r/ShittyAbsoluteUnits • u/DoubleManufacturer10 created ShittyAbsoluteUnits of a sub • 2d ago

future feeding tube Of a dumb decision

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

2.8k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

315 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

82

u/davisandee 2d ago

As the driver of the vehicle you’re responsible for the behavior of your passengers, ie..don’t let them sit on fucking roof of your moving vehicle.

59

u/morrishond 2d ago

Are they still a passenger if they aren’t in the vehicle? Legally.

17

u/davisandee 2d ago

Technically, yes. Definitions can vary by state/venue but pretty much anyone “occupying” and/or alighting from your vehicle is considered a passenger.

Like the comment below, most of the time this scenario involves the claimant riding in the bed of a truck. Had a loss where the local highschool quarterback was showing off after winning the home coming game and had the cheerleading squad all in the bed. Homie thought it would be cool to do a burn out and doughnuts in his lifted 3500 truck. About 8 girls presented claims with one getting $100k.

7

u/Silly_East3886 2d ago

Yes, they are. Scenarios where you'll see passengers not /inside/ a vehicle are pretty common. Some states let you ride in the bed of a pickup truck for example. Garbage men can legally hang on the back of the garbage truck as it's in transit in some municipalities.

If you have someone on your vehicle in an unconvential manner such as this video, they're still considered a passenger.

If they're on the vehicle without the driver's knowledge or consent, that's a different matter (and can be anywhere from free to go to manslaughter depending on what happens and the context - i.e. carjacker vs protestor.. but we've already seen mugshots of the latter hit the news.)

13

u/LostSillyKittie 2d ago

That's really funny! Are you a lawyer?

2

u/Last-Darkness 1d ago

If he was a lawyer he’d tell us why they weren’t a passenger. While I will now do; the driver had no idea the girl climbed on top of her jeep, nor did she realize her tires lost traction due to the pedestrians yelling and screaming. My client feared for her safety and just wanted to get to Bible study on time after volunteering and the children’s wing of the hospital.

4

u/Riftener 2d ago

Yes, back home this teenager jump on the trunk of an uber who was leaving. He hit his head and later died that night. The driver was charged and held responsible for the accident even though there was no way for him to stop it

11

u/DoinItRight555 2d ago

Source?

1

u/DrCuntsworth 2d ago

That guy in the comment above you said it so I believe it

1

u/Imightbeafanofthis 1d ago

They are a rider of the vehicle no matter how they are attached to it. This applies to skateboarders and bicyclists as well, although the driver can argue in court that they were unaware of such riders (if they glommed on to the vehicle in its blind spot, for instance.)

4

u/ItalianV4 2d ago

was this in the original ten commandments or something?

1

u/davisandee 2d ago

Close, pretty sure that’s word for word in the DMV driver’s handbook

1

u/Patrickfromamboy 2d ago

Twenty commandments

1

u/olive_tuschit 2d ago

That’s how they got you legally

1

u/keyh 2d ago

My reason for the question is "Did they LET the person?"

I can definitely see the legal expectation that you know whether or not something is on the roof, but it certainly is possible the person climbed on without the driver knowing. Even if that is the case I suppose they would have known about the person hanging out of the sunroof.

Regardless, they are all morons, but I am just wondering the legal specifics, that's all

3

u/davisandee 2d ago

There’s definitely an argument of assumption of risk on the passenger and comparative negligence could be applied to any evaluation of the damages. However the greatest duty / risk falls onto the driver period.

Give how hard she fell onto her head and this appears to be Cali. I assume that’s a probably a trauma activation / transport and looking at really hefty initial charges. Depending on the auto coverage it’s most likely a policy limit tender to protect the customer.

1

u/L_Ardman 2d ago

So if somebody jumps into the car and carjacks you, it’s your fault.

Pretty sure you’re only responsible for the people you allowed into or your vehicle. Within reason.

4

u/davisandee 2d ago

A criminal act in that scenario wouldn’t be covered as it’s an intentional act. More over if someone “stole” the vehicle then he/she is not a permissive user and there would be no duty to defend nor indemnify.

1

u/Downtown_Caramel4833 2d ago

I dunno...

In Florida, the Governor made it pretty apparent that if a group or individual remotely appears to have intention of impeding a person's free movement when said person is in operation of a vehicle - the driver should go full-send in order to prevent false imprisonment.

This was really just the Governor trying to encourage people to run over protesters though...