Ugly update

"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
01/19/2016 at 12:45 • Filed to: Ugly

So after !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! I did a little legal digging (thanks to all that helped!) and found that in Utah the Bailee in the bailment agreement is presumed negligent unless he can prove he is not. Armed with this I just sent off a lovely letter letting them know I will be happy with a completely repainted hood, $500 ($630 is the damage assessment for a patch, double it for a complete hood repaint) or to sue for damages + my time + my lawyers time.

It will be interesting to see what happens now. This isn’t an idle threat either, I’m excited to hire a lawyer to handle an open and shut case like this.

DISCUSSION (28)

functionoverfashion > HammerheadFistpunch
01/19/2016 at 12:52

open and shut case

I see what you did there...

deekster_caddy > HammerheadFistpunch
01/19/2016 at 13:04

Good luck! What’s the fee to file in small claims court? Can the defendant be held accountable for the fee? For $600, just making sure it’s worth suing.

HammerheadFistpunch > deekster_caddy
01/19/2016 at 13:05

From my conversations with an attorney they can be held liable for all damages.

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > HammerheadFistpunch
01/19/2016 at 13:08

I’m curious to here how Big-O who is a large chain shop handles this within the corporate culture. If they drag their feet or just pay up. It could be a case where you win an easy judgment but have to put a lien on them to recoup the judgment. Wouldn’t that be funny, go to your local Big-O with the sherrif’s department and repo their lift and tire balance machine.

deekster_caddy > HammerheadFistpunch
01/19/2016 at 13:09

Including your attorney’s fees? (just making sure)

450X_FTW > HammerheadFistpunch
01/19/2016 at 13:11

Dealing with mine still. The state is investigating it (since they are a licensed auto shop through the state). Hoping they do something soon

http://oppositelock.kinja.com/service-bill-i…

HammerheadFistpunch > deekster_caddy
01/19/2016 at 13:12

So far as I can tell. I don’t have an attorney, I was asking the council of the company I work for. granted these are bad ass lawyers here, there are about 3 dozen and they know their stuff.

HammerheadFistpunch > 450X_FTW
01/19/2016 at 13:13

Man, here’s hoping you can get it sorted. For $500 I’m hoping they just deal and get me out of their hair.

The Ghost of Oppo > HammerheadFistpunch
01/19/2016 at 13:15

Sounds like good news, relatively. Let us know what happens

EL_ULY > HammerheadFistpunch
01/19/2016 at 13:16

as someone who has worked on 500 bazillion cars, some hood struts can work fine for a good couple of minutes.........

.... then suddenly BOOM! right on my spine or head. If they are really weak to start with, it’s easy to tell when opening. If so, we have hood props and vise grips to keep the hoods open duh. Some cars though, can and will fool you. Latch mechanisms slamming on your spine and head is not fun.

The tiny dent on your awesome beast tis but a minor pimple. I’m sure there are many more battle scars on it. But, that’s just my oppopinon.

HammerheadFistpunch > EL_ULY
01/19/2016 at 13:20

its a minor thing, something I am happy to overlook for a small cash settlement that can go into fixing other stuff and I already told the guy that I have sympathy for the hood strut issue... it nearly took out my fingers a few weeks ago...but they did leave tools on my engine and my hood is dented as a result so my sympathy extends only so far. In the case where my fingers nearly got chomped I could tell that the struts weren’t working up to snuff and if it were my shop I would have propped it open (as I do now). At the end of the day, what happens in their possession is their responsibility.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > deekster_caddy
01/19/2016 at 13:22

For $600, I’d rather pay the lawyer than the body shop anyway. Rub their nose in it even at my cost.

Of course I would still rather not pay at all.

EL_ULY > HammerheadFistpunch
01/19/2016 at 13:25

They should of had a better hood prop/stronger vise grips.

Now it’s going to cost those goddamn fucking assholes big time!!!! Muah haa haaa!

Kinja'd!!!

.... or something like that :]

HammerheadFistpunch > EL_ULY
01/19/2016 at 13:26

Well, they didn’t prop the hood at all, despite the manager telling me that the see this all the time and usually prop the hood. I don’t enjoy raking people over the coals...i am a peacemaker by nature...but I can’t abide people slithering out of their accountability.

EL_ULY > HammerheadFistpunch
01/19/2016 at 13:35

yeah I know man. We deal with this every hour here it seems. Some things are our bad, most are the customer’s, but at the end of the day, we are paying.

Them dudes should have been more careful no matter the damage.

HammerheadFistpunch > EL_ULY
01/19/2016 at 13:37

btw, props for bobs burgers reference.

EL_ULY > HammerheadFistpunch
01/19/2016 at 13:41

lol, the binge watching will continue Saturday here at work :]

jariten1781 > HammerheadFistpunch
01/19/2016 at 13:44

Good luck. If it ends up going to court get a statement from some other shops stating something to the effect of ‘yes hood struts fail, we use our best judgment and prop them with a secondary device if it’s likely’. The more stuff you have in writing the easier the case.

In my experience small claims would go:
Judge: Car was damaged in your possession, explain why this is not your fault.

Shop: Hood strut failed, we had no reason to expect it to.

J: Have hood struts failed before? Do you have procedures for weak struts?

Here it goes two ways.

S: Yes, and we prop them if we think they’re going to but we didn’t know this time.

J: Then you are responsible, judgment for plaintiff.

S: No, if they fail it’s unexpected and it’s incumbent on the customer to let us know if they’re weak.

J: Plaintiff, did you know and did you inform them?

Plaintiff: Hood struts functioned sufficiently to my knowledge. I’d been under the hood for P, D, Q in the last XX months (show receipts if you have them) and there was never any damage from the hood falling on a tool. There is no reason to believe it’d fall and cause damage. I also received statements from shops X, Y, Z (even better if you have that manager's statement about propping hoods documented) stating that they install secondary support devices if, in their professional opinion, they determine such a device is necessary.

Then, if the shop cops to using supports you’ll likely get insta-judgment in your favor. Otherwise there’ll be more back and forth. If there’s something in the contract stating something like ‘damage caused by pre-existing conditions are not the responsibility of the shop’ and they bring that contract you’re less likely to win. You’re probably good to go it alone if that’s not there, but if language like that exists it’d behoove you to have a lawyer who can talk to it and where liability attaches in your specific state.

HammerheadFistpunch > jariten1781
01/19/2016 at 13:48

Thing I can’t shake though is that they put the tool on my hood, I would like to see them claim that as non-negligence.

jariten1781 > HammerheadFistpunch
01/19/2016 at 14:07

Thing is, a smooth talker can make even the most ridiculous claims sound totally sensible. Judges are aware of that and thus take things coming out of the involved parties’ mouths with extreme skepticism.

How I saw it normally go when I had the (dis)pleasure of being in the courtroom all the time:

Party with the most lawyer wins.

If both parties have ‘good enough’ representation, party with the most (quantity and relevant) paper wins.

If nobody brings paper then they try to parse the statements and make a judgment. At that point you may as well toss a coin, judgments will go either way. Judges are slightly better and will usually rule against whoever had the burden of proof (since they didn’t bring enough paper). Juries are totally ‘¿da fuq?’...100% unpredictable. Without strong documentation you may as well throw all possible judgments on slips of paper and draw from a hat and you’re just as likely to predict a jury outcome as trying to base it on a logical interpretation of the statements made in court. Sometimes they even render judgments that are not even possible/legal. After watching them operate I’d accept nearly any settlement to prevent having my outcome decided by a jury.

deekster_caddy > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer
01/19/2016 at 14:12

I hear you. But if it will cost you $500 to sue them in the first place, it might not be worth it is all I’m saying. If for some reason you lose, now you are out $500 and still have to get the thing fixed... Believe me I completely understand about wanting to rub their nose in it. Most managers can tell the customer to get lost even with a court ‘threat’. It’s not until actual court papers arrive that they will agree to settle, because a lot of people won’t actually follow through with the threat.