What could be worse?
Many things, actually, but Cynthia and I drove by a car crash (note that I will never refer to them as accidents--I'll explain someday) scene this afternoon that was particularly painful to see. It was a head-on collision that evidently resulted from one car turning when the oncoming car didn't expect it. Based on the visible damage to each car, the airbags must have deployed, which means there were at least minor injuries. Though it was awful to see such a crash scene and I hope the injured are ok, that wasn't what was so painful about this incident. No, it was the fact that one of the vehicles, indeed the one with more damage, was clearly on a test drive from the dealership not 200 yards away. Ouch.
This situation begs the question of responsibility. Presumably the driver is responsible unless the dealership assumes responsibility for its vehicles on test drives. Anyone know?
Great site Chris!
As for the insurance, I think it may depend on the State, but usually, the dealership will have coverage for demonstration vehicles (largely for accidents that occur moving the cars around on the lots). However, the driver's insurance may factor as secondary or even primary coverage (if the driver was at fault and the Dealer's insurance wanted to press it).
Interesting question. Looking only at basic liability (leaving insurance aside for the moment), the answer may depend on Virginia statutes. For instance, in California, the Vehicle Code provides that the owner of a vehicle is liable for damages sustained by a third party as a result of the negligent operation of the vehicle by someone who has the owner's permission to drive the car. The negligent driver, of course, is also liable. Under common law (i.e., non-statutory), the owner could also be liable for negligent entrustment if the owner knew or should have known that the driver was not competent. This is part of the reason that dealers usually make a copy of your driver's license before you leave the lot. Insurance issues under the owner's and driver's liability coverages then come into play (long discussion for another day).
This all assumes that the test driver was the negligent one. If not, then we jump directly to insurance questions. As with all insurance questions, coverage will depend on the language of the policy, but Jim is probably right. The dealership will likely have property coverage that apply in this situation.
Welcome to the blog world. This looks great, and with all the spare time you must have, I expect thought-provoking posts on a daily basis.
Well, those are probably more thorough answers than I anticipated, but thanks. And Jim, don't think I didn't notice your use of "accident" in your response. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
This reminds me of the time (3 years ago today, actually) that I was deciding between the Toyota RAV4 and the Honda CR-V. As I was leaving the Toyota dealership after my last test drive, I crashed my wife's car into a brand new Camry by backing into it on a very crowded lot. I swear it wasn't there when I parked. Very embarassing. A flock of salesmen descended on me and got my insurance info. They said they would not claim my insurance if I bought a car from them. Of course I bought the CR-V because the RAV4 sucks in comparison. And they called my insurance the same day.
Chris, I did use the word "accident". My definition for accident is pretty liberal and usually includes any unintended incident, whether in an auto or a daiper :)