Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Why We Don't Trust Courts


Recommended Posts

Michigan court rules that a tire rotation does not include tightening lug nuts

Quote

The court decided to take another look at the case and determined that rotating the tires did not include tightening of the lug nuts. The court stated,

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.

 

I guess roofers have done their job if they lay out the shingles but don't nail them down.  

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
  • Sad 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you went to the judge’s and jury member’s homes and loosened all their lug nuts you would be committing an illegal act that could possibly cause them harm... 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a tire rotation includes removing lug nuts to take tires off and then putting lug nuts back on after tires have been moved to new location.

If the lug nuts are not tighten then the job s not completed and is left in an unsafe condition.

Person providing the service should be liable to complete the task completely.

The customer paid for a completed job.

Part of the job is to make sure it is safe after doing the job.

 

A plumb can not put pipe in a house and not tighten up all the fitting can call it complete.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was part of a big law suit in Missouri where a guy had just picked up his motorcycle and 4 miles later the front wheel came off on the 65mph highway. D.R.T. (Dead rite there). It turned out the mechanic did not properly tighten the front wheel to the fork. Never went to trial, company insurance payed off big time. I think depends on the laws in Michigan and worth appeal. 

But don't get me started on courts and justice.:angry:

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Golly... apparently they don't have to close up the chest after a heart transplant, either.

I figure there are three explanations for courts and SCOTUS rulings:


• Bribed
• Threatened
• Just plain stupid

 

 

Edited by bgavin
added more comment
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Smoken D said:

I was part of a big law suit in Missouri where a guy had just picked up his motorcycle and 4 miles later the front wheel came off on the 65mph highway. D.R.T. (Dead rite there). It turned out the mechanic did not properly tighten the front wheel to the fork. Never went to trial, company insurance payed off big time. I think depends on the laws in Michigan and worth appeal. 

But don't get me started on courts and justice.:angry:

No fault insurance in Michigan. You get wrecked, your insurance pays yours. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michigan Slim said:

No fault insurance in Michigan. You get wrecked, your insurance pays yours. 

That's how it was when I lived in Connecticut too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang that stupid ass judge, if it was his family members car, the out come would be much different.  I am in the automotive repair business and everything the tech's do is my responsibility period..  Common sense is a flower that does not grow in every body's  garden.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Major General Shagnasty said:

Hang that stupid ass judge, if it was his family members car, the out come would be much different.  I am in the automotive repair business and everything the tech's do is my responsibility period..  Common sense is a flower that does not grow in every body's  garden.

 

Love that common sense line I think I'm going the steal it.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

its not so much the courts as the judges that preside we no longer trust - our country was founded in fair and common sense we have lost that , but if this was the only instance we should be resentful of we might have hope , look at the education we are giving our kids and tell me there is not more to fear than our courts 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have practiced before the courts of this country for 45 years, state and Federal, and have never lost faith in them, nor in juries, though both at times can make errors, as is true of every human institution and condition. 

 

This truncated, out-of-context quote is, to put it frankly, meaningless. My guess, based upon long experience, is that it makes perfect sense in the context of whatever narrow dispute gave rise to the case. And the subject matter is on the face of it some obviously very narrow controversy indeed. Why not print the whole opinion, if a point is to be made?

 

I wonder: why present this petty dispute as an example intended to undermine our faith in our institutions? Why do we indulge this sort of cynicism?

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

I have practiced before the courts of this country for 45 years, state and Federal, and have never lost faith in them, nor in juries, though both at times can make errors, as is true of every human institution and condition. 

 

This truncated, out-of-context quote is, to put it frankly, meaningless. My guess, based upon long experience, is that it makes perfect sense in the context of whatever narrow dispute gave rise to the case. And the subject matter is on the face of it some obviously very narrow controversy indeed. Why not print the whole opinion, if a point is to be made?

 

I wonder: why present this petty dispute as an example intended to undermine our faith in our institutions? Why do we indulge this sort of cynicism?

 

 

 

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/431578351/ANAYA-v-BETTEN-CHEVROLET#from_embed

 

Quote

MVSRA does not define the term “perform.” Therefore, it is appropriate to consult adictionary to aid our interpretation.
 Id 
.
 
The term “perform” means “to carry out an action.”
 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
 (11th ed). “Perform implies action that followsestablished patterns or procedures or fulfills agreed upon requirements and often connotesspecial skill.”
 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
 (11th ed). Therefore, the term“perform” generally refers to completion of an action according to an established procedure; the term does not imply that the action has been completed properly, successfully, or without mistake.

 

Using this logic, I could "perform" a complete tire rotation by jacking the car up, removing the lugnuts, swapping the tires around, and then jacking the car down without replacing any of the lugnuts.  I could be said to have "performed" an oil change by taking out the drain plug, removing the oil filter, putting in the required amount of oil without replacing the filter or drain plug, and tell the customer that I had performed the oil change.

When there have to be warnings on knives that basically say, "Look, dummy, knives are SHARP and if you do something stupid with them you, or someone else, will get hurt or maybe dead" because a court will rule that a person can't be expected to know a knife is sharp and misuse can inflict serious or lethal injuries, we have reason to not put a lot of faith in courts.  Sorry, at some point reason must come into play.   

Tell us how eager you are for SCOTUS to get a real, honest to God, 2nd Amendment case.  The prospect scares the hell out of me.  Even staunch constructionist Scalia botched to some extent the Heller decision by confining the RKBA to inside the home.  Then it took McDonald two years later to softly incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the States.  With Roberts more and more often joining Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer, Alito acting as a somewhat unknown swing vote, and Barrett still an unknown quantity (yes, we THINK she is a staunch constructionist, but we don't have a track record for her as a Justice on the USSC), do you trust SCOTUS to go against 60 years of anti-gun laws and say "Look, per  WV School Board v. Barrett (1943) the entire Bill of Rights is off the table, the 2nd Amendment says "the right of the people....shall not be infringed" and all these laws infringe on that protected civil right?"  

Edited by Subdeacon Joe
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Working on boatsif you put a automotive part on a boat you become the manufacturer & liable.

                                                                                                                                                                                  Largo

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All that said, in CRIMINAL courts, I DO trust them.  I know, so many people grouse about "They let the thug off on a technicality!"  Yeah, basically holding the STATE to the letter of the law.  Making sure that the STATE crosses every "T," dots every "i," and touches the base before running to the next one.  That is part of the job of the courts in criminal actions, to make sure that the State plays by the rules laid out in the Constitution and the written law.

In consumer cases such as the Anaya v. Bettern-Chevrolet above, I expect a "reasonable man" approach.  Should a client have a reasonable expectation that lugnuts be properly tightened when told a job is complete?  Should a person who buys a knife expect it to be sharp and have the common sense to know that a knife sharp enough to cut paper, wood, or a steak is sharp enough to cut them?|
Should a person know to not put glue in their hair?


 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looked it up, this case was about legal (attorney) fees.

 

The state has a consumer protection law which allows collection of legal fees in addition to damages for work which was billed and not performed.

 

If the work was performed, but performed negligently, then damages still apply but legal fees are not part of the law in that scenario.

 

That is what the appeals court found... The work was performed, with a notation the work was not properly performed. So the law allowing collection of legal fees did not apply. Actual damages do still apply.

 

In no way is this a free pass for a shop to not tighten lug nuts, the shop is still liable when that happens (and it did happen here).

 

Unfortunately for the injured parties in the original case, the attorney fees were about double the damages settlement. What I wonder is if the attorney lost the income or if the injured party still owes the lawyer.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 6:26 AM, Subdeacon Joe said:

Michigan court rules that a tire rotation does not include tightening lug nuts

 

I guess roofers have done their job if they lay out the shingles but don't nail them down.  

I've only had business law classes; but, the instructors all (3) mentioned a reasonable person standard. I think a reasonable person would expect the lug nuts to be tightened.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Kloehr said:

Looked it up, this case was about legal (attorney) fees.

 

The state has a consumer protection law which allows collection of legal fees in addition to damages for work which was billed and not performed.

 

If the work was performed, but performed negligently, then damages still apply but legal fees are not part of the law in that scenario.

 

That is what the appeals court found... The work was performed, with a notation the work was not properly performed. So the law allowing collection of legal fees did not apply. Actual damages do still apply.

 

In no way is this a free pass for a shop to not tighten lug nuts, the shop is still liable when that happens (and it did happen here).

 

Unfortunately for the injured parties in the original case, the attorney fees were about double the damages settlement. What I wonder is if the attorney lost the income or if the injured party still owes the lawyer.

 

Reading through the entire decision, I'll stand by what I originally said.  It opens the door for rotating the tires but not putting any lugnuts back on as "performed"  the job, and extending that reasoning to other tasks.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh Yes.

The "thought" process of some members of the Judiciary.

We recently had a case dismissed because of an "Improperly Sworn Warrant"

I have been asking the question whether of not the person involved was given back his 1.5 kilos of cocaine, his unregistered and prohibited handgun and his oversized and illegal magazine?

So far, no answer.

(And some people wonder why I keep calling for re-call legislation.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 said:

We recently had a case dismissed because of an "Improperly Sworn Warrant"

 

I draw a big fat line between criminal cases (which the situation in the original post could have turned into if there had been a death) and tort cases.  I want to see every check on the power of the State (term of art for any level of government) enforced to every jot and tittle.  The limits we place on the State through the Constitution and its amendments are to protect us from the terrible power of the State. Our founders, some of them anyway, saw the possibility, so we have:
The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

 

And thus was added our Bill of Rights.  Too many people now somehow see the Bill of Rights as granting and limiting rights of the people.  That is exactly backwards.  The Bill of rights, well, "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

I don't know who wrote the following, it's something I found on FB, but the reasoning in it applies to all of the Bill of Rights and echos the WV Board of Education v. Barnette: 

The Second Amendment does not apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols, or revolvers. The Second Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant

The restrictions on government remain the same, regardless of the firearm.  The Second Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It forbids government interference in the right to keep and bear arms, period. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Common Sense is the least of all senses.-_-

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 12:18 PM, Michigan Slim said:

No fault insurance in Michigan. You get wrecked, your insurance pays yours. 

Did 30 years (some of it, hard time) in the insurance business & remain deadset against anything that impugns the principles of tort liability & indemnity.  The guilty party (and/or his insurer) should pay.  Everybody occasionally messes up on their job but not retightening lug nuts is gross negligence.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MizPete said:

Did 30 years (some of it, hard time) in the insurance business & remain deadset against anything that impugns the principles of tort liability & indemnity.  The guilty party (and/or his insurer) should pay.  Everybody occasionally messes up on their job but not retightening lug nuts is gross negligence.

Agreed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it the courts or attorneys we don't trust? When I was in school, litigation was very rare, but it is common place today. NGO entities seem to exist in order to slap lawsuits on everything. These organizations do not manufacture anything, but they do get funding by winning court costs and by donations from other NGOs (Soros, etc.). Some of this money gets directed to elections and campaigns and as we have seen, can make an impact nationwide.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Go West said:

Is it the courts or attorneys we don't trust?

 

It may be attorneys that argue in court,  but it is judges who write the decisions. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Go West said:

NGO entities seem to exist in order to slap lawsuits on everything.

 

Hell, it's the judges who don't look these people in the eye and say, "Are you kidding?  Get your sorry butt out of here.   Dismissed."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I retired from the practice of law early this year; I kinda swore to myself that I was done with this kind of dispute.  But a few points got under my skin, so let me give it a go.

 

  1. This case involves a "consumer protection statute" - a creature of the state legislature, designed to punish businesses when they do not deliver on promises or "cheat" the consumer; the problem is in trying to seperate simple negligence (lack of due care) from the more egregious nastiness required under such statutes.  In most states, negligence alone will not support a claim under such a statute; the plaintiff must show some higher level of dishonesty or unfairness or deception.  Here, the Court basically decided that just being negligent (forgetting to tighten the lug nuts) was not enough to reach that higher level; the purpose of the statute is not to punish poor workmaship, but rather to deter deceitful or dishonest behavior.  The error here was simply "lack of due care", which is simple negligence.  The garage was still liable for this failure, and would still be required to pay for the actual damages under a negligence theory.  But the enhancement under the statute which required payment of attorneys fees would not apply.
  2. If the decision in this case leads you to "lose faith" in lawyers or judges or courts, your threshhold for mistrust is awfully low.  If anyone is responsible for creating a confusing result out of confusing verbiage, it is the legislature that wrote the statute.  Instead of leaving it for interpretation, lawmakers should state clearly in the text that the act does not apply to simple acts of negligence.  Confusion resolved.
  3. For the most part, these kinds of "violations" drive me to distraction.  They seem to be based upon an idea that all businesses are cheats, that all consumers are innately honest, and that when a consumer dispute arises, the business ought not just be financially responsible for actual damages, but needs to be whipped as well.  I don't live in that world.  If you or your employees screw up, you should pay to make the customer whole for damage or loss from the transaction.  But awards of punitive damages (like double or treble damages allowable in many such cases) or attorneys fees distort the severity of the loss, encourage the filing of suits that are otherwise not worth filing, and feed an avaricious segment of the bar that really should not be encouraged to file such claims.

Think about it; the auto shop never challanged the negligence claim, and never denied the claimed actual damages; the only reason they fought the claim was because the plaintiff wanted to collect attorney's fees, which normally would not be awarded (except for the language of this statute).  This whole case could have been resolved, without any expense to the public for a trial, if the plaintiff had not over-reached by trying to convert this claim into something that it never was - an unfair or deceptive business practice.

 

Lecture over.  Back to boats and lead delivery systems.

 

LL

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

Think about it; the auto shop never challanged the negligence claim, and never denied the claimed actual damages; the only reason they fought the claim was because the plaintiff wanted to collect attorney's fees, which normally would not be awarded (except for the language of this statute).  This whole case could have been resolved, without any expense to the public for a trial, if the plaintiff had not over-reached by trying to convert this claim into something that it never was - an unfair or deceptive business practice.

 

What galled me was the court saying that the job had been "performed," even though negligently,  when it was obvious to a reasonable person that it hadn't been completed.  The wording of the decision implies that once the tires had been swapped around the job was complete even if not one lugnut had been put back on. 

 

Not just this, but we have all seen an increase in the rate of consumer protection cases that cause us to wonder how reason seems to be a foreign concept now. 

 

As I wrote above,  I draw a big line between this type of case and criminal cases where I confidence in the courts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.