Topic: Enterprise tries to charge woman for car stolen AFTER she had returned it!

[Noto]

Even the presence of the drop box itself implies that it is a typical way of returning a vehicle. If it was a significant risk, logically, the company wouldn't even have one.

It's not a significant risk to Enterprise - it's a significant risk to the renter, who has the option to use it or not.  Hence, logically, the company is gratuitously providing a service, and the renters of the world should be happy they have the option...even if they'd be crazy to opt for it.  I never would.

Both sides usually know that once legal gets involved, there are no real winners and a lot of money gets burned for nothing.

Again, I have to disagree - the money doesn't get burned for nothing...it's my WRX-sedan-with-a-CVT fund!   

[goodsonr]

Legally .. I have no clue .. but I would like to think in a reasonable society, if a company makes a choice available to you, it implies that you .. as a reasonable person .. would not be a fool to make that choice AND that we .. as a company .. have put procedures in place to ensure that it is a viable choice.

I am always skeptical whenever a company makes all sorts of rules *you* must abide by ... but none for themselves .. and they profit by *not* following any rules.

Example for Car Rental -- you get a chip in the windshield in B.C. .. you get to pay for a new windshield.  The last 2 cars I've rented in B.C. had a chip in the windshield and *NO* record of that damage.  I had to report it before driving the car off the lot.  So, how hard did they inspect in the first place.   In fact .. for all I know, they have a good scam going.  Never note the chip in the computer .. charge the chump customer big-bucks upon return .. and never actually fix the chip so we can't keep raking in the bucks.  Either way, I could lose because of an ommission on their part.

Take this one to the extreme absurd example ... lets say they said "you *must* return the car when we are not here .. and leave the keys in the car and the car unlocked.  Sure -- you would be stupid to rent from them and they would go out of business.

But there is a dividing line somewhere between the customer being stupid .... and the company telling customers to do something (implied or explicit) and then the company *not* doing something which results in an advantage to themselves.

In this case .. I think Enterprise has stepped over the line.  They implied it was OK to return the car, absolving themselves of all responsiblity while doing next-to-nothing to avoid the car being stolen or have hopes of reclaiming it.

I would hope that the verdict would go against them  .. then maybe they would spend a few bucks to increase their security (or not offer the service at all) .. and the next time they might win because they could show they did everything "reasonable" (subjective, I know) to avoid a similar situation.

[Brig]

She is no longer on the hook.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/kristen-cockerill-won-t-have-to-pay-for-stolen-47k-rental-car-1.2487727

[sailor723]

The power of the press. I wonder how many advertising dollars it will take to offset the negative PR from this episode?

[quadzilla]

From the article...

She said she later heard from her insurance company that it's now negotiating with Enterprise.

So what does that really mean?

[Snowman]

Fack...more money will be spent on lawyers negotiating than the car is worth.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Even the presence of the drop box itself implies that it is a typical way of returning a vehicle. If it was a significant risk, logically, the company wouldn't even have one.

It's not a significant risk to Enterprise - it's a significant risk to the renter, who has the option to use it or not.  Hence, logically, the company is gratuitously providing a service, and the renters of the world should be happy they have the option...even if they'd be crazy to opt for it.  I never would.

It's their car. Their representative is providing drop off instructions, they have a drop box, but they attempted to deny responsibility for the possible results of those features. The public backlash has pretty well demonstrated where the risk truly lies.

[ArticSteve]

From the article...

She said she later heard from her insurance company that it's now negotiating with Enterprise.

So what does that really mean?

It means the issue is still unresolved.  To what extent is the insurance company negotiating?  Tune in a year from now.

[aquadorhj]

Even the presence of the drop box itself implies that it is a typical way of returning a vehicle. If it was a significant risk, logically, the company wouldn't even have one.

It's not a significant risk to Enterprise - it's a significant risk to the renter, who has the option to use it or not.  Hence, logically, the company is gratuitously providing a service, and the renters of the world should be happy they have the option...even if they'd be crazy to opt for it.  I never would.

It's their car. Their representative is providing drop off instructions, they have a drop box, but they attempted to deny responsibility for the possible results of those features. The public backlash has pretty well demonstrated where the risk truly lies.

SirOsis, although i don't disagree with your point, let me say an opposing view.

just because something is offered does not mean that whoever's offering the service accept all liability.  like NoTo says, whoever's choosing to use the service do so with the understanding that they are liable for whatever that happens.

if i play around in the city park and injure myself, i would not hold the city liable, and it's just not reasonable for me to expect that just because city provides a park doesn't mean everything that results from using it is city's responsibility.

[Patrick_D1]

The power of the press. I wonder how many advertising dollars it will take to offset the negative PR from this episode?

As a PR person, I watched this with great interest. From the outset it was clear that this was a battle Enterprise was never going to win, so it was only a question of how much negative press they'd absorb before buckling and working it out with her insurer.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

SirOsis, although i don't disagree with your point, let me say an opposing view.

just because something is offered does not mean that whoever's offering the service accept all liability.  like NoTo says, whoever's choosing to use the service do so with the understanding that they are liable for whatever that happens.

if i play around in the city park and injure myself, i would not hold the city liable, and it's just not reasonable for me to expect that just because city provides a park doesn't mean everything that results from using it is city's responsibility.

In this case, we don't really know what the rental representative told the woman. I used to rent frequently. Some places did expressly state that the car was my responsibility until it was checked in. Others never mentioned anything about potential liability and just told me to use the drop box.

To stretch the park analogy, while in the park you notice a nice sandy beach with picnic tables. You ask about swimming in the pond and the city rep said "Yes that's fine, people do it all the time". Next to the pond there's a sign saying "Caution Alligators may be present". Clearly, the city rep is misrepresenting the dangers of using the pond.

[Northernridge]

Despite all the bad press I suspect Enterprise sales have been minimally impacted, if at all. In the event that they did/do take a hit, this story will wash away so fast and be lost to the next consumer semi-scandal. Also, car rental companies in general seem to have terrible service so if people were to defect from Enterprise I doubt that expectations would be very high for the next wicket down the row.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Despite all the bad press I suspect Enterprise sales have been minimally impacted, if at all. In the event that they did/do take a hit, this story will wash away so fast and be lost to the next consumer semi-scandal. Also, car rental companies in general seem to have terrible service so if people were to defect from Enterprise I doubt that expectations would be very high for the next wicket down the row.

 

[safristi]

"caution alligators may be present"..
...this sign should be above ALL RENTAL COMPANIES

[tooscoops]

the question regarding the analogy used is whether you still go in the water after reading the sign...

do you trust the minimum wage representative, or the posted sign? and if you ignore the sign (that you already admitted to seeing) and get attacked by a gator, do you then sue the city because you figured this beacon of wisdom and knowledge who the city employed was 100% correct? plus, he only gave a vague answer to a question that was ambiguous enough that you can't say "he said it was perfectly safe"... maybe all he meant was others do it and he won't kick you out for doing it.

giving permission does not equal accepting all liabilities.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

the question regarding the analogy used is whether you still go in the water after reading the sign...

do you trust the minimum wage representative, or the posted sign? and if you ignore the sign (that you already admitted to seeing) and get attacked by a gator, do you then sue the city because you figured this beacon of wisdom and knowledge who the city employed was 100% correct? plus, he only gave a vague answer to a question that was ambiguous enough that you can't say "he said it was perfectly safe"... maybe all he meant was others do it and he won't kick you out for doing it.

giving permission does not equal accepting all liabilities.

Who said it was a minimum wage worker? Does it make a difference how much he was paid? How much was the person who commissioned the sign paid? Would that make a difference?

All I identified was that it was a city representative, and they were misrepresenting the safety of the situation in spite of the sign.

And the idea that posting a sign absolves you of all liability. Since when? The McDonalds coffee cups have always had the warning on them that the contents may be hot. That didn't stop that woman from successfully suing after she spilled scalding coffee on herself.

The big picture is that companies can verbally promise the world while their contracts state exactly the opposite and there is currently no real recourse.

[tooscoops]

sorry if i made certain assumptions... unless everyone is to be expected to write a novel explaining every facet of their argument/point, i think making the occasional judgement call is helpful if anything.

and quite frankly... yes. minimum wage would make a difference to me. generally speaking, a person who makes minimum wage (or close to) has either little experience, little skill, or short on brain power. just a generalization. the signmaker's pay wouldn't matter as the sign would have been approved by a committee and/or legal departments. they are the ones who made an executive decision based on factual evidence. the employee is just giving an opinion; one that is based on the lack of experience/skill/knowledge mentioned earlier.

the cups didn't always have a warning. the first amercian lawsuit was successful partially due to lack of such a warning. with precedent set, it's hard to remove the liability just by printing words, but it is an attempt at due diligence.

The big picture is that companies can verbally promise the world while their contracts state exactly the opposite and there is currently no real recourse.

just to clarify, the recourse you are speaking of is for the incorrect verbal "agreement"? basically saying as long as they have it on paper, your feel they are free to say whatever they want and that is wrong, or that they are allowed to say whatever they want because they are covered in writing?

hopefully i'm not coming across as an ass in this post... i don't mean to. just explaining myself and trying to get clarifications.

[sailor723]

As an aside....I find that McDonald's coffee, while pretty good, is still too hot to drink when you get it. What's up with that? 

[wing]

Water can't get hotter than 100

[Sir Osis of Liver]

The big picture is that companies can verbally promise the world while their contracts state exactly the opposite and there is currently no real recourse.

just to clarify, the recourse you are speaking of is for the incorrect verbal "agreement"? basically saying as long as they have it on paper, your feel they are free to say whatever they want and that is wrong, or that they are allowed to say whatever they want because they are covered in writing?

hopefully i'm not coming across as an ass in this post... i don't mean to. just explaining myself and trying to get clarifications.

Car sales, cell phone, internet and cable companies are all held in low regard for a reason. The salesforce can and some do say anything to get you to sign on. After that, the seller is only bound by the terms of the contract.
There are all kinds of examples, this being the latest:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/car-buyers-say-dealerships-duped-them-over-td-s-costly-loans-1.2489309

If you buy the car at 25% interest, we'll renegotiate in a year at a lower rate. After the contract was signed, TD of course refused to renegotiate.

We're only having a discussion. I don't think you are being an ass at all.