Are you OK with this? Is this ethical?

[Undecided]

I just personally believe that between two people regardless if it's a friend or a stranger you should be honest and fair.

How was this not honest and fair?  He got two estimates, and he settled for the lower one.  He didn't misrepresent the costs or the extent of the damage.  He didn't extort the funds.  He didn't ask for the damage.  This all seems totally legit to me.

What seems unfair is the claim that it will cost $1600 to fix. Then the funds are pocketed for profit rather than for fixing the damages. It's personal gain for something that was apparently not $1600 dollars worth of a problem. In my mind it's using the situation for profit rather than for restitution.

It's not profit. The OP was made at least $1,600 worse off (the cost of a professional repair) and so the other driver gave him $1,600 to make him whole. The OP is no better off than before the accident (and out the time for getting two estimates). Although law and morality aren't the same thing, standard common law tort law (which is basically what governs in vehicle damages in most of the U.S, even where embodied in statutes) reflects hundreds of years of creeping evolution toward solutions that would be widely held "fair" when applied in a variety of situations. There are good systemic reasons why that's how the law has evolved (and how for-profit insurers would act---they don't want to give away money). The at-fault driver should have no say and no stake in how the OP chooses to allocate the money paid to put him back in the same overall position as before the accident.

You are somewhat confusing the physical state of the car together with the OP's perception of whether the physical damage is worth the cost of professional repair, with whether the OP is made whole as a whole, I think. Further, despite the OP's willingness to consider returning some of the money because of his cheap fix to the physical damage, we have no way of knowing whether he'll "pay for it later" when he sells the car, admits it was hit and loses some prospective buyers who aren't willing to buy it in the absence of paperwork from a licensed repair shop, or whatever.

That some people may do a favor for a friend or someone they pity by returning part of the money is just that, a favor by the donor, and should have no part in setting anyone's expectations about the extent of their own liability for their own actions. Some "friends" might be disgruntled by that, but that only reflects selfishness, in my view.

[Inquizator]

But several people said they wouldn't do it to a friend, but would to a stranger.  If you feel it's honest and fair for one, why is it not for the other?

There's lots of things I would do to a stranger but not to a friend (and things I would do for/to a friend and not for/to a stranger)... Many of them basically come down to: I would charge a stranger full price for my services/products, but might donate/discount for a friend.

In my mind, that's what people are saying here. It's fair and honest, but they'd go above and beyond for a friend (just as it's fair and honest to expect to be paid if I'm professional mover, but that I'd do it for free for a friend...)

[sol]

It's personal gain for something that was apparently not $1600 dollars worth of a problem. In my mind it's using the situation for profit rather than for restitution.

Fortunately, we each get to make our own decisions about how we handle our finances. 

If you would like to accept a lesser value than damage to your vehicle warrants, you are certainly free to refund some of that money to the party responsible for the damages.  I don't think it's unethical to choose to take a loss.  In fact, I might even consider it charitable.

[tomsang]

I just personally believe that between two people regardless if it's a friend or a stranger you should be honest and fair.

How was this not honest and fair?  He got two estimates, and he settled for the lower one.  He didn't misrepresent the costs or the extent of the damage.  He didn't extort the funds.  He didn't ask for the damage.  This all seems totally legit to me.

What seems unfair is the claim that it will cost $1600 to fix. Then the funds are pocketed for profit rather than for fixing the damages. It's personal gain for something that was apparently not $1600 dollars worth of a problem. In my mind it's using the situation for profit rather than for restitution.

There is no profit in this transaction. He still has a car with $1,600 of damage to repair to the condition prior to the accident. Currently he has a check for $1,600 and damage of $1,600. He can deploy the check to be made whole or he can keep the cash and live with the damage. If he was to resell the truck today, he would have to drop the price to reflect the damage.

This is not a profit issue. To me this is the same thing as someone who sells investments to pay off debt. You haven't improved your net worth and in some cases you are giving up the ability to make 6%+ to eliminate paying a 3.5% mortgage.  Paying off debt by selling productive assets is not cause for a congratulations as you are just swapping. In this case you are swapping an inferior vehicle for cash. No profit, no celebration. You are moving capital to where you think it will do you the most good. Interesting topic. I think it is cool that OP is giving him back $500, but for the hours involved in getting quotes, researching solutions, minimizing damage and having an inferior truck he would have been justified in keeping the full amount.

[chasesfish]

I'm good with you keeping the money, if you fixed it yourself with an imperfect job, then you're loosing value off the car.  How much is debatable and depends on when you're selling it.

[pdxcyn]

Similar thing happened to my husband, except it was the garbage truck that backed into him. He got an estimate and the company sent him a check, but he didn't fix the damage, just kept the money. Since the value of the car has been reduced because of the damage, I don't think he was unethical. Even when the insurance company is involved, sometimes they will give you the option of paying you directly for a claim, and then it is up to you whether you get the car fixed, shop around for a cheaper solution, do it yourself, or just live with the damage.

[matchewed]

For those who disagreed with me if there is profit or not. You're supposing that the car is now worth X-$1600? Other than that being the cost of a full repair what grounds do we have to make that determination? I can tell you this much, the OP has $1600 more today than he did yesterday, all for the 20 minutes of work, the effort of getting two estimates, and watching a youtube video. Also I'm using the term profit to mean an advantageous gain. I'd say this may just fit that description.

In regards to individuals who brought up that the legal system uses a similar system and the legal system is fair, therefore this is fair. No offense but I'm not sure if the second assumption can hold water regardless of the length of time it took us to get to a legal system that uses such a system (the legal system can be far from fair).

Like I said in one of my previous posts, I'm not expecting to change minds with this one. It's just a line in my head that I wouldn't cross. Think of it this way if any of you ever hit my car you'll likely have to pay way less than the repairs for me to feel we're square. :)

[Undecided]

For those who disagreed with me if there is profit or not. You're supposing that the car is now worth X-$1600? Other than that being the cost of a full repair what grounds do we have to make that determination? I can tell you this much, the OP has $1600 more today than he did yesterday, all for the 20 minutes of work, the effort of getting two estimates, and watching a youtube video. Also I'm using the term profit to mean an advantageous gain. I'd say this may just fit that description.

In regards to individuals who brought up that the legal system uses a similar system and the legal system is fair, therefore this is fair. No offense but I'm not sure if the second assumption can hold water regardless of the length of time it took us to get to a legal system that uses such a system (the legal system can be far from fair).

Like I said in one of my previous posts, I'm not expecting to change minds with this one. It's just a line in my head that I wouldn't cross. Think of it this way if any of you ever hit my car you'll likely have to pay way less than the repairs for me to feel we're square. :)

What if the OP had seen the dent-repair video, was sure he could do a pretty good job (enough that he'd be fine driving the car), but decided that he would instead spend the $1,600 on professional repair? Would that be unethical in your mind?

In your view, people should really hope they hit mustachians!

[Mustache Fatty]

I vote that this is totally ethical and the fact that you returned money should make you sleep extra well at night!

If I hit my very best friend's car and he decided that he wanted to make sure the car was restored to perfection and it cost $1600 from the mechanic he preferred I would be okay with that.  I would be doubly okay with that if we got a second estimate and it was $1650.  If he later decided to live with a small dent after fixing the main damage in 10 minutes I would still be okay with that.

In short, if I caused $1600 in damage to his car (given that is the cost for him not to lift a finger and have professionals completely restore his car back to how it was before I hit it) then I would pay it.  If he sent me back $500 as a way to say, "hey, this residual damage is not that big of a deal," then I would be very happy!

You are being 100% ethical in my opinion.

[Left]

I don't see how it isn't ethical... if other party really insisted that you went to a certain shop, you'd do it and you'd spend $0, while he still spends $1600. He's spending $1600 to get the issue resolved and not actually fixing the car. He got what he paid for. It isn't like he is interested in the "shape" of your car, whether you fixed it/did not fix it/or professionally fixed it.

edit: it's kind of like work comp/other kinds of compensation. The money is to get you to drop the issue and not drag it out, whether you are actually "fixed" or not.

[SnackDog]

Returning the money is the only ethical choice. It is the right thing to do.

I once ran a red light light a clipped the rear fender of a pickup truck. I was a pretty rattled 16-year old but the driver wasn't. He asked for my insurance details and said he might make a claim at least for his tail light as he would need to fix it. He never called, as far as I know.  I never forgot his demeanor at the crash - he was totally cool, unfazed by the damage.

[dragoncar]

Voted for ethical.  Returning the car to its original state would cost $1600 of parts and labor (and likely note completely original state).  OP fixed it himself, returning the car to somewhat less than perfect, but acceptable.  The pseudo-fix was "acceptable" likely in view of the $1600.  It may be superficially OK, but may be less safe.  I know someone who recently had a similar issue -- they were able to pop out the superficial damage but opted to have insurance pay for a new bumper nonetheless after learning that the bumper would no longer be as safe in a severe crash.

OP also received compensation for the labor involved, in addition to accepting an imperfect solution as described above.  Had the culprit caused the damage and fled without paying, OP's fix would likely not be "acceptable," because the car would be somewhat damaged with no recompense. 

[NumberJohnny5]

Can you explain your reasoning on how it's ethical to do it to one person (stranger with some money) but not another (friend or stranger without money).

As others have noted, friends and family are a special case.

If I borrow $20 from my brother, I'm expected to repay it straight away. I can't just say "well, thing is, I owe the bank $XXX,XXX on the mortgage; it just wouldn't be right to treat family differently, so I'll pay you off shortly after they're paid off." Nope, family (is supposed to) come first

I used to do some computer repair, website hosting, etc. Family would get it for free (not once did my mom call me, have me tell her to reboot first for the 20th time, and offer to pay whatever rate the Geek Squad or whomever was charging). Friends cheaper. Strangers, full price.

If that is deemed to be ok, then it should be acceptable that we MAY treat family and friends differently in ANY circumstance.

As for treating a stranger with no insurance and $0 to his/her name, vs a stranger with insurance and a healthy emergency fund; the reason is simple. You can whine, stamp your feet, yell, scream, get a court judgement; if the guy (or gal) has nothing, you'll get nothing. Now, I wouldn't accept their word for it; I'd still go through the initial motions (filing a police report and filing with my insurance). But if they really have nothing to give, why waste hundreds of hours, sleepless nights, etc., just to get a big ol' piece of that nothing? Edit: The reason would be, you can get a judgement against the person and enforce it later; i.e. they may have nothing today, but could have something tomorrow. Though all they'd need to do to thwart your plans is to simply never have anything, or file bankruptcy. Personally, I wouldn't want to waste too much of my time for an extremely low likelihood of a positive outcome.

[Left]

As for treating a stranger with no insurance and $0 to his/her name

problem with this is that if they had no insurance, they would find the money to pay up to settle (even if they had no money) this without involving police... It's illegal to drive without insurance. Because if they didn't settle this without involving insurance/police, they'd be in a lot more trouble than out some repair costs.

It's fairly common to pay the person you hit the cost it would take to repair it at a shop too. This way you know both parties are good, and no one's insurance goes up/on record. This only happens when it's minor damage/no injuries though. They pay up the amount because they want to keep you happy so you don't file a claim against them and they end up paying more for insurance.

[GuitarStv]

If the estimate to fix is 1600$, then that's what you should be paid.  It doesn't even matter if you ever fix your car.  It's damage caused by someone else mistake that you wouldn't have to deal with otherwise.

From where I'm looking . . . the money is yours with no ethical qualms.

[aclarridge]

This is about you not feeling guilty. I think maybe you might feel a bit guilty keeping the whole $1600, but a bit cheated sending it all back (diminished resale value of car).

In that case, send back whatever amount you feel is fair. As long as you feel good about it at the end of the day; that's the objective here. I'm sure they will be happy to get any amount back from you.

[rtrnow]

Like many others, I don't see the ethical problem here. Someone caused $1,600 worth of damages. So they pay $1,600. There is no obligation legal or otherwise to spend that money on the car. I actually saw this exact scenario on judge judy while home sick from work. One party was suing to get money returned because the car owner did not fix the car. The case was dismissed with the reasoning above.

<sarcasm>Can't we all just look to daytime TV for our moral guidance? </sarcasm>

[mpbaker22]

I'm not even sure how this is a question.  He did damage that would cost $1,600 to repair.  Even if the re-sell value only dropped $800 it still is a $1,600 repair.  If I was able to get an estimate at a lower price, or do it at a lower price myself, I would send back the difference.  Otherwise, he did $1,600 in damages, so you are entitled to the $1,600.  Someone earlier suggested if the person was in a difficult financial situation, you should accept less.  I would agree with that; not because it's just or more ethical, but because it's charitable.  Then again, if they're driving a car, they obviously don't have real financial issues.

[livetogive]

They caused $1600 worth of damage.  You chose not to completely fix.  Your car is now worth less = ethical in my eyes.

[Heather]

Great discussion.
Call me totally illogical, but I think it makes a difference whether the payer would be caused real trouble by the loss of the money, or not even notice it's gone.   With enough excess money around, it just becomes funny coloured game tokens.   

Also consider that the payer might have happily taken his own car to the shop for that repair, at that cost, rather than being adventurous enough to figure out how to do the work himself, even knowing what the final cost difference would be. 

(Says I, contemplating finding time to disassemble much of of the interior back of my car, to figure out why the heck the trailer turn signals and brake lights aren't working.  I will probably take it to the shop. There are so many other things I'm so far behind on). 


 

[simonsez]

Only unethical if there is informational asymmetry with the cost estimators, i.e. you had prior knowledge they would give inflated estimates or there was some sort of bias in your favor.

So...if it isn't an issue with the estimates, then good for you Mr. Ethical DIY Mike!

[Daleth]

How is this any different from collecting your car insurance payout and then choosing to drive a dented car instead of paying to have it fixed?

When a blind old lady hit my crappy Escort back in 06, her insurance company sent an appraiser and wrote me a check for the damage.  Since it was purely cosmetic and the car was a POS anyway, I deposited the check and drove a dented car.  It never even occurred to me that doing so might be unethical, and I don't see how the OP's question here is any different.

Technically, I believe that is insurance fraud. You only have a right to be reimbursed for monies that you actually spent. Insurance is never supposed to provide a financial gain. (Life insurance is its own separate area.) That is why I answered "unethical" in the poll.

That is not insurance fraud. You're not obligated to spend the insurance money getting the thing fixed. The insurance company is compensating you for the value of what you lost--it's completely up to you what you do with it (i.e. whether you replace or repair the thing or not). If your house burns down, your insurance company will pay you whatever amount your policy says it will pay (market value, replacement cost, whatever), but you're not obligated to rebuild the house--you could, but you could also take the money and buy another house, or for that matter deposit the check, rent a studio apartment and live off the insurance money for however long it lasts.

What would be insurance fraud is, for instance, having your friend the car mechanic give you an inflated estimate so the insurance company pays you more money than it should.

[KMMK]

How is this any different from collecting your car insurance payout and then choosing to drive a dented car instead of paying to have it fixed?

When a blind old lady hit my crappy Escort back in 06, her insurance company sent an appraiser and wrote me a check for the damage.  Since it was purely cosmetic and the car was a POS anyway, I deposited the check and drove a dented car.  It never even occurred to me that doing so might be unethical, and I don't see how the OP's question here is any different.

Technically, I believe that is insurance fraud. You only have a right to be reimbursed for monies that you actually spent. Insurance is never supposed to provide a financial gain. (Life insurance is its own separate area.) That is why I answered "unethical" in the poll.

That is not insurance fraud. You're not obligated to spend the insurance money getting the thing fixed. The insurance company is compensating you for the value of what you lost--it's completely up to you what you do with it (i.e. whether you replace or repair the thing or not). If your house burns down, your insurance company will pay you whatever amount your policy says it will pay (market value, replacement cost, whatever), but you're not obligated to rebuild the house--you could, but you could also take the money and buy another house, or for that matter deposit the check, rent a studio apartment and live off the insurance money for however long it lasts.

What would be insurance fraud is, for instance, having your friend the car mechanic give you an inflated estimate so the insurance company pays you more money than it should.

The laws may be different in Canada. And of course, it does matter what the specific wordings of your policy are - replacement, actual cash value, etc. And the company can chose to just pay you out whatever they want, of course. They often do, especially for smaller claims. The bigger the claim, the more investigation. But you can't force the company to pay you if you can't prove there was a loss.  I was just saying that insurance is only supposed to reimburse lost costs; not increase your assets. In the OP, it was unclear whether the car actually decreased in value $1600 or not. And there was no bill that the OP had to pay.

I didn't really want to get into my job here, as I don't reveal my employer on the internet, but all I know is that I don't pay claims based on estimates. Thank god. I can't imagine how much money we'd lose if we did so. In my work, in most situations no bill = no payment.

[Daleth]

The laws may be different in Canada. And of course, it does matter what the specific wordings of your policy are - replacement, actual cash value, etc.

To the best of my knowledge, no, it doesn't--not in the US anyway. All that means (cash value, replacement cost etc.) is how the insurance company will measure your loss. (For instance, if your house burns down, will they measure your loss as "the cost of buying an equivalent house" or as "the cost of rebuilding an identical house"? The rebuild, or "replacement," cost is just about always if not absolutely always a higher number, so if you had a replacement-cost policy you'd get more insurance money than if you had a cash-value one.)

That's what those terms mean: they tell you how the insurance company measures your loss. They do NOT tell you how you are supposed to use whatever money they eventually end up paying you.

But you can't force the company to pay you if you can't prove there was a loss.  I was just saying that insurance is only supposed to reimburse lost costs; not increase your assets.

Paying you the replacement cost or full market value (or whatever measure they use) of your house, or for that matter paying you $1600 in response to your car sustaining damage that a mechanic would charge $1600 to repair, is not "increasing your assets." You had a house worth $X and now you don't--so the insurance just puts you back where you were, **financially** speaking. I'm emphasizing "financially" because all the insurance does is pay you money so you have the same value of assets as you did before. The insurance doesn't tell you what you have to do with those assets--you can use the insurance proceeds to rebuild your house, OR NOT. That choice is yours, assuming the mortgage is paid off.

And in the example on this thread, you had a car worth $X and now you don't. Insurance would've given you $1600, because the best estimate of how much your car is now worth is "whatever it was worth before the accident, minus the $1600 repair costs to put it back in the same shape it was in before the accident." The bank is simply restoring that $1600 in lost assets to you. Whether you put those assets back into your car or not is up to you, assuming the car is paid off (or you owe less than the car is now worth). And the reason it matters whether you still owe money on the car (or house in the example above) isn't because of insurance, it's because your bank will require you to maintain the value of their collateral.

 

[Undecided]

How is this any different from collecting your car insurance payout and then choosing to drive a dented car instead of paying to have it fixed?

When a blind old lady hit my crappy Escort back in 06, her insurance company sent an appraiser and wrote me a check for the damage.  Since it was purely cosmetic and the car was a POS anyway, I deposited the check and drove a dented car.  It never even occurred to me that doing so might be unethical, and I don't see how the OP's question here is any different.

Technically, I believe that is insurance fraud. You only have a right to be reimbursed for monies that you actually spent. Insurance is never supposed to provide a financial gain. (Life insurance is its own separate area.) That is why I answered "unethical" in the poll.

That is not insurance fraud. You're not obligated to spend the insurance money getting the thing fixed. The insurance company is compensating you for the value of what you lost--it's completely up to you what you do with it (i.e. whether you replace or repair the thing or not). If your house burns down, your insurance company will pay you whatever amount your policy says it will pay (market value, replacement cost, whatever), but you're not obligated to rebuild the house--you could, but you could also take the money and buy another house, or for that matter deposit the check, rent a studio apartment and live off the insurance money for however long it lasts.

What would be insurance fraud is, for instance, having your friend the car mechanic give you an inflated estimate so the insurance company pays you more money than it should.

The laws may be different in Canada. And of course, it does matter what the specific wordings of your policy are - replacement, actual cash value, etc. And the company can chose to just pay you out whatever they want, of course. They often do, especially for smaller claims. The bigger the claim, the more investigation. But you can't force the company to pay you if you can't prove there was a loss.  I was just saying that insurance is only supposed to reimburse lost costs; not increase your assets. In the OP, it was unclear whether the car actually decreased in value $1600 or not. And there was no bill that the OP had to pay.

I didn't really want to get into my job here, as I don't reveal my employer on the internet, but all I know is that I don't pay claims based on estimates. Thank god. I can't imagine how much money we'd lose if we did so. In my work, in most situations no bill = no payment.

A "loss" doesn't require going out of pocket. Damaged property is still a loss. While what you're saying could conceivably apply in a situation where a person was seeking recovery from his or her own insurer (and had agreed to that), if another driver hits my car, I have no contract with his or her insurance company; the insurer has no direct obligation to me. The other driver has an obligation to me. The insurance company has some obligation to him or her to satisfy the insured's obligation to me. Not paying third-party claims until the third party actually goes out of pocket would be a great way for an insurance company to get its customers sued more often than necessary.

[samdbtto]

Post accident diminished value.   You are entitled to it (although insurance companies won't reimburse you for it unless you ask).

Once a car is in an accident it loses value.  Even if you get it repaired.  It's like buying something "refurbished", it may be like new but the hell if you are going to pay full price for it.  Anyone that knows anything about cars will see the proof of the previous accident and lowball you on sale price.

Ask yourself this, if you were shopping for a car and found two identical cars same price but one had been in an accident and repaired and  the other has a clean history which would you buy?  The only way you buy the previously damaged one is if they did what..... lowered the price.

He owes you for the dent, the "post accident diminished value", and lastly for your time and inconvenience. 


Ethical in my book.

[NumberJohnny5]

I'm still hung up on the argument of "You should only be paid the amount that the car decreased in value, not how much it'd cost for a licensed mechanic to restore it to the same condition it was in before the accident."

Ok, how about this. It's either-or. Whatever rule you come up with, EVERYONE has to abide by. So either everyone only gets paid the amount that the car has decreased in value, or it gets fixed to the same condition as before the accident. No getting to choose for yourself.

Let's assume you pick #1, you only get paid the amount that the car decreased in value. You have a brand-new car that's financed (not frugal, but not illegal/immoral either). You drive it off the lot, now you have a $15,000 car with a $20,000 loan. Someone rear-ends you, and the value decreases to $10,000. Assuming it works like I think it will, that means the insurance company will cut a $5,000 check to your finance company. The car is undriveable as-is. It'll cost $7,000 to fix it (heck, wouldn't matter if it was $3,000...you don't have the spare cash anymore). So now you have a $15,000 loan on a $10,000 car you can't even drive.

Or let's say you have a $1,000 car. Someone hits you causing $800 in damage. But the scrap yard would gladly give you $500 for the car. Hey, that's not bad...insurance will give you $500, scrap yard $500, you just sold your car! But you didn't want to sell it, you took good care of it, and it's mostly cosmetic damage anyways. To keep the car, you have to take the $500 and pay the extra $300 out of pocket to get it fixed (this is assuming you're not a shade tree mechanic, and willing to take it on yourself).

In my view, if anyone is going to come out ahead, it should be the person who's NOT at fault. I'm not saying they SHOULD come out ahead...but rather, if it's going to be them OR the person who was actually negligent, I'm picking the innocent party.

The existing system isn't perfect, but it's fair for the most part. If you're in an accident and it's the other person's fault, they're liable to pay to get your car back in the same condition it was in before the accident. They won't pay for just the parts, or make you learn how to do it; rather they'll pay an appropriate amount for a (semi) reputable mechanic to do a proper repair. If the repair costs more than the car was worth, then they'll "total" it and give you a "fair" amount for what it could have reasonably been sold for. The liable party can not insist that you use a specific mechanic, but they can require multiple estimates and require that the car actually be repaired (i.e. they pay the repair shop directly). If they cut you a check, it's to do what you wish with; repair the car, sell the car and combine the funds to buy a new one, buy a robot butler, whatever.

[Fletch]

Ethical. I once hit an acquaintance's car, gave them $4-500 or however much the mechanics estimate was to fix the bumper and not go through insurance, and they never bothered to fix it (as far as I know, I only saw their car once about a year later) and I was fine with that. I was at fault when I hit them, but I paid the debt we both agreed I owed them and moved on.

The thing that was shitty and unethical: this incident happened while I was a designated driver in a [former] friend's car, their registration had lapsed, I received a citation because of that and was never reimbursed for paying it. I did not move on from that, because I felt I was owed that reimbursement.

Let this guy pay and move on, he is probably feeling like an idiot for hitting you in the first place

[pka222]

Ethical -
Consider this.  A driver hits and kills a cow, on a marked dirt road indicating free range cattle- he compensates the rancher for the value of the cow, say $1600.  Now the farmer can buy a new full grown cow for 1600 or a calf for 500 or pocket the money - I don't think any of these options would be unethical - as he could have sold the cow for 1600, or kept it as a breeder or continued to fatten her up.. either way - its property someone else damaged - the $$ is in compensation for the damage as set by the market not the  DYI  crowd

[Mississippi Mudstache]

How would you feel if the situation was reversed?

I can answer this one. I bumped into a guy's car in the parking lot when I was in college. Left him my contact info, he got estimates for repair that came in at $350. I wrote him a check for $350, and it never occurred to me to care whether or not he actually got his car fixed, or whether he fixed it himself or did it professionally. That was at a time when $350 meant a lot more to me than $1600 does today. Not surprisingly, I voted that the action was ethical. Perhaps more accurately, I don't believe that it is unethical.

[Rust]

Ethical to take the money.  Yes.

Would it be a kind thing for you to do to return some of it.  Yes.

Not everything in life is black and white.  Sometimes you need to leave some room in there for kindness.

[Undecided]

I voted not ethical, but I don't think it is legally wrong. I see those concepts as separate. There was an article in the "Tightwad Gazette" books about the Tightwad Lady making off with a muffin at a hotel buffet to save as her lunch later. She later said she regretted it because, although she wasn't technically stealing, the buffet wasn't meant to supply later meals. This feels a bit like that--not that big a deal, but returning some money would surely be an act of kindness. Seems like if you have to ask for moral support, you have a bad feeling about it.

The part in bold is true, but your reasoning seems to be that declining to undertake an act of kindness is somehow unethical, and I'm not willing to agree with that.

Your comparison to the muffin lady doesn't make any sense to me---the other driver's obligation is exactly to give the OP the amount of damage (which is almost certainly more than the cost of repair, as "diminished value" seems to be a real effect on autos involved in collisions). The OP owes no obligation to the other driver as to how to use the cash that satisfies the other driver's obligation. The hotel's deal with the muffin lady was probably that they would give her breakfast (not breakfast and a snack).

[Undecided]

The part in bold is true, but your reasoning seems to be that declining to undertake an act of kindness is somehow unethical, and I'm not willing to agree with that.

Your comparison to the muffin lady doesn't make any sense to me---the other driver's obligation is exactly to give the OP the amount of damage (which is almost certainly more than the cost of repair, as "diminished value" seems to be a real effect on autos involved in collisions).

We'll agree to disagree on the ethics of "declining to undertake an act of kindness."

But yeah, on the second part, not my best argument on my part re the muffin. I guess I was assuming that the OP feels he is "taking" something that perhaps he should not and wants to be told it is ok.

We live in a conflicted society, where there are a lot of people out to get whatever they can, ethically or not, and there are also a lot of people who have been socialized to "be nice" to their own unreasonable disadvantage. I'm not saying the OP is necessarily in the latter category (he certainly doesn't seem to be in the former), but I think that's a part of needing to be told that it's ok to keep what you're entitled to (and nobody has disputed that he's entitled to it---is that a different way to think about this: How can it be unethical to keep what you're legally entitled to have as the consequence of another person's negligence?)

(Re declining to undertake an act of kindness, if the OP doesn't need the money, why should it give it to the other driver rather than whomever the OP thinks is most needy?)

Interestingly, while this thread has been going on, my car has been hit by a driver who immediately admitted fault (my suspicion is that he must have been texting) and my 8-year old car now has a big dent in it!

[swiper]

Market standpoint: Ethical
Social standpoint: Not Ethical

[Undecided]

We live in a conflicted society, where there are a lot of people out to get whatever they can, ethically or not, and there are also a lot of people who have been socialized to "be nice" to their own unreasonable disadvantage. I'm not saying the OP is necessarily in the latter category (he certainly doesn't seem to be in the former), but I think that's a part of needing to be told that it's ok to keep what you're entitled to (and nobody has disputed that he's entitled to it---is that a different way to think about this: How can it be unethical to keep what you're legally entitled to have as the consequence of another person's negligence?)

I am not familiar with the glut of people "socialized to be nice to their own disadvantage." But I live near DC. ; )

I understand the logical and legal argument that this is ethical based on the decrease in property value and the negligence of the other driver, but the "decrease in value" in most arguments here is based on an initial repair estimate that was never paid. Unless the owner of the car immediately put the car up for sale and determined that the loss of value was $1,600, I don't see how a repair estimate on a dent that was fixed in 20 minutes automatically decreases the value of the car by that exact amount. And, for example, if the owner only sells the car many years from now, how could he even measure the value reduction from that one incident?

I have no problem with a system, whether of law or ethics, relying on readily observable, objective criteria for allocating obligations (e.g., a neutral third-party repair shop's estimate). It's entirely possible that the OP could have a subjective feeling of greater loss ("I hate knowing that my car has a replacement door panel!"), but I don't think we would demand that law or ethics give him something extra for that. So why should he get less because he might not think the professional repair is worth the cost? He didn't choose to put himself in the situation of having the choice between the cash and the repair. What if he had the repair work done by the shop and then after the fact decided that it hadn't been worth it? How do the supposed ethical systems that would have him return some of the money treat that any differently than having that realization before the fact?

[GuitarStv]

There's another aspect to this discussion that doesn't seem to be covered yet . . .

By returning money to the person at fault for the damage to his car, the OP is reducing the penalty for the careless driving.  This devalues the damage, and potentially reduces the importance of careful driving in the future for the perpetrator.  Taken with this view, returning the money would be less ethical because it increases risk for the rest of society.

[Matte]

It's ethical to keep the money!!!!.  If anything is unethical about this situation is that you didn't report the accident, keeping the other posters driving record artificially clean.  You deprived their insurance company of increased premiums for the next few years.  Honestly you did them a huge favor taking cash.  I'm sure you saved them a bundle in the long run, if insurance was involved it would have cost $2500 to pay out or a big monthly amount.  Also insurance cuts you the check, it's yours to do what you choose with, yours is the same. 

[tomsang]

+1 - I was thinking about that as well.  Is it ethical that the person hitting your car does not report the accident to his insurance company?  Is it ethical that you don't report the accident to your insurance company?  If you total your car, should they pay you the full replacement value or full replacement value minus damage done in prior accidents?  Interesting twist to the ethics!

It's ethical to keep the money!!!!.  If anything is unethical about this situation is that you didn't report the accident, keeping the other posters driving record artificially clean.  You deprived their insurance company of increased premiums for the next few years.  Honestly you did them a huge favor taking cash.  I'm sure you saved them a bundle in the long run, if insurance was involved it would have cost $2500 to pay out or a big monthly amount.  Also insurance cuts you the check, it's yours to do what you choose with, yours is the same.

[Matte]

I would do the same thing though.  Here one crash increases your premiums 30-60 percent per year and they only recover at a rate of 5 percent a year.  Govt insurance grrr!!! Even though our commie govt insurance says you cant legslly settle on your own I let a guy do it for me.  If I was at fault I would be giving them an inflated offer, fix plus bribe to not say anything and preserve my discount.

[dragoncar]

It's ethical to keep the money!!!!.  If anything is unethical about this situation is that you didn't report the accident, keeping the other posters driving record artificially clean.  You deprived their insurance company of increased premiums for the next few years.  Honestly you did them a huge favor taking cash.  I'm sure you saved them a bundle in the long run, if insurance was involved it would have cost $2500 to pay out or a big monthly amount.  Also insurance cuts you the check, it's yours to do what you choose with, yours is the same.

Good point, totally agree.  But that's a case of "sticking it to the man" that tends to be more popular.  In many states, its also illegal (for example in CA I believe any accident over $500 damage must be reported to the police)

That doesn't mean I would have done anything differently though

[devan 11]

Completely ethical!  He caused monetary loss, he reimbursed to make you "whole".

I rear ended a car years ago.  I didn't realize that strong winds caused black ice on a bridge until it was to late.
  She recieved estimates, I paid.  She asked if it was okay to use the money for her upcoming wedding.  I told her that that was her decision. She deserved the money for the damage that I caused. If she wants to save, waste, or whatever with her cash is up to her.  I wished her a happy future.

[cbgg]

First (and maybe this is just because of where I live, not sure how insurance works in your jurisdiction) I would NEVER pay a third party directly for work that should go through an insurance company.

However, as far as I'm concerned, the at fault driver made a choice to send you the cash as compensation for the damage he caused to your car.  What you do with it is none of his concern.  Assuming your car is not a beater, he has certainly devalued your car.

But if you feel bad about it, send the money or a portion thereof back.

[jawisco]

I see nothing unethical about it, personally, for the reasons posted above. There was $1600 in damage, he paid the damages. What you do with the money is up to you. If the situation was reversed, I would have no problem with the person just keeping my check and fixing or leaving the damage as they saw fit. My responsibility for the situation ended when I paid for my negligence, after that it is none of my concern how the person decided to take care of the damages.

Now, if I knew they purposefully inflated the damages (threw in an estimate for some existing damage that I didn't cause, for example), then I would find it unethical.

+1.  I say great job. 

The repair could have gone the other way - made it worse somehow.  Happens often enough with DIY repair. 

[bluecollarmusician]

I think that many folks are confusing ethics with morals.

Damaging someones property without paying them compensation is unethical.  If anything, in this instance, the payment made would be the bare minimum. 

If your morals dictate that you should do something else, by all means- that is also important, since you have to live with yourself. 

[MrsPete]

I say ethical. 

The OP was damaged to the tune of $1600.
The other guy paid $1600. 
What the OP does with the money is irrelevant; the other guy has done his part and has -- as someone else said -- "made the OP whole" again. 

I did something similar years ago:

I had a fairly old, fixing-to-have-trouble car, and someone rear-ended me.  I used the check I received from his insurance to shore up some things in my engine (timing belt and some other things).  If the engine didn't run, the back bumper's problems were of little consequence.  Of course, this meant that I had to drive around in a dented-up car that had lost value, but that was the choice I made. 

[steveo]

The OP was damaged to the tune of $1600.
The other guy paid $1600. 
What the OP does with the money is irrelevant;

Ethical and this is the reason why.

[thelamb]

I tend to agree with the majority of posts that vote ethical for most of the reasons provided.  And if you choose to keep the money and do whatever you want with it, great.  However, I would lean towards sending the money back. 

One, you are questioning if it's right or wrong, which makes me think it's bothering you.  Even if you are satisfactorily convinced by all the other posters that you are in the right, my bet is it will still weigh on you.  Sending it back will simply feel good.  It's just good karma and I believe good karma goes a long way.

Two, cars suck.  They are big giant accidents waiting to happen.  People should take responsibility for their actions and should be careful and all that, but these things happen all the time and are, IMOP, frankly, inevitable.  Gross negligence is not to be tolerated.  But small mistakes by honest people in cars are worthy of some leniency.