You gotta be kidding me.....chk your lug nuts yourself

Interesting news article on the web last night about an Appeals Court in Michigan that thru out a verdict that was against a tire dealer who had sent a car out with tires that had been rotated but THE LUG NUTS ON ONE WHEEL WERE NOT TIGHTENED !!
The car crashed a few miles from the shop and there were injuries ! The "higher level justices" decided that rotating tires did not "legally" include having to tighten the lug nuts and the original case was thrown out ! :banghead::banghead::banghead::yikes::yikes::yikes :

I don't know how to show the "link", but you shouldn't have trouble finding the article if you search.

This sounded so insane I had to look it up. Sure enough......

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news...-no/ar-AAJcuaB

:yikes: seriously..... I think the judge on that one has all his lug nuts missing....:lecturef_smilie:

:agree: Justice and intelligence are very much an elusive thing - nowadays ….. You would be astonished how frequent " not putting lug nuts back on " is..... as an LEO in a small town, I encountered this occurrence at least 5 times per year. And the offender wasn't often fired for it :gaah::gaah: Mike :ohyea: I always have a LUG wrench with on my Spyder - SethO and " Schlic " can tell you why :roflblack::roflblack: ….. actually not funny ….. Mike :ohyea:

I think he's got his head stuck up his :cus:!!!!!! OMG What the!! Couple years ago I took my wife's car for snow tires, they didn't tighten the front drivers side, got down the street to the first parking lot next to the tire store, knew that some thing was wrong so I turned into the lot, got the car straighten out and heading back to the store and off it go's!!! Across the parking lot and landed on a ATM machine, :cus: The shop manager was watching me chase my tire down and he met me at the door when I threw it back into the shop!! They fixed the wheel and all the damage to the car when the tire puked it's way out of the car!!!:banghead:

I have a distrust for guys using tools on my vehicles, so I go where they will allow me to observe.

Here is a Youtube video on this by Steve Lehto, a lawyer that specializes in lemon law cases in Michigan. He has also been a writer for Jalopnik, has written books on the Dodge Charger Daytona and some factual history books. He has multiple videos a day about of the law, often about wierd or disturbing rulings or aspects of law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKvIeQMudOM&t=850s

Incomplete work on a job often occurs when more than one person is doing the job... just because the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Sometimes each one thinks the other did a task, but no one actually did.

So, if you can observe the work as it's being done, be extra cautious after a "team" does the job!

I very recently change out the front tires on my :spyder2: . Torqued the lugs to 75-80 ft.lbs. and took a ride. Re-torqued them when I got home.

Lew L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUEKNIGHT911

:agree: Justice and intelligence are very much an elusive thing - nowadays ….. You would be astonished how frequent " not putting lug nuts back on " is..... as an LEO in a small town, I encountered this occurrence at least 5 times per year. And the offender wasn't often fired for it :gaah::gaah: …….. Mike :ohyea: …. I always have a LUG wrench with on my Spyder - SethO can tell you why :roflblack::roflblack: ….. actually not funny ….. Mike :ohyea:

---

SethO wasn't the only one there that day...!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schlic

SethO wasn't the only one there that day...!!!

---

:agree::roflblack: ….. I'll add your name to my original post ….. I didn't intentionally leave yours out :banghead: …. Mike :ohyea:

The judge is legally correct and I say so as a retired lawyer. You people who think the judge was nuts apparently missed this part of the article: "Anaya’s attorney invoked the Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Act (MVSRA), a 1974 law that protects car owners against “unfair and deceptive practices” by mechanics in addition to the charge of negligence. They did so because a defendant that violates the MVSRA must not only pay damages, but also the plaintiff’s legal and court fees. In cases involved screwed up oil changes or tire rotations, the legal fees can often be far higher than the damages."

The tire rotation was done negligently. Nobody says otherwise, including the appellate court that made this ruling. However, the MVSRA only applies if the mechanic charged for work that was not performed. The work WAS performed. Incompetent and negligent, sure -- but there was nothing "unfair" or "deceptive" about it. At Page 6 of the opinion, the appellate court even said, "To accept the trial court's interpretation would essentially turn every incorrectly performed repair into a violation of the MVSRA." Here's the actual case, I found it in 10 seconds on google. Read it instead of journalistic BS: https://law.justia.com/cases/michiga...19/343887.html

This fight was not about a defective tire rotation. I'm willing to bet serious money that the mechanic offered to repay the actual damages long before there was even a trial. No, the real fight was his LAWYER using this case to get a huge amount of attorney's fees - $70,000 or about two years of the lawyer's child's college tuition. The lawyer knew that under centuries of American and English common law (our common law is based on English common law) the plaintiff does NOT get attorney's fees unless a statute or contract specifically says so. The only way he could get his $70,000 was to shoehorn a simple negligence case into an "unfair and deceptive practice" under the statute. Well, it wasn't "unfair" or "deceptive" in any way under the English language. I'm glad he lost.

This is an example of how the media spins things to make common sense seem unreasonable.

So...

• replacing the head gasket could mean they hand it to you in the wrapper, along with a tray full of parts, and becomes "some assembly required". Ditto for oil change.
• checking under the car could mean "yes its on the hoist but you have to get it down yourself"

I do hope someone shows these idiots what is right. The hard part with the law, is that if you chose a piece of legislation as a representation of your problem to litigate, and you make a bad choice, you lose. The lawyer who represented them needs a kick too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by askitee

So...

• replacing the head gasket could mean they hand it to you in the wrapper, along with a tray full of parts, and becomes "some assembly required". Ditto for oil change.
• checking under the car could mean "yes its on the hoist but you have to get it down yourself"

I do hope someone shows these idiots what is right. The hard part with the law, is that if you chose a piece of legislation as a representation of your problem to litigate, and you make a bad choice, you lose. The lawyer who represented them needs a kick too.

---

That's not what the decision says. In the examples you gave, no work was not performed and there was no honest mistake. The court rightly draws a distinction between doing the work but making an honest mistake versus lying about doing the work when no work was actually done. Also note that the court did NOT decide that the plaintiff could not win. Quite the opposite, the court specifically stated that the plaintiff WOULD have won based on negligence. And indeed, that is the law and always has been the law.

What's different about this case is that the lawyer wanted to fit this simple negligence case under a statute prohibiting "unfair and deceptive practices" ... in order for the lawyer to qualify for $70K in attorney's fees. The car owner would get the same amount of money regardless. That statute was intended to punish crooks, not people who made an honest mistake. The former is rare, the latter is common. Even the best mechanics sometimes make mistakes. They don't need to be punished for it. You go down this path and pretty soon you won't be able to take your car in to the mechanic without signing a million releases of liability and they'll jack the prices up 1000% to pay for the extra cost of insurance. This is ridiculous. I say we need mechanics and doctors more than we need lawyers. We are already the most litigious nation in the world and have the most lawyers per capita in the world. In Las Vegas, we have lawyers advertising, "In a Wreck, Need a Check." It's disgusting. Sorry, but even as a retired attorney I think this has gone too far. We don't need to promote even more of it by twisting laws around to benefit lawyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnsimion

The judge is legally correct and I say so as a retired lawyer. You people who think the judge was nuts apparently missed this part of the article: "Anaya’s attorney invoked the Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Act (MVSRA), a 1974 law that protects car owners against “unfair and deceptive practices” by mechanics in addition to the charge of negligence. They did so because a defendant that violates the MVSRA must not only pay damages, but also the plaintiff’s legal and court fees. In cases involved screwed up oil changes or tire rotations, the legal fees can often be far higher than the damages."

The tire rotation was done negligently. Nobody says otherwise, including the appellate court that made this ruling. However, the MVSRA only applies if the mechanic charged for work that was not performed. The work WAS performed. Incompetent and negligent, sure -- but there was nothing "unfair" or "deceptive" about it. At Page 6 of the opinion, the appellate court even said, "To accept the trial court's interpretation would essentially turn every incorrectly performed repair into a violation of the MVSRA." Here's the actual case, I found it in 10 seconds on google. Read it instead of journalistic BS: https://law.justia.com/cases/michiga...19/343887.html

This fight was not about a defective tire rotation. I'm willing to bet serious money that the mechanic offered to repay the actual damages long before there was even a trial. No, the real fight was his LAWYER using this case to get a huge amount of attorney's fees - $70,000 or about two years of the lawyer's child's college tuition. The lawyer knew that under centuries of American and English common law (our common law is based on English common law) the plaintiff does NOT get attorney's fees unless a statute or contract specifically says so. The only way he could get his $70,000 was to shoehorn a simple negligence case into an "unfair and deceptive practice" under the statute. Well, it wasn't "unfair" or "deceptive" in any way under the English language. I'm glad he lost.

This is an example of how the media spins things to make common sense seem unreasonable.

---

You're right. The appeal court's decision makes a lot of sense. This is why you read the decision, not a 'reporter's version thereof.