Employee damaging customer vehicle, who's responsible?

[hawaiidetailing]

Having a business is one thing, having employees in that business is another, but what if the employee damages a car beyond a fix the company can do internally and have to outsource for it? Is the employee responsible?

Further, what if the employee did not sign a W4 or I9? Can they be sued, or does the business have to choke on the cost of the fix?

One fear of Detailing is that you are working on one of the customers most expensive things they own, so obviously this is a problem we all don't want, but it does happen.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Autogeekonline mobile app

 

[ducksfan]

The nature of being an employer is you hire employees and oversee/direct them. It should be obvious to you that any damage is your responsibility.

I mean if the employee deliberately or with gross negligence damaged something, you could probably go after him legally. But good luck on making it financially viable.

And, none of this would change the fact that you're responsible to the customer.

Now, I'm no lawyer. But, this is all basic business law.

 

[ducksfan]

i'm no lawyer but if the person who is working on the car damages it, it's their responsibility to pay for the damages even if the company he works for doesn't cover it unless the company wants to assume responsibility for their employee. that's a point that should be brought up upon hiring...

I don't know where you get this from. That sounds more like a contractor relationship than an employee relationship.

 

[VISITOR]

I mean if the employee deliberately or with gross negligence damaged something, you could probably go after him legally. But good luck on making it financially viable.

I don't know where you get this from. That sounds more like a contractor relationship than an employee relationship.

i overlooked that part, you explained it well in post #2...

 

[dlc95]

I did some very serious damage to a customer's car at a car wash where I worked. I offered to pay it was so bad (I got wrapped up with a hose in a tall wraparound brush, whose brass quick disconnect banged up a brand new Mercedes). He said no, because his insurance would cover it.

When I later had my car wash, insurance was mandatory, due to the purchase agreement, and it's just good to have in any situation where (especially extreme) damage can occur.

 

[hawaiidetailing]

So this is a real situation. I'll give some more details.

The company has insurance that has decided not to cover this. The employee was denied and I9 and W4, here in Hawaii that is against the law because they are supposed to supply medical insurance if you work 35hrs or more (which is the case), also that makes it a non taxable income job. Lastly, the product that damaged the car has a warning of not using on anodized aluminum, however the part damaged is not that material. The owners are very much so involved in the company and did not research thoroughly this product before allowing us to use yet they are imposing the problem that happened the fault of the employee and he has to pay for it....

Not the desired outcome, but if this went to court can they sue/win by not being able to prove legally the employee is an 'employee'? There are some more circumstances but I feel this may be enough for more valid input.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Autogeekonline mobile app

 

[Mike PhillipsMike Phillips is verified member.]

So this is a real situation. I'll give some more details.

The company has insurance that has decided not to cover this. The employee was denied and I9 and W4, here in Hawaii that is against the law because they are supposed to supply medical insurance if you work 35hrs or more (which is the case), also that makes it a non taxable income job. Lastly, the product that damaged the car has a warning of not using on anodized aluminum, however the part damaged is not that material. The owners are very much so involved in the company and did not research thoroughly this product before allowing us to use yet they are imposing the problem that happened the fault of the employee and he has to pay for it....

Not the desired outcome, but if this went to court can they sue/win by not being able to prove legally the employee is an 'employee'?


There are some more circumstances but I feel this may be enough for more valid input.

I'm not a lawyer but I think ducksfan's input is valid.

The nature of being an employer is you hire employees and oversee/direct them. It should be obvious to you that any damage is your responsibility.

I mean if the employee deliberately or with gross negligence damaged something, you could probably go after him legally. But good luck on making it financially viable.

And, none of this would change the fact that you're responsible to the customer.

Now, I'm no lawyer. But, this is all basic business law.

Best of luck with this issue...

 

[lj993]

You are on the hook. You hired the guy to work for you. Any state would determine that it wasn't an independent contractor situation. You will need to cover the cost. Here in California you cannot go after the rmployee for negligent acts. Phil

 

[MattPersman]

Exactly if an employee costs you too much money it's on you as an employer to let them go

If you are Tom Brady and throw and interception you think Robert Kraft says you owe me 100 grand or something ? No. If you burn 200 burgers at McDonald's you think your boss is gonna hand you a bill for $400, no. If you add and extra 0 on a deposit working at a bank are you gonna have to come up with the money. No.

It's not legal to make an unauthorized deduction to an employee


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk