it does, it may enhance the replacement damages if it can be established as unique.

What I do not understand is with the ready availability and access of social media, why dealers would risk really bad publicity. Many Porsche purchases are purchased by prior owners.

Bad news travels faster and more efficiently than good news.

 

I don't blame OP for trying to get a new car. Lets face it, he went through a very traumatic experience and certainly could have been killed - loss control of car, been locked inside and not able to get out, etc. I know the law does not deal in "what ifs" but the dealership should show some good faith and go above and beyond to try to compensate - it's not only good PR, but the right thing to do. I agree with everyone in that he won't get a new car, but the negligence associated with this event is really astounding.

Regarding what dealerships are like trying to get anything out of them, I am dealing with a $50 refund due to me. It's been ongoing for about 2 years and they keep lying and postponing and making excuses for $50. I'm not giving up though, just based on principle.

 

"Which brings up another point - the service contract itself may limit the recovery of damages to the actual loss (read the fine print when you sign the work order) and not allow recovery beyond that (in absence of applicable legislation)."


Very true. Most contracts today have " waiver of consequential damages" clauses in them. Most of us tend not to read them. And even if you do, if you do not agree with the terms and choose to check/sign NO,you most definitely will not get the service you are seeking. Read your cellphone contract sometime. This was one of the consequences of Tort reform.

 

What has fraud got to do with this?

So are you saying the OP should have gotten a Subaru? I'm not saying the dealer shouldn't step up to help out, I'm just saying (and I've been backed up on this) that absent legislation to the contrary, the OP isn't getting a new car for old unless the dealer offers it.

 

the dealer may have made fraudulent representations about the quality of the service center, the techs' training, the safety methods employed....that's fraud within the meaning of the PA UTPCPL. You are not entitled to a new car but your damages are tripled....Subaru? The manufacturer actually gives a **** about its customers...you want to argue Pennsylvania law?

 

Sorry for the loss to the OP.

Is anyone else with kids worried about this?

I'm thinking if I was driving my 991.1 GTS home in the same situation with both kids in back, would I be able to get them out in time? I do have the fire extinguisher in the passenger footwell, but what good would that do in this circumstance.

Is there no concern with Porsche's engine compartment design? I'm pretty sure a sloppy tech could leave a few rags in the engine compartment of my Jeep Wrangler and drive across the country with no fires.

 

I'm sorry, I hope I don't sound rude but I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. There is a huge difference between negligent service and a fraud committed by the dealership. Let's face it, the guy took his car in for service, likely signed a work order authorizing work and walked out. Later due to negligence of the mechanic, his car was destroyed. How do you get fraud out of that?

Black's Law Dictionary

What is FRAUD?
Fraud consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to withintent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him an injury. As distinguishedfrom negligence, it is always positive, intentional. Maher v. Hibernia Ins. Co.,67 N. Y. 292; Alexander v. Church, 53 Conn. 501, 4 Atl. 103;

 

So using Blacks's, it will have to be determined if negligence or GROSS negligence was present. It seems that if their was in fact a rag left in the engine compartment, and it was determined that that was the cause of the fire,the dealership is responsible in that " failure to observe for the interests and protection of another person etc". It will have to be argued how the OP was injured. Is he afraid to get back in any car because of this?

 

Fraud involves a direct intention to cause harm to another person. the key element is intention. Negligence or gross negligence is measured by a departure (or degree of departure) from a duty of care, if a duty exists.

In the case of a contract for services, there is an implied duty to perform the work in a manner which would be consistent with a generally accepted standard (the "duty of care"). So, in this case, if the facts are the service centre left an oily rag on top of a hot engine, I think it would be simple to prove that was a negligent act.

On the facts that we have, there is no evidence of fraud, but there appears to be evidence of negligence. The difference between negligence and gross negligence is measured by the act or omission, not necessarily by the result of that action. So if the mechanic had left a rag in the engine bay and the car started smoking vs what happened (total loss), the act was the same, but the result was different. The more serious result doesn't make the same act gross negligence.

Again, what the OP can recover is based on case law, the contract as well as state law.

It's possible that the service contract has a save harmless paragraph in it that limits recovery to the actual loss (the depreciated value of the car) and limits recovery of other indirect or remote losses (shock, nervous apprehension, etc.)

Good luck to the Op. I'm sure he'll be in a replacement car soon. I just question the whole idea that he can in some way get punitive damages, a new for old car or compensation for the mental distress due to the negligent service on his car. But, who knows what state laws are in place?

I just know the applicable common law principles.

 

All very true and good grover. As this is probably not the first time something similar to this has occurred before, I agree I would be surprised if there were not a save harmless somewhere in the service agreement to indemnify the dealer.
Too bad the OP can't get a change of venue to NY by me, specifically the Bronx. The jury judgements here are insane, and the jury's out of their minds.

 

I think where we differ is I view this event as a property loss claim and if I understand you correctly you view this as giving rise to some tort action for trauma, nervous shock, psychological harm arising from the negligence of another. I don't believe that is the case, but if you were right and this was in NY and it did get to a jury trial, I think you'd want to seat rich car fanatics on your jury because I think most regular working stiffs off the street would view the plaintiff as a self important whiner who was traumatized because his Porsche went up in flames, seeking to get a brand new car, punish the dealer for its mistake and get enough money for a 2 week vacation to a Hawaii as compensation.

But, what do I know ?

 

Ahhh no. Rich car fanatics?...I think I do believe it's been a while since you have seen the Bronx or have ever been there at all ( I do not mean that to be in any way disrespectable) I do not believe the OP will not get nor deserve a new car or a 2 week vacation. What I do believe is he deserves compensation for his loss comparable to exactly what he had due to the negligence of another. And I think he will get it. I also believe he does in fact deserve SOME additional compensation for emotional distress which I believe he will also get. I have felt the heat of a car fire as well as a home fire and it is something I will NEVER forget.
New car? 2 week vacation?...No I do not believe he will get nor deserve it based on the law. But you never know if it goes to a jury as I'm sure you know it is totally unpredictable and often irrational.

 

Sorry if you already said, when you told the service shop, what did they say/offer?

 

sorry for loss OP - where is nick murray when you need him?

glad you are ok + please keep us updated!

 

glad you are ok and nobody hurt!