One of our forum members getting screwed over by a dealership

[ZHighlander]

I think one of the strongest points to be made here is the unaccounted 2 miles of driving while it was in the dealership's possession, and before any fixes were made. Is there some way to prove that?

The 2 mile drive could be countered/interpreted in multiple ways, like an un-approved joyride, or they can claim they needed to do some testing.

If they claimed they fixed it, and had to take it for a test drive, then the fire starts, they could potentially blame it on the mods.

If the drive was before the fix, then the case becomes stronger due to the fact that the dealership was aware of the risks at the time, and if they had chosen to "test" the car out while in that condition, then they are completely liable.

But even if they said they were taking it for a test, after the fix, and there is evidence to suggest there was still brake fluid around the compartment, and they didn't do a good job of cleaning it before testing, they're also liable.

I think some of those points will be things everyone will be looking at.

[JARblue]

Originally Posted by ZHighlander

If they claimed they fixed it, and had to take it for a test drive, then the fire starts, they could potentially blame it on the mods.

If the drive was before the fix, then the case becomes stronger due to the fact that the dealership was aware of the risks at the time, and if they had chosen to "test" the car out while in that condition, then they are completely liable.

But even if they said they were taking it for a test, after the fix, and there is evidence to suggest there was still brake fluid around the compartment, and they didn't do a good job of cleaning it before testing, they're also liable.

It shouldn't matter when the test drive was. The test drive was due to brake fluid igniting. If they drove it without fixing it, that's on them. If they fixed it and then drove it and it ignited anyway, they didn't fix it properly and its still on them. Its not like his mods spontaneously burst into flames. There was a brake line leak. It absolutely should have never caught fire; the fact that it did is on the dealership.

[sx moneypit]

Originally Posted by JARblue

It shouldn't matter when the test drive was. The test drive was due to brake fluid igniting. If they drove it without fixing it, that's on them. If they fixed it and then drove it and it ignited anyway, they didn't fix it properly and its still on them. Its not like his mods spontaneously burst into flames. There was a brake line leak. It absolutely should have never caught fire; the fact that it did is on the dealership.

[ZHighlander]

Originally Posted by JARblue

It shouldn't matter when the test drive was. The test drive was due to brake fluid igniting. If they drove it without fixing it, that's on them. If they fixed it and then drove it and it ignited anyway, they didn't fix it properly and its still on them. Its not like his mods spontaneously burst into flames. There was a brake line leak. It absolutely should have never caught fire; the fact that it did is on the dealership.

So let me clarify. I'm not defending the dealership in any way, shape or form. I'm trying to gather more information to get a clearer understanding of the sequence of events.

Keep in mind that in legal territory, it's irrelevant what we "think" should or should not happen. It's what can be proven, and how strong the case is given the evidence, and what has to occur to obtain/present said evidence.

If it's clear that you can prove the car was driven a long distance before the fix, then that shows complete and utter disregard for the risks that have already been known. You have a very strong case.

If it's after the fix, and they "claim" they've taken all precautions, and cleaned up the compartment, and "claim" there's no reason for the fire to have started from their repairs, then they can start a fight and claim faulty parts from aftermarket parts.

You and I, and likely everyone else here probably knows there's little to no chance his engine is going to spontaneously combust from his mods... but do all lawyers know that? Do the claims adjusters know that? Will a Jury know that (not saying this will go so far). But people who have no idea how an engine or aftermarket part works, might believe someone who manipulates that information.

I'm not a lawyer, but my experience gives me some insight on the legal system, and you really have to explain things so a baby could understand, and not make any assumptions of what others know, in order to get an advantage in a case.

So in short, it would be easier to prove Dealership liability if they drove it before the repairs, rather than a more drawn out investigation after the repairs and them claiming faulty aftermarket parts. So yes, it can make a difference when the test drive was.

Not saying this should get serious enough to draw out in court... at least I really hope not cuz that can get ugly. I don't think Nissan would want to spend too much money to fight this. Really hope his insurance company can resolve everything. But providing all the necessary evidence to the insurance company, to prove they were reckless, can speed things up.

[DeliriousClam]

Originally Posted by ZHighlander

So let me clarify. I'm not defending the dealership in any way, shape or form. I'm trying to gather more information to get a clearer understanding of the sequence of events.

Keep in mind that in legal territory, it's irrelevant what we "think" should or should not happen. It's what can be proven, and how strong the case is given the evidence, and what has to occur to obtain/present said evidence.

If it's clear that you can prove the car was driven a long distance before the fix, then that shows complete and utter disregard for the risks that have already been known. You have a very strong case.

If it's after the fix, and they "claim" they've taken all precautions, and cleaned up the compartment, and "claim" there's no reason for the fire to have started from their repairs, then they can start a fight and claim faulty parts from aftermarket parts.

You and I, and likely everyone else here probably knows there's little to no chance his engine is going to spontaneously combust from his mods... but do all lawyers know that? Do the claims adjusters know that? Will a Jury know that (not saying this will go so far). But people who have no idea how an engine or aftermarket part works, might believe someone who manipulates that information.

I'm not a lawyer, but my experience gives me some insight on the legal system, and you really have to explain things so a baby could understand, and not make any assumptions of what others know, in order to get an advantage in a case.

So in short, it would be easier to prove Dealership liability if they drove it before the repairs, rather than a more drawn out investigation after the repairs and them claiming faulty aftermarket parts. So yes, it can make a difference when the test drive was.

Not saying this should get serious enough to draw out in court... at least I really hope not cuz that can get ugly. I don't think Nissan would want to spend too much money to fight this. Really hope his insurance company can resolve everything. But providing all the necessary evidence to the insurance company, to prove they were reckless, can speed things up.

they drove it two miles, knowing it was a fire hazard, then pulled it into the service bay where it caught fire on a lift

[ZHighlander]

Originally Posted by DeliriousClam

they drove it two miles, knowing it was a fire hazard, then pulled it into the service bay where it caught fire on a lift

Understood, thanks for the clarification. Is there enough tangible evidence to pass onto the insurance? This makes a very strong case, and I look forward to seeing the dealership eat it.

[cv129]

Originally Posted by DeliriousClam

they drove it two miles, knowing it was a fire hazard, then pulled it into the service bay where it caught fire on a lift

Techs probably didn't think much of the brake fluid, that a short drive wouldn't hurt....

Techs spend all day fixing Sentras and Altimas =
A Turbo 370z shows up =
Time for a drive around the block =

[ZHighlander]

Originally Posted by cv129

Techs probably didn't think much of the brake fluid, that a short drive wouldn't hurt....

Techs spend all day fixing Sentras and Altimas =
A Turbo 370z shows up =
Time for a drive around the block =

Yep, then make a bunch of excuses as to why it's not their fault, or to cover up their joy ride. Probably one of those techs is the one harassing Tim on FB, knowing his arse is on the line.

[cofo11]

Originally Posted by ZHighlander

So let me clarify. I'm not defending the dealership in any way, shape or form. I'm trying to gather more information to get a clearer understanding of the sequence of events.

Keep in mind that in legal territory, it's irrelevant what we "think" should or should not happen. It's what can be proven, and how strong the case is given the evidence, and what has to occur to obtain/present said evidence.

If it's clear that you can prove the car was driven a long distance before the fix, then that shows complete and utter disregard for the risks that have already been known. You have a very strong case.

If it's after the fix, and they "claim" they've taken all precautions, and cleaned up the compartment, and "claim" there's no reason for the fire to have started from their repairs, then they can start a fight and claim faulty parts from aftermarket parts.

You and I, and likely everyone else here probably knows there's little to no chance his engine is going to spontaneously combust from his mods... but do all lawyers know that? Do the claims adjusters know that? Will a Jury know that (not saying this will go so far). But people who have no idea how an engine or aftermarket part works, might believe someone who manipulates that information.

I'm not a lawyer, but my experience gives me some insight on the legal system, and you really have to explain things so a baby could understand, and not make any assumptions of what others know, in order to get an advantage in a case.

So in short, it would be easier to prove Dealership liability if they drove it before the repairs, rather than a more drawn out investigation after the repairs and them claiming faulty aftermarket parts. So yes, it can make a difference when the test drive was.

Not saying this should get serious enough to draw out in court... at least I really hope not cuz that can get ugly. I don't think Nissan would want to spend too much money to fight this. Really hope his insurance company can resolve everything. But providing all the necessary evidence to the insurance company, to prove they were reckless, can speed things up.

The problem the dealership has here, if this were to go to court, is that, due to the breadth of this forum, any number of experts can be deposed, it costs them nothing but time, by video and presented countering the claims of turbos cause fires.

You didn't know this when you posted but the comment of (paraphrased) "lots have caught fire and we've won every one" shows a pattern of negligence. I don't envy this dealership if they try to fight. Making it right would be far cheaper.

I'm sure this has caused the owner great emotional anguish, sleepless nights, poor job performance, anxiety and any other issues he wishes to claim. They don't want this to go to court.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk