willow

iTrader: (3)

Don't they have insurance?

boxerfxt

iTrader: (4)

hey thanks paul great advice as always I have been in contact with my attorney and Im not the first here to ask for legal advice and I wont be the last either.

subaruwrx

I work at a law firm...

(as an IT guy)

boxerfxt

iTrader: (4)

I know alot of IT guys but most of them dont work !!!!!

kyoung05

iTrader: (2)

DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this post/reply constitutes legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship has been formed as a result of this post/reply.


It sounds like the work order your "friend" signed contained a pretty generic liability waiver provision. The enforceability of such provisions really depends on the laws of the State (CA, I assume), the way in which it was worded, and the specific facts of the case. Typically, liability waivers are not favored by the law (because they are an extraordinary method of shifting the risk of negligent conduct away from the negligent party).

In general, when you place personal property in the temporary control/custody of another, a bailor-bailee relationship is established. The custodian/holder of the property, who is responsible for the safe keeping and return of the property, is known as the bailee (i.e. the shop). The person who delivers or transfers the property to the bailee is known as the bailor (i.e. your "friend").

The level of care the bailee must exercise generally depends upon the purpose for which the bailor-bailee relationship was formed. If the relationship was formed solely for the benefit of the bailee, then the bailee owes a duty of extraordinary care. If the relationship was formed for the benefit of both the bailee and the bailor, then the bailee owes a duty of reasonable or ordinary care. Reasonable care is care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in the same or similar circumstances. If the relationship was formed solely for the benefit of the bailor, then the bailee owes only a duty of slight care.

The relationship between your "friend" and the shop is most likely a mutually beneficial relationship, i.e. they fix his car, he pays them money, and therefore, the shop owes your "friend" a duty to exercise reasonable care.

Ya with me so far? Good.

Now, this is where things get complicated. What the hell is "reasonable care," and who the hell is an "ordinary person"? These are questions that have plauged law students and lawyers alike since the time those terms were invented. The short answer is: it depends. It ALWAYS depends.

Factors like: (i) where the shop is located, i.e. high-crime urban area vs. low-crime suburb, (ii) whether other shops in the area leave customers' cars outside, i.e. whether it is customary practice in the industry, (iii) whether your "friend" had anything in his car that would attract attention, i.e. "bling bling" stereo, and (iv) whether the shop should have realized he had said "bling bling" stereo and that therefore, it wouldn't have been reasonable to leave the car outside, etc. are all going to factor into the decision.

Basically, have you friend speak to his attorney and determine whether it will be worth it to pursue in small claims court (I assume the amount of the loss is less than $7,500) or whether it'd just be easier/cheaper to file an insurance claim, etc.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this post/reply constitutes legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship has been formed as a result of this post/reply.

________
Parkinson's disease advice

boxerfxt

iTrader: (4)

THANK YOU!!!! I put his dad in touch with my family attorney and he is feeling alot better now I though he was going to cry whe he told uncle mike!....


thanks again .......