CarTalk.com Blogs Car Info Our Show Deals Mechanics Files Vehicle Donation

Service shop abuse

This guy sounds like a ticking time bomb.
Yup, I’ve known a few like him. Fortunately, only a few. I can’t recall one actually keeping his job after a physical altercation or a threat, however.

I had to fire a guy after a threat once. He was a very loosely-wound gun fanatic, and I had people walk me out to my car at day’s end. That one made me nervous.

One of my colleagues once grabbed me by the collar and threatened physical violence, in front of a lot of people

He was sent home for several days

But he wasn’t fired, because he was “the golden boy”

The manager that let him keep his job was exposing his company to huge liability. Not a good idea. People who threaten others don’t generally do it only once, and they can take the next step the next time. A local facility of a major manufacturer dealt with a threat by suspending the employee for a few days. Some months later he attacked the other guy with a ball pein hammer. Fractured his skull and almost killed him.

One of my first jobs out of college…this kid (summer intern) was threatened and kicked at work by another co-worker. The manager just told the other employee not to do it again. Well the kid wasn’t pleased. So he went to personal. The manager and the co-worker that kicked this kid were fired.

As a manager…I won’t accept ANY workplace violence. If you threaten, punch, kick, spit on a fellow co–worker…YOUR FIRED…PERIOD. I don’t even care if you were just joking around.

Verbal abuse is a different story. We have to follow certain Federal and state guidelines. This includes counseling and or taking a sensitive awareness class. But if the verbal abuse continues…then that person will be fired.

Yes quite serious. Under our former Minnesota wrestler governor, he appointed his public safety director and then to the Senate for a short time if memory serves me correct. At any rate, the guy was fairly high up. He loaned his SUV to a friend and the friend ended up with a DUI. The truck is still impounded after a couple years, trying to work through the court system. Minnesota incidentally has just revised its impoundment statutes as every other state should do, but still too severe. Innocent parties can lose their brand new $70,000 vehicle and still need to pay it off while the police use it for riding around in. Very serious.

Unless you think the shop crew routinely works at that time of night – which may be the case for some shops so make certain – I’d at the very minimum make an appointment and have a sit-down talk with the shop owner about this.

Yes quite serious. Under our former Minnesota wrestler governor, he appointed his public safety director and then to the Senate for a short time if memory serves me correct. At any rate, the guy was fairly high up. He loaned his SUV to a friend and the friend ended up with a DUI. The truck is still impounded after a couple years, trying to work through the court system. Minnesota incidentally has just revised its impoundment statutes as every other state should do, but still too severe. Innocent parties can lose their brand new $70,000 vehicle and still need to pay it off while the police use it for riding around in. Very serious.

@bing

Oh pity the poor soul that has a 70k dollar vehicle and loans it to a drunken friend with an alcoholic attitude. Imagine if that friend would have killed someone? Then it would be serious. My guess is the owner of the vehicle was a drunk also, after all, birds of a feather flock together.

The friend is liable, not the police, and I suspect there is more to this story. Blame the drunk driving friend not the police. Would you feel differently if God forbid that drunk driver slammed into you and you ended up a quadriplegic or dead? Happens over 30 times a day in the good 'ol US of A.

If I loaned a vehicle out to a friend, I would have to know that friend really well, and if the friend drank I would have reservations to loaning it out, and if I did (which I would not)I would stipulate there would be no drinking and driving. If a friend is irresponsible enough to drive drunk, they are not responsible enough to loan a vehicle to.

let me ask you this… I loan a gun valued at 70k (rare, but there are pistols worth that) to a friend and they go out wave the gun around in public and get arrested, guess what happens to my gun? Im not getting it back. No one got hurt, its a victimless crime just like duis are, right?

Its amazing how many people here defend Dui Drivers…

I think @WheresRick is right. If someone uses your car without your knowledge, you shouldn’t be liable for what they do with it. However, if you’re going to loan something of yours that could be used in a deadly manner, you’re at least partially responsible to make sure it is not used in a way that puts others at criminally negligent risk.

I asked my insurance agent, and my car is covered under my policy when I loan it to a friend. If that friend wrecks my car, and the insurance company has to pay the claim, my rates are probably going to go up, because the insurance company includes my willingness to loan the car to someone who isn’t worthy of my trust in its risk assessment.

@Bing, consider this scenario: The son of a billionaire drives drunk and wrecks his car three times, but his parents keep buying him cars when that happens. Then the son drives drunk and kills someone. Don’t you think his parents should be held responsible for enabling him to commit that crime?

My feeling on DUIs is that if a driver fails a field test the vehicle should be impounded, no matter who owns it (assuming, of course, that it’s not a stolen vehicle). If the driver is acquitted, the vehicle should be returned without any charges or fees. If the driver is convicted, the vehicle should be confiscated and sold at auction.

If we take away access to vehicles we’ll get drunk drivers off the road. Until we do, they’ll keep on killing innocent people. I theorize that it would be a very rare individual that would loan anyone their vehicle if they knew that person drove drunk and they knew their vehicle might end up confiscated. And, if the drunk driver’s own vehicle had already been confiscated, that would make anyone loaning them their car even less likely. And the drunk would end up without access to a vehicle.

People who drive drunk kill and maim innocent people. It’s time we get serious about getting them off the road.

I have a slight disagreement with SMB. If a care is borrowed at arms length, like a rental, it should not be impounded beyond the need for evidence retrieval or whatever else the police have to do in conjunction with the crime. If I loan a car to a personal friend, I do have an obligation to know what they will do with it and be responsible for it.

Well certainly no defense for driving under the influence, but this was about the forfeiture laws and their abuse. So provide some explanation of how taking someones vehicle makes some sense, especially when not convicted? Same with the DNR who can confiscate your firearms, boat, trailer, truck, etc. for a game violation. Sorry folks, that’s not the USA I grew up in.

I concede that the idea would need more thought to accommodate rentals, and even more to determine how to deal with lease vehicles. I’m sure solutions could be arrived at, like a central database and making renting or leasing a vehicle to anyone with a DUI conviction illegal. I’m sure an answer to the dilemma could be found.