Petrol station liability?

xalot

My mother recently pulled into a petrol station to get petrol and water, there was no water left out so asked the assistant for some. He went and got it and put it into the car for her (she offered to do it but he insisted) anyway he didn't put the water cap back on properly and the next day the car broke down, fumes and smoke everywhere. She got roadside assistance out to her to tow the car and they could tell immediately that the water cap was the problem.

She's waiting to hear from the garage what the damage is, hopefully not too much. Wondering if anyone knows is the garage are liable in this situation?

Clarification: She needed water for the wipers, and when he was putting that in she asked did he mind checking her water levels for her, he said it was fine and didn't put the cap back on properly when he checked it.

punisher5112

xalot wrote: »

My mother recently pulled into a petrol station to get petrol and water, there was no water left out so asked the assistant for some. He went and got it and put it into the car for her (she offered to do it but he insisted) anyway he didn't put the water cap back on properly and the next day the car broke down, fumes and smoke everywhere. She got roadside assistance out to her to tow the car and they could tell immediately that the water cap was the problem.

She's waiting to hear from the garage what the damage is, hopefully not too much. Wondering if anyone knows is the garage are liable in this situation?

No proof and best she checked it over.

Coolant would be a much better idea and possibly an issue if needed water anyway.

frozenfrozen

water cap? She was putting in straight water from a petrol station into her radiator?

the water at a petrol station would be used for the windshield washer..

MarkR

Coolant would be a closed system, so if she was running low, there was probably already a problem?

xalot

Ah ok, that makes sense. I'll check with her and get her to clarify.

So I got it arseways. She needed water for the wipers, and when he was putting that in she asked did he mind checking her water levels for her, he said it was fine and didn't put the cap back on properly when he checked it.

Now I imagine a guy working in a petrol station isn't exactly qualified to be checking that kind of thing....but his actions did cause damage to the car...

seamus

Yeah, the petrol station would likely be liable here. They offer the service to put water in, so by extension carry the liability for any negligence in carrying out that service.

If they wanted to fight it, there is an argument that if there was "no water left" in your mother's coolant system, then the system itself was already in trouble before she pulled into the garage - cracked radiator or something. Whereas if she was looking for windscreen washer fluid and the guy instead opened the cap for the coolant system, then that's clearly their fault.

In short, anyone who agrees to perform work on your car is effectively liable for any damage or loss that results from that work.

harr

Most people working at a petrol station would normally just fill up the windshield washer..not many would go near the radiator..are you sure OP the garage worker actually put the water into the radiator, as mentioned it sounds like the problem was already in the car if she needed water/ coolant .
I would definitely try get facts in order before approaching the petrol station..
Either way I can imagine it's going to be hard to prove that he failed to replace the cap properly .

Discodog

If it was on the forecourt the garage might have cctv

dr.fuzzenstein

What is the water cap? It is just being assumed here. Or I'm the only one on this thread no psychic, or I have missed the secret meeting. ass-u-me, people!
I'm not legal expert, but I think that doesn't make a good case. "The guy did something and now the car is broken"
Water cap could mean anything in the engine compartment, for all we know the attendant did fill up the window washer (or poured it into the the 710 cap) and the problem the next day may have been unrelated.

CeilingFly

If the attendant put water into the coolant system then the chances are unless he was very careful, he would have been scalded.

If the top off the wiper water inlet was left off, there would be no harm done whatsoever.

As for liability - its not a service offered by the petrol garage and neither did money change hands for that service and your mother asked it as a personal favour by the attendant, so I'd guess its a civil matter between her and the attendant which would be very difficult to pursue.

Now, if the gargae had a sign up saying "let us check your water levels" or similar, that would be a different story, but in the absense of such sign, no blame can be put on the garage.

dev100

xalot wrote:

Clarification: She needed water for the wipers, and when he was putting that in she asked did he mind checking her water levels for her, he said it was fine and didn't put the cap back on properly when he checked it.

Most cars you don't need to take any caps off most coolant refill points have a translucent tank with a min or max mark and can be seen from the outside. So mostly there's no needs to take the cap off . So the attendant may have not even taken the cap off

Even if you think it's his fault all the person has to say is it was tight when I looked at it.

Sam Kade

If she lost coolant she should've seen the tempt gauge rising, it will happen as the coolant leaks and takes time. She drove the car with the engine overheating, mostly her own fault.

xalot

xalot wrote: »

................ she asked did he mind checking her water levels for her, he said it was fine and didn't put the cap back on properly when he checked it. ......................

How do you know this?
Did your mother actually see him not do it or are ye presuming?

Anyway, your mother asked a petrol pump technician / shop assistant to check her coolant system, as mentioned, he did so without charge so I reckon the petrol station are in no way liable.

xalot

Thanks for all the replies, she's heard back from the garage and there's no damage to the car. They've topped up her coolant and she's good to go.

xalot

Augeo wrote: »

How do you know this?
Did your mother actually see him not do it or are ye presuming?

The guy from the AA told her straight away that this was what had caused the problem, though as Sam Kade pointed out, she really should have decked that something was up.

dr.fuzzenstein

xalot wrote: »

Clarification: She needed water for the wipers, and when he was putting that in she asked did he mind checking her water levels for her, he said it was fine and didn't put the cap back on properly when he checked it.

OK, that aswers that question, but it still makes no sense in the context of coolant.
Just about every car since the 80's has an expansion tank where the level of coolant is clearly visible. If he took that cap off to check the coolant you can certainly argue that it was at least gross incompetence from the petrol station worker.

edit:

Glad to hear all is well. But keep an eye on it, boiling over is never good and let's hope no further damage was done.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

ellobee

imo I think you would find it very difficult to get the garage to take blame for this, what kind of car is it, as previous poster said most cars have an expansion tank with a line as to where the coolant/water should be, so you dont need to take off the cap to check it, also you said the car broke down the next day, so how can you prove that no one else went near the car between leaving the garage and the car breaking down.

seamus

CeilingFly wrote: »

As for liability - its not a service offered by the petrol garage and neither did money change hands for that service and your mother asked it as a personal favour by the attendant, so I'd guess its a civil matter between her and the attendant which would be very difficult to pursue.

I don't think the lack of money or the "personal favour" aspect comes into at all. It was something done by the attendant in the course of his duties, which makes his employer vicariously liable.

There's no actual problem for the OP now, but we can still discuss the theoretical. If the petrol station doesn't offer (for example) pumping up customer tyres, but an employee brings a foot pump to do it for customers who ask, then the employer remain liable for any loss as a result of that.
If the employer specifically bans the employee from doing it, then one could make an argument about their liability.
Though I expect they would still be found vicariously liable and the the cost of that would then become a civil issue between the employer and (former) employee.

Effects

xalot wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies, she's heard back from the garage and there's no damage to the car. They've topped up her coolant and she's good to go.

Might be a good time for you to teach her how to check these things herself.

xalot

Effects wrote: »

Might be a good time for you to teach her how to check these things herself.

Was just thinking the same thing! And me for that matter - think I'm due a severe lecture from my husband when he realises I haven't a clue how to change the coolant!

dev100

xalot wrote:

Was just thinking the same thing! And me for that matter - think I'm due a severe lecture from my husband when he realises I haven't a clue how to change the coolant!

I don't think many wives would be expected to change the coolant it wouldn't be a job a DIY type job you would normally do Your husband must have high standards if he wants you changing the coolant. I'd be happy if you could do a wheel change .....

Sam Kade

jacksie66 wrote: »

As others have pointed out, if she just pulled into the garage the forecourt assistant either didn't touch the coolant or is an idiot because that cap would have been under severe pressure for at least 20 minutes. He would have got burnt if he tried to open it straight away.

That will only be the case if the car is overheating if not then there is no need to wait.

Del2005

xalot wrote: »

Was just thinking the same thing! And me for that matter - think I'm due a severe lecture from my husband when he realises I haven't a clue how to change the coolant!

No need to change, just know how to check if it's low, along with the oil and brake fluid.

CiniO

seamus wrote: »

I don't think the lack of money or the "personal favour" aspect comes into at all. It was something done by the attendant in the course of his duties, which makes his employer vicariously liable.

There's no actual problem for the OP now, but we can still discuss the theoretical. If the petrol station doesn't offer (for example) pumping up customer tyres, but an employee brings a foot pump to do it for customers who ask, then the employer remain liable for any loss as a result of that.
If the employer specifically bans the employee from doing it, then one could make an argument about their liability.
Though I expect they would still be found vicariously liable and the the cost of that would then become a civil issue between the employer and (former) employee.

I'm not trying to deny that what you're saying is true, as I believe you know that stuff.
But it just sounds like ridiculous system to me, where a person trying to help voluntarily can be held liable for damage caused accidentally?

If I meet someone at the side of the road, and try to help them change a wheel and cause damage, will I be liable as a private person?

flaneur

"Fumes and smoke" is most likely just steam spraying out as the coolant evaporated when the car hit a good temperature.

Depending on the type of engine and model of the car, the coolant system could be pressurised anything from 4 to even as high as 30psi without causing an issue. That's why you should absolutely never open a cap on a coolant system on a hot engine. You can find the water is sitting at close to or even above 100ºC and will suddenly boil when you drop the pressure and can cause quite nasty scalds.

Also modern efficient diesel and petrol engines tend to be designed to run quite warm compared to their ancestors. This is to encourage better combustion and avoid forming nasty byproducts.

To open a car's coolant expansion vessel, you should wait for the engine to cool significantly first.

In all likelihood no damage was done, just some steam spraying.

In normal conditions, your car should not need any coolant top ups. They're sealed systems and it's not the 1960s.
If the coolant level's dropping, you've a leak somewhere and need to get the car seen by a service centre, not a forecourt.

seamus

CiniO wrote: »

I'm not trying to deny that what you're saying is true, as I believe you know that stuff.
But it just sounds like ridiculous system to me, where a person trying to help voluntarily can be held liable for damage caused accidentally?

If I meet someone at the side of the road, and try to help them change a wheel and cause damage, will I be liable as a private person?

Short answer is yes. Standard tort law.

An argument could be made that the owner of the car, by virtue of asking for a hand from a random passer-by, implicitly accepts that the passer-by is not qualified to do the work and therefore damage might occur.

But likewise the passer-by, through offering assistance implies that they are capable and therefore any error on their part is their fault.

At the base of it, if you cause damage to someone else's property, you are liable for that damage by default. You and/or the court would then have to make a case as to why your liability is lessened or non-existent.

There are some exceptions. We have a "good samaritan" law which protects you from liability if you are acting to help someone in an emergency.

Volunteers are also protected from personal liability in the course of any work with a volunteer organisation. The organisation may still be liable though.

In regards to the scenario in the OP, in general practice where an employee causes damage in the course of their work, the injured party will usually sue the employer and will usually win, because the employer has insurance. The employer's insurance is effectively a blanket and will cover damage by employees even if they're doing something that they weren't supposed to. The exception there would be the employee doing something that they were told to do, that is waaay outside of the employer's business. For example, a forecourt attendant being told to do some plumbing work at a customer's house.

Jobs OXO

Sounds like you need to have your mother monitor the maintenance of the care much more closely. It is her responsibility especially if she causes an accident if for example the engine seized and car stopped dead causing a pile up. Is she too elderly for driving by any chance? Does a doc need to certify her? Perhaps there is a legal onus on you to notify her doc of this latest incident ?

xalot

Jobs OXO wrote: »

Sounds like you need to have your mother monitor the maintenance of the care much more closely. It is her responsibility especially if she causes an accident if for example the engine seized and car stopped dead causing a pile up. Is she too elderly for driving by any chance? Does a doc need to certify her? Perhaps there is a legal onus on you to notify her doc of this latest incident ?

Jesus that's a bit OTT. The car stalled which could happen to anyone at anytime. No she's not elderly and no she doesn't need to notify anyone. If she had checked the coolant level (which she regularly does herself without issue) then she wouldn't have been in the situation she found herself in.