[Volvo-brickster]

Taken from another forum board

http://mustangforums.com/forum/2005-2011-mustangs/592148-ford-drove-my-car-into-a-pond-fmylife.html

Talk about brutal hahahahha :haha:

[DsZ24]

Hahaha. Damn I'd be pissed. Hopefully the dealership gives him a new one

[TOPEC]

1 flaw i see is, the car starting in gear, but more importantly, without the ebrake on.
if the remote start was installed properly, the car wouldn't have started without the ebrake up.

[orange7]

here's the quote

Well today I went to pick up my car from ford because I'm having warranty stuff fixed like a bad clutch. Parts won't be in until Monday. So the service manager goes to get my car for me. 10 minutes of waiting he comes and gets me and tells me he has bad news about my car. I figured that maybe it wouldn't start or something. Turns out he remote started it with it in gear and no e brake up. The car took off, straight thru an empty parking spot jumped a curb and went underneath the metal fence and into a retention pond. By the time I got there all I could see were some bubbles of what used to be my car. The cops are using there scuba team to hook it up and tow it out of the pond now. All I know is Ford better give me a new Mustang, and not try to blame it on me and make my insurance pay for it. It sounded like the manager was trying to put the blame on me. He hit the remote start button twice to start it. Seriously who leaves a manual in gear with no e brake. Any advice.

a pic of his stang before it automatically drove off
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h143/luckydawg003/DSCN4765-1-1-1.jpg

[hchang]

That IS really brutal hahaha ouch.

This was negligence on the dealerships part, so the dealer should have to give this guy a new one right?

[J____]

wouldnt it just lunge forward and stall if it was started in gear with no gas?

[hchang]

wouldnt it just lunge forward and stall if it was started in gear with no gas?

Doesn't only 1st gear prevent the car from rolling?

So if it was left in any other gear it would be the equivalent of leaving the car in Neutral?

[Fafine]

nvm thats fucked

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

owned man:haha:

[gearshifter]

damn... brutal! hope the guy doesnt get shafted somehow..

[Phil@rise]

Its not the dealerships fault unless they installed the remote starter.
Its the owners negligence for not disabling the feature before having the car serviced, besides that it obviously wasn't a standard safe remote starter which is illegal to my knowledge. So this fool that unsafley had a regular remote starter installed in his car cus he was to cheap or stupid to have the correct standard safe one installed is liable for all damages.

[Graeme S]

Its not the dealerships fault unless they installed the remote starter.
Its the owners negligence for not disabling the feature before having the car serviced, besides that it obviously wasn't a standard safe remote starter which is illegal to my knowledge. So this fool that unsafley had a regular remote starter installed in his car cus he was to cheap or stupid to have the correct standard safe one installed is liable for all damages.
So that means if I borrow my buddy's car and park it in 1st and then hit the remote start button, it's not my fault if it smashes into someone or something?

I'm not so sure I agree with you on that one...

[Eff-1]

I'd argue it's the dealer's fault.

But legally I don't think the dealer is required to give him a brand new car. They only owe him the market value of the car they destroyed.

[TOPEC]

So that means if I borrow my buddy's car and park it in 1st and then hit the remote start button, it's not my fault if it smashes into someone or something?

I'm not so sure I agree with you on that one...

no, technically, there are failsafes that are integrated into the remote start brain for manual cars given the right model is installed into the car.
eg: compustar's reservation mode.

procedure is to park the car, with the engine still running, depress the brakes and set the parking brake, take out keys (the car will continue to run) and exit the car, at this point, when the door closes, the doors r locked and engine is shut off.

this is the correct way of putting the car into reservation mode, which is used to remote start a MANUAL car. if ANY of the above mentioned steps were done incorrectly, the car is not put into reservation mode and remote start WILL NOT work.

if at any time u have to get into the car to get something, once unlock and open any door, reservation mode is canceled to prevent anyone going in and putting the car into gear.

now the mustang guy. he mentioned the parking brake WAS NOT SET, this is enough to say that he did not get the correct type of remote start alarm put into his car, thus the car was able to be remote started. so this is 100% the owners fault, also, he was suppose to put the car into valet mode (which disables remote start function) before handing the keys over to the dealer.

as phill said, the owner was probably cheap and chose to install a generic remote start alarm (lots of those are available, but they're not meant for manual cars), or chose to put in an alarm thats meant for automatic cars. who ever did the alarm install could be liable for this too, since it's illegal almost everywhere to install a remote start alarm into a manual car without the proper preventions. if the correct type of alarm was used, this would've been prevented.

[BEEB]

^ this guy is right logically

[hk20000]

yeah the setup is no good for his car and it's illegal to have it setup like that in the first place.....but it's the states the guy will sue lol

[Iceman-19]

I understand what you all are saying about him not having the correct remote start install, BUT, I worked at a dealership, and NEVER EVER used a remote start on a vehicle. I would unlock the doors with the remote and that absolutely it. This service advisor is a moron to have done what he did, and his dealership is liable. He could very easily have walked to the car, hit the unlock button and started the car, OR, if he wasnt sure what was the correct button, USE THE GODDAMN key. Its not rocket science. The owner is not liable. He did not have the keys in his hand, someone else did it while they had it in their care. He had probably signed a service order, which means the dealership had it in their care.

Thats the same as saying that the owner is responsible for the dealership joyriding a car while they are servicing it, and crashing it. It was in the dealers care. The owner signed a work order stating this. Dealer is at fault.

[ericthehalfbee]

Guy had a shitty cheap aftermarket remote starter installed on his car. Not the dealer's fault at all. The guy picking up the car could have pressed the wrong button by accident and the car started.

I like how the original poster has updated a couple times, but has never commented on the type of remote start or who installed it, despite repeated questions and comments from others about his remote start..

People have specifically asked him if the dealer installed it, since they would be 100% liable if they did so incorrectly. And yet he still hasn't replied regarding this issue. To me that shows he cheaped out on the install, and doesn't want to admit it.

I bet the dealership will check with their lawyers and their insurance and these questions will be at the top of their list.

[ericthehalfbee]

He did not have the keys in his hand, someone else did it while they had it in their care. He had probably signed a service order, which means the dealership had it in their care.
If you worked at a dealerhsip then you would know that the fine print on service orders always states "shop is not repsonsible for loss or damages to the vehicle while at the shop". At least every service order I've ever seen has this.

Now many dealers/shops will cover damages while they have the car (for good will), but it really depends on the dealer. And they certainly aren't legally responsible if they wanna be pricks about it.

I drove a customer car right into another customer car once ($20K damage to a classic collector car from a small collision). Turns out customer had disabled the neutral safety on their car, and it started up in drive (automatic). To make things worse, the "indicator" showed the car was in N when in fact it was in D. Before I could hit the brakes or turn it off, the car hit another vehicle.

We checked with a lawyer and since the customer did an illegal modification, we weren't liable. That said, we still covered both cars under our shop insurance policy just to maintain a good relationship with the customers.

[fliptuner]

wouldnt it just lunge forward and stall if it was started in gear with no gas?

No, the car actually had torque.

Doesn't only 1st gear prevent the car from rolling?

So if it was left in any other gear it would be the equivalent of leaving the car in Neutral?

No.

1. The guy's alarm was either cheap DIY crap and/or installed incorrectly.

2. The dealership should've parked it w/ the ebrake up.
2a. They should'nt have ASSmed the car didn't have autostart.


What would be ironic is if the dealer installed the alarm (didn't read the whole thread) - then it would be their fault 100%.

[Phil@rise]

So that means if I borrow my buddy's car and park it in 1st and then hit the remote start button, it's not my fault if it smashes into someone or something?

I'm not so sure I agree with you on that one...

If it isn't a standard safe remote starter, and its in a standard vehicle, that means it doesn't have the NEEDED failsafes to prevent accidental remote starting. (starting when in gear)
Simply put it is illegal to install such a devise and it is the onus of the vehicle owner to make sure his vehicle is in proper SAFE operating condition.
If such an unsafe devise was installed in the vehicle without the owners knowledge or consent then it becomes the responsibility of the company that installed it but it would be up to the owner of the car to prove that.

In simple terms what I'm trying to say is It's illegal to have an automatic specific remote starter installed in a manual car and if this was a manual specific remote starter then it would be IMPOSSIBLE for this to occur because of the impassible failsafes incorporated into the remote starter.

[JSALES]

lol that's fucked up

[jlenko]

wouldnt it just lunge forward and stall if it was started in gear with no gas?

No, the car actually had torque.

:haha:

Though.. when the remote starter picked up, it would be the starter motor driving the flywheel, and engaging the gear... the starter has more than enough torque (even on a 4-cyl import!) to make the car move forward and do some damage.

[JesseBlue]

you guys know that this is how a lawyer wins cases... there is no right and wrong but how its presented when arguing
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[ericthehalfbee]

I did a search on their forum for the hell of it. 2 minutes and I found this...

I added a viper alarm remote start to my car. But I used to be an installer so I know how to do it. If you have a manual, you can add it. Having it set for the ebrake up...if you leave it in gear. It can still drive your car. So be careful. Good luck

Guys fucked. He added the remote start himself.


And the link...

http://mustangforums.com/forum/2005-2011-mustangs/567663-wife-demands-remote-start-help-me-out-3.html

[Soundy]

If you worked at a dealerhsip then you would know that the fine print on service orders always states "shop is not repsonsible for loss or damages to the vehicle while at the shop". At least every service order I've ever seen has this.

Now many dealers/shops will cover damages while they have the car (for good will), but it really depends on the dealer. And they certainly aren't legally responsible if they wanna be pricks about it.

There have to be exceptions to the rule, for instances where it really is the shop's fuck-up.

Prime example: when I had our minivan in to the dealership for service, years ago... guy ahead of me at the service desk was picking up his brand-new truck that he'd brought in for its first scheduled service. He got his keys and went out the door... and came back a couple mintues later just fuming: the mechanic had parked it outside, in the pouring rain... with the passenger window wide open. Dude had leather seats, too.

Just to add insult to injury, the idiot behind the counter just stared at dude blankly and then offered him a wad of paper towels...

I don't see how a shop could hide behind "not responsible for damage" clauses for something like that.

[underscore]

so basically the guy is an idiot and did a shitty install of a remote start on his Mustang, then brings it into the dealer and it ends up in a pond because he bypassed the safety features...

if anything I'd say he's lucky this didn't happen elsewhere, his car could've run through a school playground or something, all on it's own.

[Qmx323]

Fail on both ends

[TOPEC]

if the dealers smart enough, they'd go through the forums and find evidence and screw him over. it's totally his fault and the dealer should not pay a dime to him.

[sonick]

wouldnt it just lunge forward and stall if it was started in gear with no gas?

It would if it were a torqueless Honda :haha:

I remember reading that a Dodge Viper had enough torque to move from a complete stop in FIFTH gear.

[1990TSI]

it will depend on which state it was in i'm sure. The laws regarding remote starters on manual trans vehicles would vary from state to state i bet.

In my eyes, it's 100% the owners fault. I've installed a few remote starters in my day, and there is only a few correct way to do it, this guys not being one.

If he had it installed properly there is no way this would have happened.


I'd love to hear what an installer like orgasm donor would say about this!

[TOPEC]

It would if it were a torqueless Honda :haha:

I remember reading that a Dodge Viper had enough torque to move from a complete stop in FIFTH gear.

it was actually a corvette, and it was on top gear where clarkson put the car in 5th and just let the clutch go.

[sonick]

lol, I believe I read the Viper story in Car and Driver years back, but yeah I remember that episode of TG too.

[ericthehalfbee]

There have to be exceptions to the rule, for instances where it really is the shop's fuck-up.

Prime example: when I had our minivan in to the dealership for service, years ago... guy ahead of me at the service desk was picking up his brand-new truck that he'd brought in for its first scheduled service. He got his keys and went out the door... and came back a couple mintues later just fuming: the mechanic had parked it outside, in the pouring rain... with the passenger window wide open. Dude had leather seats, too.

Just to add insult to injury, the idiot behind the counter just stared at dude blankly and then offered him a wad of paper towels...

I don't see how a shop could hide behind "not responsible for damage" clauses for something like that.
It's easier for shops to have a clause that says they are not responsible for losses or damages, rather than to have 100 pages of clauses saying they are responsible for this, but not that. Or they could assume responsibility for everything and open a pandora's box.

Generally, on paper a shop will say they are not responsible, when in fact they would cover the vast majority of problems that happen when the vehicle is in their care.

The "no reponsibility" clause is just to cover those odd circumstances that come up.

[Shun Izaki]

it was actually a corvette, and it was on top gear where clarkson put the car in 5th and just let the clutch go.

he didn't dump it, he feathered it until it was fine to move. Though it DOES have enough power.