Customer Declined Repairs - Liability

[SpawnedX]

It was not an unsafe vehicle.

Sure it was. The rotors were too thin no matter what.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

As long as you completed the repairs contracted for and noted the obvious deficiency, you are not legally permitted to hold a car hostage. Informed denial of a request for service is acceptable. I always have shops "suggest" unneeded repairs or repairs I intend to take care of elsewhere. It would present a legal problem to hold a car hostage to make the owner do additional business with you. If you feel the issue is sufficiently dangerous it may cause immediate harm, call the police and report the issue. The driver could potentially be towed and ticketed for an unsafe vehicle. Raising the issue as a threat could be considered a crime.

As far as your specific issue, the wise thing would be to decline the repair. In regard to the result, from experience, as i bought such a car once that way and drove it home, the rotor breaks at the mid point, where the brake pad grabs and locks the outer part of the ring and a portion of the inner part continues to move. The brake pad holds the disconnected part in place as does the wheel. When you apply the brake, the outer ring stops the wheel keeps moving and there is an obnoxious tearing of metal at the break in between.

 

[justalayman]

Sure it was. The rotors were too thin no matter what.

They were at the manufacturers discard dimension. That does not make it an unsafe vehicle.

 

[SpawnedX]

As long as you completed the repairs contracted for and noted the obvious deficiency, you are not legally permitted to hold a car hostage. Informed denial of a request for service is acceptable. I always have shops "suggest" unneeded repairs or repairs I intend to take care of elsewhere. It would present a legal problem to hold a car hostage to make the owner do additional business with you. If you feel the issue is sufficiently dangerous it may cause immediate harm, call the police and report the issue. The driver could potentially be towed and ticketed for an unsafe vehicle. Raising the issue as a threat could be considered a crime.

Thank you, that is useful to consider. And yes, I know it is nothing more than a musing and does not constitute legal advice.

 

[Zigner]

As long as you completed the repairs contracted for and noted the obvious deficiency, you are not legally permitted to hold a car hostage. Informed denial of a request for service is acceptable. I always have shops "suggest" unneeded repairs or repairs I intend to take care of elsewhere. It would present a legal problem to hold a car hostage to make the owner do additional business with you. If you feel the issue is sufficiently dangerous it may cause immediate harm, call the police and report the issue. The driver could potentially be towed and ticketed for an unsafe vehicle. Raising the issue as a threat could be considered a crime.

I didn't suggest that the car be held hostage. On review, I see that it could have been interpreted that way since I didn't expand on it. My thought was that I would require that the car be towed, not driven.

 

[justalayman]

Let's make this simpler


Are you saying your manager is requiring you to install brake pads on a vehicle where the rotors are at the manufacturers discard specs.


And for fun, what kind of car is this and what is the measured dimension

 

[SpawnedX]

They were at the manufacturers discard dimension. That does not make it an unsafe vehicle.

In that case, neither would be replacing the worn brake pads with new and not replacing the rotors. If that's the case, then I would be inclined to just replace the pad.

 

[justalayman]

I didn't suggest that the car be held hostage. On review, I see that it could have been interpreted that way since I didn't expand on it. My thought was that I would require that the car be towed, not driven.

You cannot require a car be towed.
Brake rotors at the discard dimension are not adequate to deem the car unsafe.

 

[SpawnedX]

Let's make this simpler


Are you saying your manager is requiring you to install brake pads on a vehicle where the rotors are at the manufacturers discard specs.


And for fun, what kind of car is this and what is the measured dimension

Yes, that is what I am saying, but they are below the manufacturers discard specs. The discard specs are 1.039 and they are currently at 1.037, it is a Jeep Commander.

 

[justalayman]

In that case, neither would be replacing the worn brake pads with new and not replacing the rotors. If that's the case, then I would be inclined to just replace the pad.

It still is not an unsafe vehicle but it could subject the shop or mechanic to other issues including being named a party to the suit. Whether they would win or lose will depend on a lot of other factors.

 

[Zigner]

Let's bottom-line it here. If you are even remotely thought to be somehow responsible in any way for an accident that causes injuries or property damage, you are at risk of being sued. Insurance Insurance Insurance. There really is nothing else to say.

 

[Zigner]

It still is not an unsafe vehicle but it could subject the shop or mechanic to other issues including being named a party to the suit. Whether they would win or lose will depend on a lot of other factors.

Yeah, that.

 

[SpawnedX]

It still is not an unsafe vehicle but it could subject the shop or mechanic to other issues including being named a party to the suit. Whether they would win or lose will depend on a lot of other factors.

Thanks for that. I understand what you are saying. Nothing makes you lawsuit proof, you can be sued no matter what, winning is a whole other story.

 

[SpawnedX]

Let's bottom-line it here. If you are even remotely thought to be somehow responsible in any way for an accident that causes injuries or property damage, you are at risk of being sued. Insurance Insurance Insurance. There really is nothing else to say.

Right, I get that, I guess I am just asking is the employee for the shop the one who is named or the shop itself. Or can they both be named?

 

[justalayman]

Yes, that is what I am saying, but they are below the manufacturers discard specs. The discard specs are 1.039 and they are currently at 1.037, it is a Jeep Commander.

So they are below discard specs. That is different than at discard specs.


Given the dimension they are obviously a vented rotor. For fun, here is something for you to think about.

The discard dimension is 1.039. The rotor measures 1.045 BUT it is obvious the caliper slides are seized and there is no wear on the outer brake pad and as such no wear of the rotor. The inner pad is metal to metal and it is obvious all the wear on the rotor to cause the measurement observed is is on the inner portion of the rotor

Now, realizing this and the fact the 1.039 discard is assuming there is relatively equal wear on the inner and outer portions of the rotor and as such it becomes obvious the inner portion of the rotor is well beyond what it would be if the rotor has worn evenly to the point of the discard dimension,

Does that mean the rotor is useable or not?