"Are you kidding me?" / Facepalm Thread (pt 2)

[ghuns]

Oh... So close...
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ocial-justice-thread-iii-156.html#post8063246

Uh, I did say this thread.

 

[ghuns]

Bed Bath & Beyond pulls black jack-’o-lanterns after complaints about ‘blackface’

The horror...

 

[HoughMade]

Well, now you're just screwing with us, right?

 

[printcraft]

Bed Bath & Beyond pulls black jack-’o-lanterns after complaints about ‘blackface’

The horror...

Meanwhile at justin truedeau's house...

 

[Phase2]

Bed Bath & Beyond pulls black jack-’o-lanterns after complaints about ‘blackface’

Why? We've seen that politicians that have used blackface simply get voted back into office by liberals. So who are they trying to impress?

 

[daddyusmaximus]

Apparently a tire rotation (in Michigan) does not have to legally include them tightening your lug nuts back up...


https://jalopnik.com/does-tire-rota...zJbnjE8OwpUV6ImJhiL8vcmarlu1t4dV6cEfqh7-BLuUg

 

[HoughMade]

Apparently a tire rotation (in Michigan) does not have to legally include them tightening your lug nuts back up...


https://jalopnik.com/does-tire-rota...zJbnjE8OwpUV6ImJhiL8vcmarlu1t4dV6cEfqh7-BLuUg

I read the case. Typical media report written by people ignorant of the law and how to read a case.

Long story short, the plaintiff sued on theories of negligence and a statutory violation. The dealership admitted negligence, but contested the statutory violation.

Why 2 theories? The statute allows for "penalty" damages over and above compensatory damages (which are recoverable under the negligence count) and attorney fees.

The court explained that the statute is intended to combat situations where a shop tells you it is doing a repair, does not do it at all, and charges you for it. That was not the case here. The dealership "performed" the repair, but negligently. The plaintiff recovered for this negligence, but not the attorney fees under the statute because this was not the type of situation the statute applied to.

There is no support for the trial court’s determination that a tire rotation is not “performed” if a service person fails to sufficiently tighten the lug nuts on one tire. To accept the trial court’s interpretation would essentially turn every incorrectly performed repair into a violation of MVSRA. We do not believe that comports with the Legislature’s intent as expressed in the language of the statute. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erroneously granted plaintiff a directed verdict regarding defendants' alleged violation of this provision of MVSRA.

Anaya v. Betten Chevrolet, Inc., 343887, 2019 WL 5197490, at *5 (Mich. App. Oct. 15, 2019).

Again, the person can (and did) still recover full compensatory damages for negligence. They simply cannot recover under a statute that was not intended to apply to a negligently performed service.

 

[JettaKnight]

Can't rep you, but figured it needed a "Paul Harvey" treatment.

 

[nonobaddog]

For what it is worth - I disagree. In order to "perform" a tire rotation you have to complete the performance. Tightening the lug nuts is essential to complete the performance.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

For what it is worth - I disagree. In order to "perform" a tire rotation you have to complete the performance. Tightening the lug nuts is essential to complete the performance.

EXACTLY... They were on tight when you took them off. you should be require to replace them back on to their original condition... tight. The court is dead wrong.

 

[HoughMade]

EXACTLY... They were on tight when you took them off. you should be require to replace them back on to their original condition... tight. The court is dead wrong.

Sure, it's negligence not to....but the statute is going after fraud, not negligence.

 

[nonobaddog]

Sure, it's negligence not to....but the statute is going after fraud, not negligence.

I was thinking more about the conclusion they arrived at that the rotation was 'performed'. I don't think it was 'performed'. It was started but not 'performed'.

 

[two70]

I was thinking more about the conclusion they arrived at that the rotation was 'performed'. I don't think it was 'performed'. It was started but not 'performed'.

Did the tires from the front end up on the rear and vice versa? If the answer is yes, then the tire rotation was performed. Essentially, negligence is doing the job improperly or less than fully, fraud is not doing the job at all.

 

[nonobaddog]

Did the tires from the front end up on the rear and vice versa? If the answer is yes, then the tire rotation was performed. Essentially, negligence is doing the job improperly or less than fully, fraud is not doing the job at all.

I would say 'No' the tires did not end up rotated. The front tires ended up 'near' the rear but were not 'on' the rear because they were not attached to the rear.

 

[two70]

I would say 'No' the tires did not end up rotated. The front tires ended up 'near' the rear but were not 'on' the rear because they were not attached to the rear.

Ok. It was a single, front tire. It wasn't near the car, it was on the car. Had it merely been near the car, neither the car or the tire would have made it out of the shop and onto the road. Still, even assuming what you described was at all accurate, that would not constitute fraud. It would still be negligence. Fraud assumes a deliberate attempt to deceive for personal gain. Where is the deliberate deception in rotating 3 of the 4 tires(by your definition)? Where is the gain?

 

[JettaKnight]

I would say 'No' the tires did not end up rotated. The front tires ended up 'near' the rear but were not 'on' the rear because they were not attached to the rear.

Not all lawyers have law degrees.

 

[nonobaddog]

Ok. It was a single, front tire. It wasn't near the car, it was on the car. Had it merely been near the car, neither the car or the tire would have made it out of the shop and onto the road. Still, even assuming what you described was at all accurate, that would not constitute fraud. It would still be negligence. Fraud assumes a deliberate attempt to deceive for personal gain. Where is the deliberate deception in rotating 3 of the 4 tires(by your definition)? Where is the gain?

Yeah, I'm not questioning the fraud part, I don't see any fraud. I just disagree with the courts decision that the rotation was 'done'.
I don't think that one tire was 'on' the car. It was 'near' the car, it was 'very near' the car, it was even touching the car, hanging there on the lug bolts - but it was not attached to the car. Only then would it be 'on' the car. To me that job was not 'done'. They 'almost' did the tire rotation.
I'm not questioning fraud, intent or which laws apply. I am only questioning the courts opinion that the rotation was 'performed'.

Kind of like a transaction in the database world. If there are 20 parts/steps to a transaction, nineteen of them complete successfully and then the last one fails to complete successfully, then the whole transaction did not complete and the nineteen steps are undone and the whole thing is rolled back. Many things are not done until they are done.

Anyhow it doesn't matter much what I think about this. The court decided it was 'performed' and I am allowed to disagree in my mind.

 

[2A_Tom]

My friends dad owned a body shop. We hung around and did body work for experience and beer.

The dad hired a young guy to help him out.

One day my buddy changed a tire and used the impact to tighten the lug nuts and started for work at the bank. On the way the tire came off an rolled off into a corn field.

When he got back to the shop he checked the pressure on the compressor and it was at 20 psi. He almost killed the kid who had turned it down so he could do some fine work with a DA not knowing that there is a speed switch on the sander.

 

[eldirector]

My friends dad owned a body shop. We hung around and did body work for experience and beer.

The dad hired a young guy to help him out.

One day my buddy changed a tire and used the impact to tighten the lug nuts and started for work at the bank. On the way the tire came off an rolled off into a corn field.

When he got back to the shop he checked the pressure on the compressor and it was at 20 psi. He almost killed the kid who had turned it down so he could do some fine work with a DA not knowing that there is a speed switch on the sander.

Reason # 57 why you don't use an impact gun on lug nuts.

 

[nonobaddog]

Reason # 57 why you don't use an impact gun on lug nuts.

Damn right! Anytime I have work done that involves the wheels I go right home and loosen the lug nuts and torque them to specs. I have done this ever since I had to replace warped rotors from guys using impact wrenches.