Dealer Service Center Oil Change Nightmare

[moojpg2]

Uhmm if it was atf, it's nothing but 10wt oil with a detergent package in it. If it can lubricate all of the shafts, gears, and bearings and band brakes, clutches, etc in an automatic transmission for 60k miles with no issues. (How long a lot of people go between flushes) I highly doubt it did any real damage to an engine in an hour.

[FRS Dad]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Once again with that idiotic straw man. CONSULTING A FUCKING LAWYER DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE GOING TO FILE A FUCKING LAWSUIT.

I truly appreciate the perspective you have provided on some of the insurance threads, but for the love of god stop repeating that bullshit line.

Yes. And putting on a condom does not mean you plan on having sex, but then you'd look pretty silly walking around wearing one. A lawyer's power in a negotiation is derived entirely from the threat of litigation. Absent a plausible threat of a big plaintiff verdict, a lawyer is a guy in a suit with good hair and big student loans. He has no more leverage than his client does.

You may be afraid of lawyers. I'm certainly not and the dealer probably isn't either. We're afraid of lawsuits, because they're expensive to defend, and the outcome is uncertain. Nothing sucks worse than getting hit with a big plaintiff verdict plus your defense costs to settle something you could have handled pre-suit two years earlier for a quarter of the cost.

Getting the dealer to replace an engine or buy back the car and pay off the old loan and negative equity isn't going to happen voluntarily no matter how many lawyers the guy consults. The damages just aren't there at this point, bottom line.

I did advise the guy to consult a lawyer to word the letter to the dealer, approve the wording of the warranty and handle any release. Most lawyers will do a free initial consultation and case evaluation so if the bad news would be easier to take coming from an attorney, why not? Maybe the lawyer can find an angle nobody thought of.

Like I said, I'm not a lawyer or a mechanic, but my opinion based on the case as I understand it is probably best resolved as I outlined previously.

[aakash]

Originally Posted by FRS Dad

Yes. And putting on a condom does not mean you plan on having sex.

Yes it does

[PHLonomenal]

Originally Posted by FRS Dad

Yes. And putting on a condom does not mean you plan on having sex, but then you'd look pretty silly walking around wearing one.

We talkin' 'bout practice...

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by FRS Dad

A lawyer's power in a negotiation is derived entirely from the threat of litigation.

No it isn't. You've been watching too many lawyer shows on television.

I work with lawyers on a daily basis (whom I audit) who rarely or never set foot in a courtroom. They negotiate all sorts of situations in which their value is derived not from some threat of legal action, but from a knowledge of the law and a knowledge of negotiation strategy and tactics.

When I worked in television, a lot of the agents negotiating the contracts for reporters and anchors were attorneys. Was that because they were planning to sue the station? Absolutely not, since there was no deal yet to sue over. They were there because they knew the law, and they were particularly effective in negotiating a better deal than the talent could negotiate him/herself.

Originally Posted by FRS Dad

You may be afraid of lawyers.

Actually, the ones I deal with are usually more afraid of me. I love it when attorneys try to intimidate me with that "I'm an attorney and you're not" attitude. But that doesn't diminish their value in a negotiation in the slightest.

[aznatama]

Lol, derailed thread. BTW, a vast majority of lawyers do not go to court or even deal with litigation.

[HeadBanger]

Some guys a couple pages ago said Tranny fluid still has lubricating properties. You know what else has lubricating properties?


Water.

[FRS Dad]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

No it isn't. You've been watching too many lawyer shows on television. I work with lawyers on a daily basis (whom I audit) who rarely or never set foot in a courtroom. They negotiate all sorts of situations in which their value is derived not from some threat of legal action, but from a knowledge of the law and a knowledge of negotiation strategy and tactics.

Well of course not all lawyers litigate, silly. There are real estate lawyers, corporate lawyers, intellectual property lawyers, patent lawyers. Lots of different specialties in the law other than trial lawyers. But unfortunately for the OP, pursuing a civil tort action for property damage requires a litigator. Or were you suggesting he contact a specialist in employment law or a divorce attorney to help him with his case against the shop that he thinks damaged his car?

When someone damages another's property or injures them due to their negligence, that's a tort. Tort cases can be resolved by agreement between the parties (known as a "pre-suit settlement"). If the parties cannot settle by mutual agreement, the tort case can be presented to a third party mediator (known as a "pre-suit mediation) and settlement reached. The final resolution is to present the case to a trier of fact...either a judge or a jury decided liability and awards damages.

90% of cases settle pre-suit. The majority of the rest settle at mediation. A tiny fragment make it to trial and verdict. Nothing would settle at all if the end game wasn't a trial. Absent the threat of losing at trial, what special powers does an attorney have that would induce the dealer to do anything at all?

Lawyer: First of all, I want to make clear that in no way, shape or form would we ever take this case to trial.

Dealer: Great.

Lawyer: I insist you put a new engine in my client's car.

Dealer: Um. No.

Lawyer: I really feel quite strongly about this. You should do it.

Dealer: No.

Lawyer: If you don't put a new engine in my client's car, then you'll leave me no choice but to utilize the many special negotiating strategy and magic tactics I, and only I, am aware of, being a lawyer and all.

Dealer: Go fuck yourself.

Lawyer: How about a coupon for ten percent off his next oil change?

Dealer: Get out of my office.

Lawyer: Very well then. I hope you are very ashamed of yourself. Good day!!

[FRS Dad]

Originally Posted by HeadBanger

Some guys a couple pages ago said Tranny fluid still has lubricating properties. You know what else has lubricating properties?


Water.

You'd think so until you tried fucking in a hot tub.

[aznatama]

Lol. Problem is, plaintiff would need to prove damages. So he's unlikely to prevail against the dealer in this case, unless he can show that the mess up caused actual damage. This would require months of non-use of the car until litigation ends, as well as somehow proving that any damage found was not done after the car left the dealership with the proper oil in it. Then there's evidence admissibility issues with the actual car itself. The cost of such litigation would really be more than the car is worth, and unlikely any attorney would proceed with this on contingency.

The most an atty will likely do here is write a formal letter of demand.

However, the simple threat of litigation means spending money to defend it. The time and hassle involved could easily outweigh simply filling an insurance claim with the dealer's ins company.

[Jyn]

Originally Posted by aznatama

Lol. Problem is, plaintiff would need to prove damages. So he's unlikely to prevail against the dealer in this case, unless he can show that the mess up caused actual damage.

The proof that damage will occur may be enough for a judge to rule that the plaintiff (OP in this case) is entitled to compensation. If, by showing the science, testimony from mechanics/experts, and documented cases similar to the OP's were presented, I do not see it unreasonable to see a judge agreeing to some sort of compensation from the defendant.

[FRS Dad]

Originally Posted by aznatama

Lol. Problem is, plaintiff would need to prove damages. So he's unlikely to prevail against the dealer in this case, unless he can show that the mess up caused actual damage. This would require months of non-use of the car until litigation ends, as well as somehow proving that any damage found was not done after the car left the dealership with the proper oil in it. Then there's evidence admissibility issues with the actual car itself. The cost of such litigation would really be more than the car is worth, and unlikely any attorney would proceed with this on contingency.

The most an atty will likely do here is write a formal letter of demand.

However, the simple threat of litigation means spending money to defend it. The time and hassle involved could easily outweigh simply filling an insurance claim with the dealer's ins company.

Yes! That's exactly it. A demand letter is an attorney offering a defendant an opportunity to settle pre-suit. In it he has to spell out what his client's damages are, why he's likely to prevail should the case go to trial and the possibility of a verdict that far exceeds what he and his client are willing to settle for now. The demand letter is a demand for payment.

The dealer has a garage keepers liability policy that provides him a legal defense and will pay a settlement or satisfy a judgment against him. That policy requires that the dealer forwards any demands to them immediately or risk losing coverage for that loss.

The dealer sends the demand to the carrier, an adjuster starts an investigation and determines liability and what the likely damages might be, and the adjuster and plaintiff attorney begin a process of negotiation. Right now there are no damages, so there's nothing to evaluate and no basis for negotiation.

I guess if it were me I'd offer to have the engine torn down at a mutually agreeable third party shop with the understanding that if the inspection shows damage related to the tranny fluid error I'd pay for the tear down and the repairs, but if it does not show damage the car's owner is on the hook for the tear down and my file is closed.

[tennisfreak]

[FRS Dad]

Originally Posted by Jyn

The proof that damage will occur may be enough for a judge to rule that the plaintiff (OP in this case) is entitled to compensation. If, by showing the science, testimony from mechanics/experts, and documented cases similar to the OP's were presented, I do not see it unreasonable to see a judge agreeing to some sort of compensation from the defendant.

Where's the proof damage will occur? If he has that he has a case. That's his dilemma and I don't see how he gets around it.