Jump to content

RedPath88

Admin
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    29,153

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

 Content Type 

Posts posted by RedPath88

    Merry Christmas....

    in Off-Topic

    Posted · Edited by RedPath88
    Moved to Off Topic section sine its not just to our R50 owners.

    6 hours ago, MTGunner said:

    To our military members, veterans and law enforcement we send our greatest respect and thanks for your commitment. MTG

     

    First of all, I cannot agree with ^THAT^ enough, especially in today's world! :beer:

     

    And to them and everyone, Merry Christmas!

    • Like 1

    Is retorquing lug nuts part of tire rotation? Michigan court says no

    in General Forums

    Posted

    https://jalopnik.com/does-tire-rotation-include-tightening-lug-nuts-michiga-1839270921

     

     

    Quote

    Does Tire Rotation Include Tightening Lug Nuts? Michigan Court Thinks About It For Awhile, Concludes 'No'

     

     

    In what will surely go down in history as one of the most Galaxy Brain court rulings of all time, a Michigan appeals court determined that a tire rotation does not, in fact, include tightening the lug nuts. 


    It is a ruling that not only defies common sense but has potentially broad ramifications for Michigan car owners who may find it much harder to sue mechanics for doing unspeakably dumb things, such as not making sure the damn tires stay on the car.

     

    In October 2013, Samuel Anaya and Doris Myricks took their car home from a dealership in Grand Rapids, Michigan after having some basic repairs and maintenance conducted, including a tire rotation. About two blocks from the dealership, the left front wheel came off, causing the car to skid into a curb. Turns out, the mechanic did not tighten the lug nuts.

     

    Anaya, who sustained lower back and leg injuries in the crash, sued the dealership and the mechanic for negligence.

     

    In a typical legal maneuver, 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.

     

    In the initial trial, the court instructed the jury that the dealer and the mechanic had, in fact, violated the MVSRA. The mechanic admitted he forgot to tighten the lug nuts, the jury awarded $40,000 in damages to Anaya, and the judge further ruled the dealership cover the $70,000 in attorney and legal fees during the multi-year court fight. The defendants appealed.

     

    Now we get to the crazy part. The appeals court ruled that, in fact, the MVSRA had not been violated. 

     

    The MVSRA protects customers from, among other things, “charge for repairs that are in fact not performed.” So, the judges felt they needed to determine if the tire rotation was, in fact, performed. 

     

    This is how the ruling ended up with an entire section titled “INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD ‘PERFORM’,” which, I @!*% you not, is a bunch of judges looking up the word “perform” in the dictionary. They did so because the MVSRA does not define the word “perform” in the law itself. 


    Now, I don’t know if you’ve ever read an actual law, but typically, laws define a lot of words. So many words, in fact, that it often seems ridiculous that anyone could not know what such a basic English word means. But lawmakers do this to avoid confusion exactly like this one.

     

    In this sense, the MVSRA is a pretty typical law. It begins with three pages of definitions, including such complex legal terms as Contract, Customer, Department, Estimate, Facility, Motor Vehicle, Person, Repair, and Warranty. Presumably, the Michigan legislature, in its infinite wisdom, believed the word “perform” to be sufficiently clear as to not warrant further explanation.

     

    They were wrong.

     

    The judges managed to reach the following conclusion about whether a tire rotation is “performed” if one does not tighten the lug nuts:


    We conclude, under the plain language of MCL257.1307a, that defendants “performed” a tire rotation, albeit negligently...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.

     

    Yes, that’s right. The judges ruled that a tire rotation does not include tightening the lug nuts. It only involves “remov[ing] the tires and replace them on different axles or sides of the vehicle.” It does not involve using a torque wrench to tighten the lug nuts, which the mechanic “forgot to do.” That is not a part of the tire rotation. Presumably, the judges also believe the doctor performed the open-heart surgery, albeit negligently, by not sewing the patient back up, or the chef performed the preparing of the meal, albeit negligently, by serving raw steak.

     

    So, the judges ruled the MVSRA does not apply to this case.

     

    Former Jalopnik contributor and Michigan attorney Steve Lehto, who has tried many MVSRA cases, laid out a few reasons why this ruling is, in his words, “the craziest case I have seen in Michigan” since he started recording videos for his Youtube channel in 2014, and one of the craziest he has ever come across in his home state.

     

    For one, the ruling itself doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, “perform” definitions aside. The MVSRA is what’s called a remedial statute that is designed to protect consumers from, as the law itself says, “unfair or deceptive practices.” The MVSRA’s core function is to protect regular ol’ folks who don’t know crap about cars against mechanics who lie about what work they did; for example, by claiming to have performed a tune-up when they, in fact, did not. 

     

    But, as the phrase “unfair or deceptive practices” makes clear, it also covers “unfair” practices. The ruling dutifully quotes this phrase, but then skips over the “unfair” part and goes straight to examining the definition of the word “perform.”

     

    Lehto believes they should have spent a little bit more time on the word “unfair,” and that doing so might have yielded a different ruling. After all, isn’t it quite unfair (unfair: 1. marked by injustice, partiality, or deception 2. not equitable in business dealings) that the tire on Anaya’s car fell off two blocks from the dealership because the mechanic didn’t tighten the lug nuts after a tire rotation?

     

    On top of that, Lehto said remedial statutes are supposed to be interpreted by judges liberally to protect consumers as much as possible. Whatever else one believes about the whole is-re-attaching-the-tire-part-of-a-tire-rotation thing, it is undoubtedly the case that the court did not interpret the statute liberally hereby even asking this question, much less taking it seriously.

     

    This puzzling ruling has potentially broad ramifications for car owners across the state of Michigan because of the precedent set. Based on this standard, an oil change, for example, is performed merely if the old oil is replaced with new oil. Taking out the drain plug, draining the oil, removing the oil filter, replacing the new filter, and replacing and tightening the drain plug is not, by this interpretation, one “performing” the oil change. Forget to tighten the drain plug causing the oil to leak everywhere? According to Lehto, “Every single one of those is now legal [under the MVSRA] according to the court of appeals.”

     

    Surely one could still sue the mechanic on the grounds of negligence, right? Yes, Lehto said, the negligence path is still there. But, remember, the main benefit of invoking the MVSRA is to get the defendant to pay for the plaintiff’s attorney fees. And that is no small matter. 

     

    In the case in question, the jury awarded $40,000 in damages, including for the injuries sustained as a result of the crash. After that verdict, the plaintiff then asked the court, under the MVSRA, to make the defendant cover the attorney and court fees too. That award was for an additional $70,000, for a total verdict of $110,000. 


    The attorney and legal fees—which the defendant would have had to pay himself if not for the MVSRA’s application—was for more than the actual damages. And this was even in a case with injury; without the injury, the attorney fees would have been many multiples the damages.

     

    As a result of all this, Lehto said he would no longer accept such cases because the finances simply don’t work. It would cost a plaintiff more to try the case than what they could reasonably expect to be awarded, and the defendants would likely be able to argue the MVSRA wouldn’t apply unless they literally forgot to change the oil to replace the engine with a new one.

     

    What can Michigan do about this? There are two options: appeal the case and hope the state Supreme Court takes it up, or have the legislature clarify the MVSRA (perhaps they can define the word “perform”). 


    In the meantime, good luck suing an incompetent mechanic in Michigan.


    About the author

    Aaron Gordon
    Senior Reporter, Investigations & Technology, Jalopnik
     

     

     

     

    Keep in mind that this could be interpreted as being specific to this case. But also consider that president set in courts can and does have far reaching implications and can be hard to change once set.  I'm not defending nor arguing against either side, just presenting this article for your review.

     

    • Like 1
    • Confused 2

    Is my LSD toast? 2001 R50 w/210k

    in The Garage

    Posted

     

     

    The above duplicate tread has been referred to this one.

     

    Per Community Guidelines please avoid creating duplicate threads in the future. This only scatters relevant information across multiple threads, making it harder to track diagnostic related information.

     

    Also note that members often build off of the comments of other NPORA Members, by keeping responses in one place it helps discussions come to a solution more quickly.

     

    :aok:

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

    Parts??

    in 86.5-89 WD21 Pathfinders

    Posted

    Assuming that you really do mean the Regulator (on the Throttle Body) and not the Damper (part of fuel pump assembly) I did a quick search, limited to Advance, Autozone, Napa & RockAuto, didn't fine a "factory replacement" but there were several aftermarket option that would require the need of custom adaption to be used.  Now that is in no way saying that OEM options are not available from 3rd party suppliers... Have you called a local, or online discount Nissan Dealer?  Also, they seldom fail and if yours truely has, consider getting one from a wrecking yard. :aok:

     

    What did you do to your Pathfinder today?

    in The Garage

    Posted

    New rear wiper :rolleyes:

     

    Installed a new CB.  Out went the old trusty Cobra 25 LTD Classic, in went a new Uniden Bearcat 980 SSB. Unfortunately I also discovered that I have an antenna problem, extremely high SWR levels, something that I had not noticed before swapping radios.

     

    But, troubleshooting and correcting that will be for another weekend.

    • Like 1

    Since i already have this dissassembled, i should probably replace that while i'm at it...

    in 90-95 WD21 Pathfinders

    Posted

    As Adam said above you do not need to change stock wheel size for Superlift/Rough Country upper control arms. I've been running them for years with 15 inch rims. Also, I used the bushings that came with them and I've had no issues at all :aok:

     

    One more thing... they are listed on the site for $300!!! I don't know if Superlift has jacked the price, or if that's just mark up. But I would seriously recommend that you call Superlift directly and order upper control arms for a Nissan Hardbody (do not say Pathfinder.) Unless they themselves have raised the price or simply do not sell the public directly anymore, you should be able to get them for a much better figure. ;) Just make sure the bushings are included.

         If you're not picky about the color or finish, I would also recommend that you call Rough Country directly and try and do the same, just purchase the upper control arms for a Hardbody in place of the whole "lift kit". Again do not mention Pathfinder when talking to them. Rough Country D21(WD21) UCA are not only made by superlift but they're the same arms simply with a different finish.

     

    In the past both Superlift and Rough Country sold directly to consumers and were perfectly willing to sell just the upper control arms. Although they are not spec'ed for Pathfinders they would sell them to you if you said you were putting them on a Hardbody. Over the years a few members here reported when they mentioned Pathfinder, that ended the option of buying them, they would no longer sell them. So just don't risk it. WD21 Pathfinders suspension is exactly the same as the 4x4 D21 Hardbody's.

    What part is the hardest to find?

    in 90-95 WD21 Pathfinders

    Posted

    I know the year range is wrong, but for me is was the TBI Fuel Injectors ('88). A guy as the best (independent) Napa dealer I've ever dealt with was able to find them aftermarket. That was after trying numerous sources... and it was years ago. Those injectors are still in my Pathy!

     

    *though the p-brake cables are likely going to replace the injectors in the rankings lok

    Hows your spare tire? (don't look at your waist)

    in General Forums

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, Precise1 said:

    at sounds very... German. :D

     

     

     

    Nice that the space for it is the same, but that just means they cheaped out...

    I recommend doing what I did... just buy a new steelie and go to your local tire shop and see what's in the used tire pile. The spare for my wife is a better tire with more tread than the current Kumhos.

     

    If I was not who I am, that might have offended me :lol:

     

     

     

     

     

    Good advice, see NPORA's missed you! :bwack:

    What did you do to your Pathfinder today?

    in The Garage

    Posted

    13 hours ago, Enri330r said:

    is a pioneer AVH X2850BT

     

    Now don't take this in a negative way regarding the choice you made as I sincerely hope it works well for you.

     

    But, for me personally, I'm not only done with, I've simply had it with Pioneer! When the news broke that they were facing bankruptcy I was actually happy about it because they ultimately did it to themselves by overpricing and under supporting their products. Unfortunately iirc I believe I read that someone had invested in them, which saved... or at least extended a life line to.... that piss-poor company.

     

    Full disclosure, I used to be a fan. Several years ago I bought a Pioneer deck for my car but they are absolutely horrible at supporting their products. "If" they even release updates to fix problems that should never have been on a released unit they only do so for a year, maybe two if you're lucky. And then you have a crappy headunit thats full of problems which  you likely paid way too much for and they refuse to fix. Their answer is to sell you a new overpriced deck, the starting the cycle all over again.

     

    So for me, when this one that I have in the car gives up I will buy a new deck, but it will not be a Pioneer.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...