As with most words goodwill has several meanings. In a pure accounting sense the definition is essentially the difference between the price paid for a business and the value of the tangible assets. To many of us in our daily lives goodwill is the credit or trust we build over time in our various relationships. Most people believe this goodwill has some value - and most would agree that this is an intangible and difficult to concretely monetize. I would characterize it as demonstrated integrity and hope that it gives me a competitive advantage when things get challenging.

In any case the context is key to the word or term "goodwill".

 

Am I to understand that you've never had an "accident"? Clearly your a better man than I

 

Wow, I really hope you're able to find a car you like. I don't sell cars but I do work in customer service and I always appreciate when a customer who has an issue treats me with respect and patience while I try to sort out the issue. I've dealt with people flipping out and screaming over anything from $2 to thousands of dollars. I tell you I work harder to find a resolution when people are courteous. I'll help a hot head but I certainly don't go the extra mile for them.

 

I have been in three motor vehicle collisions. None of them were "accidents".

Three times I have been rear-ended. One was a road-raging cab driver darting through traffic. That was intentional reckless operation, it was not "an accident". One was a motrist spending more brainpower on her cell phone that on the operation of her car during rush hour traffic. A collision is a foreseeable outcome to negligent operation of a motor vehicle. It is not "an accident". The third rear-ended me at a stoplight during a snowstorm. Failing to reduce speed in poor weather conditions and driving in snow on bald tires is careless operation. A collision is the foreseeable result. It is not "an accident".

You seem to think something is "accidental" just because someone says, "I didn't mean to do it." I'm sure none of the people who ran into me "meant to do it". But the collisions were obvious outcomes to their intentional actions. It would have only been an accident if they HADN'T hit me.

 

Virtually every car "accident" is avoidable if 1 or both parties are paying attention!!

Not all "accidents" fall into this, such as a muliti-car accident where you got sandwiched between 2 or more cars etc etc...

 

Someone had to start the collision. Just because you're not hit by the initiating vehicle doesn't mean it isn't someone's fault.

There are no "accidents". Someone is always at fault.

If you get swept up into a multi-car crash, the crash was not "unavoidable". It was avoidable by the negligent party that started it.

 

Mistakes happen. Darn few people get into collisions on purpose. They may be bad drivers. That doesn't make them bad people. "Fault" focuses on blame, and blame is not particularly useful after the fact. (But our love of blame does make my country the most litigious society in the world.)

OP was in a bad situation because someone at the dealership made a mistake. That's awful. But that's human. It happens. What matters is that nobody was hurt, and he was "made whole" on his loss!

It's the end of 2012, and the world didn't end. Let's all chill out, enjoy the new year, and go for a drive in our awesomely fun cars!

Group hug!

 

The OP is in a bad situation because the technician driving his car was careless or reckless. And it is not the obligation of the OP to assume ANY cost for it.

We have a litigious society because we have raised generations of self-absorbed morons who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, and have to have it adjudicated.

 

Wow

 

How do you conclude the technician was either careless or reckless. There is no data to support that comment or conclusion. EVERYTHING we do has risk and sometimes we end up in the tails of the statistical bell shaped curve and accidents happen. We now live in a society where we look for both blame and an opportunity to make a profit in what is often times simply just an honest accident. The dealer seems to be working to make things right which seems both a fair and appropriate response. IMHO looking to extract more would be neither fair nor appropriate - even if the deep pockets of the dealer might allow for that potential - if there were no deep pockets my guess is you wouldn't be advocating in the same way. Also, my guess is the OP will still likely want to maintain a friendly relationship with the dealer in the future.

 

The technician was driving too fast for the conditions.

True 'accidents' are unavoidable, and VERY rare. Failure to stop in a sufficient distance to avoid hitting another cat is avoidable. Whether the cause was slick streets or poor sight-lines or sudden deceleration by the lead vehicle or mechanical failure, rear-ending another car (and at a rate of speed high enough to total the OP's car) is avoidable.

Can you name a situation that might cause a collision like this where the driver wasn't either careless or reckless?

Safe driving is not an 'accident' either, but an applied skill to limit the possibilities of a collision.

 

Yes, another driver was at fault - example, someone drives through an intersection leaving the technician no time to react.

Two comments. First, I don't recall seeing any data on the circumstances of the accident so its difficult for me to conclude anything about his degree of fault and/or was it entirely his fault or only partly his fault. Second, if it was the technician who was at fault then why not go after him rather than the dealer - the answer is of course money or the lack of it.

 

Did I misread? I thought this was the technicians second or third accident at the dealer?

 

No, that's USUALLY avoidable by scanning approaching intersections in MOST cases. In very rare cases, 'visual screening' by lines of other cars can make avoidance impossible, but it's still not an "accident."

These are the basics of Defensive Driving.

 

I don't recall seeing anything about prior accidents but assuming there is a prior history of problems then that would change my thinking and I would be rather upset with the dealer. Remember, I have experienced a dealer crashing my car so I have this tee shirt. Again, in my case the car wasn't totaled and I needed to live with a "repaired" car.

Among other things I would ask the dealer what they plan to do to make sure this technician doesn't put customers property at risk and specifically that he not be allowed to drive my cars in the future.

 

The example I related was real and involved a relative who avoided the car that ran a stop sign. My relative swerved to avoid the offending car and consequently hit a guard rail and did some front end damage similar to the OP. interestingly his insurance agent said he should have hit the offending driver as their insurance would then have to pay for the damage. Frankly, I found that response by the insurance agent extremely disturbing.

I will offer as a second example, a personal experience, where I was sitting at a traffic light and a driver in a much larger car drove into my rear at about 25 MPH. In this case I had two choices - pull out of line into heavy on coming traffic or make the car levitate - my car was pushed into the car in front of me heavily damaging both the front and rear of the car. I remember my father telling me at the time that I should have done something to avoid this accident and my thinking that you really needed to be there to understand what is and isn't possible. My conclusion is accidents do happen and I have a tendency to trust people who have been in accidents as you never have all the data and shouldn't judge unless your were there. Just my opinion.

 

+1 ^

 

I firmly believe you are entitled to your opinion but what if someone dumped a ton of oil on the road making the accident not foreseeable (oil is not going to be very easy to spot on a black Tarmac road) or avoidable? Ie: their drain plug let loose? You can lay blame to the person who dropped the oil but definitely not to the driving characteristics of the mechanic.

Anyhow..happy new year

 

Sadly I believe I got the same advice once when I got rear ended. I stopped at a rapid pace to avoid a car that pulled through traffic around a mild turn. ( yay slotted rotors) unfortunately the pizza delivery guy behind me did not. I was yelled at by the officer for obstructing traffic...what?!!!!! He said the fault was mine... Because there was no proof of another car. Thankfully we both walked away -- me with spider webs in my rear bumper but no other damage. Live and learn..as he insinuated I should have plowed through the offending car

 

Well, that's simply ridiculous. I've never seen a situation where a rear-ended car was held liable for an accident. Someone can always say "had you not been there you wouldn't have been hit" but it's the guy in back who is responsible for keeping safe distance.

The only time he's not at fault is if someone behind him plowed him into the first car...and that usually requires either a solid witness or an admission by the third driver. That's exactly what I encountered two months ago when my car was sandwiched between two cars and totaled. The third driver admitted to the police that he caused the entire accident and therefore, all the damage on all three cars.

 

I know -- I didn't exactly agree with the officer...but given he was an authority figure and not issuing tickets and everyone was OKAY ... I decided to just let it go...I guess his thoughts were trying to avoid the swoop and dive stuff. I don't disagree with him that you cannot stop the flow of traffic..however I stopped to avoid ramming through a car in front of me... he just seemed to either not believe me or not care.

 

Sorry for continuing to site personal examples but my daughter was driving my MINI this past August and while in line exiting a parking lot the truck in front of her backed up and crunch - $3K in damage. If the driver hadn't admitted to backing into her we would have been liable for the deductible ($1K in our case) and the police would considered my daughter to be at fault. Again, every case has extenuating circumstances so jumping to conclusions without all the data is risky.

 

I could care less about the past page of posts....

OP what have you been looking at for a replacement?

 

Hate to burst your "deap pockets" theory bubble, but it's basic tort law. Without bothering to look it up, I believe it goes back to English common law. Unless he can show a "frolic or detour", an employer is liable for damages caused by an employee within the scope of his job.

It was part of the technician's job to do road tests and evaluations on customers' cars. Therefore the dealership is responsible for any damage the technician causes while on those drives. Now let's say that while on a road test, the technician decides to drive off the route a couple of blocks and visit one of the neighborhood's "independent pharmaceutical distributors" for a nickle bag and a few grams of meth. In that case the technician would be liable as he went outside the scope of his employment to run a personal errand.

 

Are you sh!ttin' me?! The tech drove the OP's MINI into the back of another vehicle. QED.

Do you think the vehicle he ran into suddenly materialized in front of him? He was either driving distracted, driving too fast, or following too close. Careless or reckless -- take your pick.

With a couple of exceptions, nobody was advocating that the OP try to fleece the dealer for everything he can get. But suggestions that he just use the opportunity to finance another vehicle are facile. The dealer has the legal and moral obligation to return the OP to the status he enjoyed before the wreck, even if it cost the dealer a couple thousand bucks out of pocket.