Thread: The $4000 Oil Change

First thought is if it died after having the oils done, guessing he didn't get to where he was going. Then why didn't he ring the mob who did the oils to ask what they touched?
Would make sence to start there.

I'd give him a report listing issues and causes, noting that you have not performed any work outside that which was involved in diagnosing the issues. For instance, Engine shutdown, due to over filling, caused by use of both unqualified technicians & owner not qualifying that they were suited to performing the work. Inverter fried, due to incorrect jump start procedure.

Then tell him to come back when he's sorted it out and has a cheque for the total repair value and you'll fix it.

I'm bored and being legally qualified i'll give an over simplistic legal answer to the problem.

In Oz we have what is called the egg shell principle. You take the plaintiff as you find them. In this case you take a stupid prius owner that doesn't follow instructions as you find him.

The lube shop breached its duty of care to the prius owner by overfilling the car.

But for the overfilling of the oil the car would not have (probably) stopped. The prius owner felt the need to jump start the car because he drained the battery because it stopped because the oil was overfilled. The Court will say the lube shop is liable to the prius owner for the consequential damage to the inverter. Before you jump up and down read on.

You can have an actus intervenes which is a break in causation. A hypothetical in this situation would be if the prius owner took the car to an auto electrician to do work on the electrics and that work had some material contribution to the non starting. If that happened the Court would be required to determine if the later intervening event broke the chain of causation. If it did break the chain of causation the lube shop is not liable for the inverter. If it didn't break the chain of causation then the Court will likely find both lube shop and electrician liable and apportion the damage caused by each.

If I've still got your attention and your are not hyperventilating from anger, the Court will then assess how much of the damage was caused by the prius owner's own stupidity. The Court then reduces the amount of damages by the percentage of contributory negligence of the owner.

Depending on the expert evidence and how the facts fall at hearing the Court may find the owner a little contributory negligent or a lot. Long and short the lube shop will be hit up for some if not the majority of the inverter cost incl labour and other expenses.

I've left out deliberately legislation that would also premise a claim and likely come to a similar result. Actually in Oz the misleading and deceptive conduct legislation would slot the lube shop owner for the whole amount because there is no contrib neg in that legislative regime.

happy friday, cheers MLD

And this ^ is why I have insurance as a business owner.

Originally Posted by zedcars

Davehoos

Well I can't say deep down that I wanted to do the customer no favours, as he was rude and all "twitterpated" about the situation which boiled down was of his making.

He thought he was getting a deal. Like your old boss I made some coin out of him for his stupidity but with all his venting of anger/frustration I felt like throwing him out the door.

Anyway customers come in all shapes and sizes, and I always try to be polite and helpful.

We apply the "PMOT" to customers like that. The **** Me Off Tax!

As they say, God loves stupid people, he made so many of them.

Serves him rite for being a tight arse with a p o s over priced car.
Cheers
R2

Originally Posted by MLD

I'm bored and being legally qualified i'll give an over simplistic legal answer to the problem.

In Oz we have what is called the egg shell principle. You take the plaintiff as you find them. In this case you take a stupid prius owner that doesn't follow instructions as you find him.

The lube shop breached its duty of care to the prius owner by overfilling the car.

But for the overfilling of the oil the car would not have (probably) stopped. The prius owner felt the need to jump start the car because he drained the battery because it stopped because the oil was overfilled. The Court will say the lube shop is liable to the prius owner for the consequential damage to the inverter. Before you jump up and down read on.

You can have an actus intervenes which is a break in causation. A hypothetical in this situation would be if the prius owner took the car to an auto electrician to do work on the electrics and that work had some material contribution to the non starting. If that happened the Court would be required to determine if the later intervening event broke the chain of causation. If it did break the chain of causation the lube shop is not liable for the inverter. If it didn't break the chain of causation then the Court will likely find both lube shop and electrician liable and apportion the damage caused by each.

If I've still got your attention and your are not hyperventilating from anger, the Court will then assess how much of the damage was caused by the prius owner's own stupidity. The Court then reduces the amount of damages by the percentage of contributory negligence of the owner.

Depending on the expert evidence and how the facts fall at hearing the Court may find the owner a little contributory negligent or a lot. Long and short the lube shop will be hit up for some if not the majority of the inverter cost incl labour and other expenses.

I've left out deliberately legislation that would also premise a claim and likely come to a similar result. Actually in Oz the misleading and deceptive conduct legislation would slot the lube shop owner for the whole amount because there is no contrib neg in that legislative regime.

happy friday, cheers MLD

MLD Thanks for the overview!
Reminds me of being back in the UK studying law as applicable to the motor trade.
Then studying all the tort laws would have half the class hyperventilating and swearing foul language about decisions on test cases. The lecturer I thought had mixed views of some of his students!

I think your summation just about covers how it is here in the States, although most of these types of disputes only get as far as small claims courts with a max settlement of $7K. No attorneys involved.

I often get involved in these disputes as a qualified expert witness when something goes really sideways.
Recently I did one where a customer was refused warranty on a vehicle made by a prestigious Euro manufacturer. My collected evidence revealed negligence and poor assembly of the product resulting in severe engine failure.
They dug their heals in and lawful fight ensued.
When it seemed from the evidence collected that they and their legal team were likely to fail, they suddenly settled out of court.
I couldn't help concluding that if they had just settled the issue there and then with a new engine it would have cost them far less and retained the customers confidence and brand loyalty.
Like I stated life goes on!
Thanks for the input, seems the bloke has realized the error of his ways and calmed down! He paid the bill and he now seems happy!
Plus the expression "caveat emptor" still applies and I guess its not illegal to be stupid.
Cheers Dennis

Hi Zedcars,

There is truth in the old saying that "common sense is not common".

Litigation is for mugs with too much cash or too much testosterone (emotion). A local shire council near where my mum lives is happy to allow pot holes that swallow cars to develop. We hit one one night on an unlit road, shattered the front alloy rim and bent beyond repairable the rear. The wife wanted to sue and was upset with me because I vetoed it. The cost of replacing the rims was cheaper than the cost of litigation even if we won. I shouldn't admit to that because litigation is how i earn a crust, oh well, the truth is the truth.

I agree that a business taking a hard line only results in a p!ssed off client, tarnished reputation and the eventual compromise to fix it or pay someone else to fix it.

cheers MLD