tzs
I see a lot of discussion of the legal system and assignment of liability.
There's an interesting fact about the legal system in non-criminal cases that
is widely overlooked--there is usually no possible outcome that doesn't screw
someone.

Accordingly, when someone is found liable in tort, it doesn't necessarily mean
the court is _blaming_ them for the accident.

Let me give a classic example. Three men go out hunting. They come to a
clearing, and two of the men go around on the left and the third goes around
on the right.

A game bird flies up from the clearing when the two groups are on opposite
sides. Both men on the left fire at the bird. One of them gets the bird. One
of them misses the bird but hits their companion who was going around the
right.

It is not possible to determine which man shot the bird and which shot the
human. Both shooters claim that they definitely shot the bird, of course.

The third man sues the first two. There's no outcome that does not screw at
least one of the three:

1\. The court could find neither shooter is liable, since it cannot be proven
which actually fired the errant shot. That screws the third man since he got
shot and cannot collect damages from the shooter.

2\. The court could find that both shooters are liable, and make each pay half
the damages. Assuming each shooter can actually afford half the damages that
is fair to the third man, but screws whichever shooter actually hit the bird.

3\. Furthermore, in #3, support it turns out one of the shooters has a lot
more money than the other. Then in addition to screwing one of the shooters,
the third man could get screwed in that he might not be able to collect enough
to cover his medical bills.

4\. The court could find that the two shooters are jointly liable, and not
even try to allocate blame between them. The third man can enforce the
judgement against them however he wants. So, if one shooter has a lot of money
and one does not, the third man would enforce against the one with the most
money. This is good for the third man as it lets him get his medical bills
covered. It potentially screws the wealthy shooter, though, if in fact he was
the one who shot the bird--he's left holding the bag for all of the damages.

The way it actually happens in most states is #4. The idea is that of the
three men the one who least deserves getting screwed is the guy who got shot,
so we want to maximize the chances that he can recover full damages, and can
do so quickly. Only #4 ensures that.

As far as the shooters go, if one of them isn't happy with the way the third
man chooses to go about collating the damages, he's free to file a lawsuit
against the other shooter to recover the amount he thinks he was unfairly
forced to pay.

Note that even though one of the shooters did not shoot the third man, it was
his shot that created the ambiguity as to which one of them did shoot the
third man.

This is called "joint and several liability".

This is a pretty good system. It lets the party that is actually injured get
damages quicker to get them on the road to recovery (and keep them from
getting bankrupted by medical bills), but still lets the parties that
contributed to the injury fight it out among themselves to figure out how,
ultimately, the damages should be split among them.

Note: joint and several liability only applies to defendants who do have some
liability, as determined by the court, I believe.

~~~
coffeemug
I understand that this is a somewhat contrived example used to illustrate a
point, but there are many more options available to the court in this case:

1\. Both men that fired a shot are found liable because firing a shot knowing
one of the men may be in a line of fire is irresponsible and potentially
criminal.

2\. None of the men that fired a shot are found liable because the third man
went into a section of the forest he wasn't supposed to go into because by
doing so he put human life under significant risk.

3\. The establishment that manages the hunting grounds (a private
organization, the state, or even the federal government) is found liable
because it didn't properly segment the area to sufficiently prevent risk of
human injuries.

4\. All three men are found liable because they didn't properly define
necessary rules in order to prevent risk of human injuries.

In fact, in this case I'd argue that it's _irrelevant_ which man fired a shot
that hit the third man. Either

a) Both mean fired when they weren't supposed to, in which case they're both
liable.

b) The third man went where he wasn't supposed to, in which case he is fully
liable for his own injuries.

c) A third party organization that manages the hunting grounds didn't properly
set up the rules, in which case it is liable.

d) The men were responsible for setting up the rules themselves, in which case
all three of them are liable.

If you look at the case this way, you can easily find an outcome that doesn't
screw anyone. _Someone_ was responsible for ensuring proper safety
precautions, and they didn't do their job. That party (or group of parties) is
liable. The others are not.

------
xxpor
If you wanted to rent your car out like this, how hard is it to set up an LLC
so if god forbid something like this happens, they can't come after you
personally?

~~~
kalininalex
Simply setting up LLC (or any other type of entity) is not sufficient. To
shield your personal assets LLC needs to be properly capitalized and be
managed like a proper business. Essentially, it will at least require carrying
some kind of commercial insurance, plus having extra money in the bank for
operating expenses (how much - depends on the business). This sort of defeats
the idea of effortless car sharing.

------
cantankerous
I'd personally feel more comfortable putting my car into a car-share pool if I
had to transfer the title to the pool in exchange for payouts and some kind of
guarantee of a way to get the title of my car _back to me_ should I want to
retake ownership. Shouldn't this alleviate the personal liability issue? The
deaths involved are most certainly a tragedy, but I find it impossible to
fault Ms. Fong for any wrongdoing.

------
deepGem
Just an analogy - what if you rent your house and the renter happens to be a
serial killer and 'uses' the house to murder people, and in one of the acts
kills himself. Won't it be ludicrous for the authorities to prosecute the
owner ? Unless they can establish that the owner had prior knowledge of the
serial killer and rented the house on purpose.

I don't understand how the owner of the car can be held responsible for the
damages.

------
tibbon
Can someone explain to me why it isn't always the operator of the vehicle who
is liable for death/destruction caused by their operation? Unless the brake
lines were severed intentionally or the vehicle was provably neglected, then
it would seem to me that the ultimate responsibility is on the driver who
causes the accident- not the owner of the car or the company that facilitated
the rental.

~~~
Nelson69
Well, he's dead. In some sort of spiritual way, he is liable. What's going on
here isn't about the guilt or real liability, it's about trying to turn pain
and suffering into money. The simple rules for that are if you're going to try
to sue someone, sue someone that has money and sue someone that you can get
the money from.

RelayRides, I would think, would be a better target, you might get more money
faster but the reality here, unfortunate or not (depending on who's side you
take,) is RelayRides is going to be sued and Ms. Fong is probably going to be
sued too. Tell me why RelayRide's funders aren't the ones holding the bag
here, figure that one out, you nearly never hear about that.

Sometimes it sucks. Sometimes people don't seem to mind. OJ Simpson was
acquitted of murder (re: as in found not guilty by a jury) and yet he was sued
for moneys due to the death of his ex-wife and her friend, everyone sort of
felt okay with that. Ms. Fong, strictly speaking, didn't crash the car, but
she stood to profit from the cars use and it was her car and she has
insurance, she's going to likely get sued. It's a real bummer those folks got
hurt, sounds pretty rough to me, I hope someone makes them whole or as whole
as they can be. It's the system we've got.

~~~
tibbon
I guess I see it as his estate being the one that is responsible financially
at this point. Life insurance policy, home, car, investments, etc.

Her making $10/hr off it really just doesn't seem to factor in in my mind.
Wrecking the car wasn't an expected use of that rental.

------
vinayan3
Who was this person who rented the car? He was driving in the wrong lane. What
kind of screening did RelayRides do?

~~~
ars
Beyond checking that he has a valid drivers license (not suspended, etc), what
else do you expect them to do?

~~~
tibbon
Exactly. Before renting _anything_ to _anyone_ should they undergo a 2-day
full psychological evaluation to ensure that they are mentally stable, plus a
full driving skills assessment? No, that's clearly absurd.

It should be the driver and his estate that is responsible in the end. If that
estate does not have enough resources to cover the damages, then... well, shit
happens and sometimes there's just no recourse for bad luck.

------
ivankirigin
This is a bit of FUD IMHO

Also, I've thought for some time that P2P car sharing should be over longer
terms, like months.

~~~
raverbashing
Agreed

"That's why we can't have nice things"

Too much liability issues and because of (most likely) an irresponsible driver
now they're (or better, someone that can pin any cost on the injured) goes
after the car renter, car manufacturer, road authority, etc. They'll probably
make a way for Steve Jobs to be liable as well if they can, I guess

"no longer theoretical" No crap sherlock. People have been getting injured in
car accidents for the past 100 years.

By getting into a car and driving you assume a non zero risk of being injured
or killed in a car accident. Do you want zero risk? Live in a bubble

Now his suddenly becomes a multi-million dollar cash cow for several 3rd
parties.

Except for the victims of course, who'll have to deal with giant health costs
(because of similar excess liability and regulation meandering by the
authorities and greed by the medical industry)

Sure, liability is important, if it involved a drunk driver for example, or a
fault that comes from the car maker.

But there's always a risk! And preventing some risks causes even more risks
sometimes.

~~~
sethg
_By getting into a car and driving you assume a non zero risk of being injured
or killed in a car accident._

By getting into a car and driving you assume a non zero risk of being sued for
damages caused by a car accident.

~~~
omonra
Except that in this story she didn't cause the accident.

