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

[ArcadiaGP]

Wow.

When Alex Rodriguez is reduced to a title.

 

[two70]

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.

I see your point and by the strictest definition of "perform" it is a compelling argument. By the stated intent and wording of the law, the tire rotation was performed. Not all tasks are digital as is your example, in addition to done/not done, many have the third option of done but poorly.

 

[nonobaddog]

I see your point and by the strictest definition of "perform" it is a compelling argument. By the stated intent and wording of the law, the tire rotation was performed. Not all tasks are digital as is your example, in addition to done/not done, many have the third option of done but poorly.

Oh yeah, I understand that done poorly opinion. But being a gear-head I know some things are so very essential that they are not just another part of the task, they are a yuuge part of the task.
I just hope that decision isn't used a lot as a precedent in case law.

 

[HoughMade]

So recovering for negligence isn't enough?

 

[nonobaddog]

So recovering for negligence isn't enough?

I don't know. I would say they could recover for vehicle and injury damage that is not covered by insurance. The legal fees seem to be the big thing in this case and I don't have much of an opinion on that part. I probably would have gone to small claims court (or not sued at all) to keep that lower.

 

[jamil]

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.

But this is not like a transactional database. The service was performed by humans who make mistakes, not by a computer which has to fulfill all programed steps unless an exception is raised. The human mistake was thinking the tire rotation steps were all fulfilled, when an important step was negligently omitted. I don't have a problem with the language here. For legal purposes, the service was completed to the knowledge of the shop.

 

[patience0830]

I remember that. Jeep had a similar issue with their Grand Cherokees. As I recall, the accelerator pedal and brake were offset on those vehicles so people who were used to driving other vehicles would think they're stepping on the brake, but instead were stepping on both or just the gas. It's a pretty normal reaction to step harder on the "brake" when you think you're already braking but aren't stopping. I remember that was demonstrated, and it took several seconds to recognize what's going on.

I don't think that's the manufacturer's fault though. There was nothing wrong with the cars.

Spell it correctly every time. Plz. FTFY

 

[nonobaddog]

But this is not like a transactional database. The service was performed by humans who make mistakes, not by a computer which has to fulfill all programed steps unless an exception is raised. The human mistake was thinking the tire rotation steps were all fulfilled, when an important step was negligently omitted. I don't have a problem with the language here. For legal purposes, the service was completed to the knowledge of the shop.

This will have to be my last comment on this - dead horse and all that.

You guys are right - and the court backs you up on that.

But that is legal stuff and I am not a lawyer, I just know reality stuff.

If the job was completed the wheel and tire would still be on the vehicle.
If the job was not completed the wheel and tire would come off the vehicle.
The wheel and tire did come off the vehicle.
Therefore the job was not completed.

OK, I am done. I'll just keep my incorrect opinion and move on.

 

[jamil]

Spell it correctly every time. Plz. FTFY

What did you fix?

 

[MarkC]

I think some of us are missing the point. The court found negligence, and awarded the victims for the injuries and loss. They were compensated.

They did not find the kind of fraud the Michigan statute was intended to prevent. The dealer performed the rotation, negligently. So, no statutory damages, no statutory attorney fees. Just like any other negligence case.

Often in personal injury cases the attorney will take the case on a contingent fee basis, taking a part of the award as their fee. In most cases in the US, each side is responsible for their own attorney fees.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That was every day on that stretch last week! It all balances out though I guess, one day toward the end of the prior week there was a minor fender bender with 3 cop cars attending, 2 broken down cars barely off the road, and a wide load convoy pulled over for some reason not quite all the way off the road, all at the same time in the stretch from the Emerson exit to 65. Now that was a cluster!

I (fortunately) must've been working from home that day and missed it. I don't know what it is about that section of 465 that makes people crazy. I also pass the I-70 interchange, which is probably more heavily used but I don't experience the same slow-downs that happen at I-74.

 

[Dead Duck]

 

[nonobaddog]

Dammit, now I am ashamed of myself for laughing at that.

 

[2A_Tom]

I cringed, so I am a better person than you.

 

[jamil]

I hope that guy doesn’t waste money on lottery tickets. Dang that guy is unlucky.

 

[actaeon277]

Was he?
Or was it photoshop?

 

[nonobaddog]

It looks pretty real to me, dunno.

That guy went down faster than Monica.

 

[Indyhd]

Well he only went down that one time...

 

[2A_Tom]

No that is not photo shop. Not staged.

The face plant with both feet off the ground is devastating.

ETA: Pedestrian is left with a fractured skull after a runaway TYRE strikes him on the back of the head

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ian-fractured-skull-runaway-TYRE-hit-him.html

• Roberto Carlos Fernandes, 50, was walking on the pavement his wife in Brazil
• He was on the opposite side of the road when a runaway tyre sped towards him
• It strikes him on the back of the skull and he immediately drops to the ground
• WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT

 

[Dead Duck]

It looks pretty real to me, dunno.

That guy went down faster than Monica.

Well....
It is a SEX tape.






I'm not sure what that's all about.