Link

Does Tire Rotation Include Tightening Lug Nuts? Michigan Court Thinks About It For Awhile, Concludes 'No'

In what will surely go down in history as one of the most Galaxy Brain court rulings of all time, a Michigan appeals court determined that a tire rotation does not, in fact, include tightening the lug nuts.

It is a ruling that not only defies common sense but has potentially broad ramifications for Michigan car owners who may find it much harder to sue mechanics for doing unspeakably dumb things, such as not making sure the damn tires stay on the car.

In October 2013, Samuel Anaya and Doris Myricks took their car home from a dealership in Grand Rapids, Michigan after having some basic repairs and maintenance conducted, including a tire rotation. About two blocks from the dealership, the left front wheel came off, causing the car to skid into a curb. Turns out, the mechanic did not tighten the lug nuts.

Anaya, who sustained lower back and leg injuries in the crash, sued the dealership and the mechanic for negligence.

In a typical legal maneuver, Anaya’s attorney invoked the Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Act (MVSRA), a 1974 law that protects car owners against “unfair and deceptive practices” by mechanics in addition to the charge of negligence. They did so because a defendant that violates the MVSRA must not only pay damages, but also the plaintiff’s legal and court fees. In cases involved screwed up oil changes or tire rotations, the legal fees can often be far higher than the damages.

In the initial trial, the court instructed the jury that the dealer and the mechanic had, in fact, violated the MVSRA. The mechanic admitted he forgot to tighten the lug nuts, the jury awarded $40,000 in damages to Anaya, and the judge further ruled the dealership cover the $70,000 in attorney and legal fees during the multi-year court fight. The defendants appealed.

Now we get to the crazy part. The appeals court ruled that, in fact, the MVSRA had not been violated.

The MVSRA protects customers from, among other things, “charge for repairs that are in fact not performed.” So, the judges felt they needed to determine if the tire rotation was, in fact, performed.

This is how the ruling ended up with an entire section titled “INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD ‘PERFORM’,” which, I shit you not, is a bunch of judges looking up the word “perform” in the dictionary. They did so because the MVSRA does not define the word “perform” in the law itself.

Recent Videos from JalopnikVIEW MORE >
Here's The Best Way To Buy 500 HP Since It's So Easy To Find Nowadays
10/03/19 3:45PM
Now, I don’t know if you’ve ever read an actual law, but typically, laws define a lot of words. So many words, in fact, that it often seems ridiculous that anyone could not know what such a basic English word means. But lawmakers do this to avoid confusion exactly like this one.

In this sense, the MVSRA is a pretty typical law. It begins with three pages of definitions, including such complex legal terms as Contract, Customer, Department, Estimate, Facility, Motor Vehicle, Person, Repair, and Warranty. Presumably, the Michigan legislature, in its infinite wisdom, believed the word “perform” to be sufficiently clear as to not warrant further explanation.

They were wrong.

The judges managed to reach the following conclusion about whether a tire rotation is “performed” if one does not tighten the lug nuts:

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.

Yes, that’s right. The judges ruled that a tire rotation does not include tightening the lug nuts. It only involves “remov[ing] the tires and replace them on different axles or sides of the vehicle.” It does not involve using a torque wrench to tighten the lug nuts, which the mechanic “forgot to do.” That is not a part of the tire rotation. Presumably, the judges also believe the doctor performed the open-heart surgery, albeit negligently, by not sewing the patient back up, or the chef performed the preparing of the meal, albeit negligently, by serving raw steak.

So, the judges ruled the MVSRA does not apply to this case.

Former Jalopnik contributor and Michigan attorney Steve Lehto, who has tried many MVSRA cases, laid out a few reasons why this ruling is, in his words, “the craziest case I have seen in Michigan” since he started recording videos for his Youtube channel in 2014, and one of the craziest he has ever come across in his home state.

For one, the ruling itself doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, “perform” definitions aside. The MVSRA is what’s called a remedial statute that is designed to protect consumers from, as the law itself says, “unfair or deceptive practices.” The MVSRA’s core function is to protect regular ol’ folks who don’t know crap about cars against mechanics who lie about what work they did; for example, by claiming to have performed a tune-up when they, in fact, did not.

But, as the phrase “unfair or deceptive practices” makes clear, it also covers “unfair” practices. The ruling dutifully quotes this phrase, but then skips over the “unfair” part and goes straight to examining the definition of the word “perform.”

Lehto believes they should have spent a little bit more time on the word “unfair,” and that doing so might have yielded a different ruling. After all, isn’t it quite unfair (unfair: 1. marked by injustice, partiality, or deception 2. not equitable in business dealings) that the tire on Anaya’s car fell off two blocks from the dealership because the mechanic didn’t tighten the lug nuts after a tire rotation?

On top of that, Lehto said remedial statutes are supposed to be interpreted by judges liberally to protect consumers as much as possible. Whatever else one believes about the whole is-re-attaching-the-tire-part-of-a-tire-rotation thing, it is undoubtedly the case that the court did not interpret the statute liberally hereby even asking this question, much less taking it seriously.

This puzzling ruling has potentially broad ramifications for car owners across the state of Michigan because of the precedent set. Based on this standard, an oil change, for example, is performed merely if the old oil is replaced with new oil. Taking out the drain plug, draining the oil, removing the oil filter, replacing the new filter, and replacing and tightening the drain plug is not, by this interpretation, one “performing” the oil change. Forget to tighten the drain plug causing the oil to leak everywhere? According to Lehto, “Every single one of those is now legal [under the MVSRA] according to the court of appeals.”

Surely one could still sue the mechanic on the grounds of negligence, right? Yes, Lehto said, the negligence path is still there. But, remember, the main benefit of invoking the MVSRA is to get the defendant to pay for the plaintiff’s attorney fees. And that is no small matter.

In the case in question, the jury awarded $40,000 in damages, including for the injuries sustained as a result of the crash. After that verdict, the plaintiff then asked the court, under the MVSRA, to make the defendant cover the attorney and court fees too. That award was for an additional $70,000, for a total verdict of $110,000.

The attorney and legal fees—which the defendant would have had to pay himself if not for the MVSRA’s application—was for more than the actual damages. And this was even in a case with injury; without the injury, the attorney fees would have been many multiples the damages.

As a result of all this, Lehto said he would no longer accept such cases because the finances simply don’t work. It would cost a plaintiff more to try the case than what they could reasonably expect to be awarded, and the defendants would likely be able to argue the MVSRA wouldn’t apply unless they literally forgot to change the oil to replace the engine with a new one.

What can Michigan do about this? There are two options: appeal the case and hope the state Supreme Court takes it up, or have the legislature clarify the MVSRA (perhaps they can define the word “perform”).

In the meantime, good luck suing an incompetent mechanic in Michigan.

ANAYA v BETTEN CHEVROLET by GMG Editorial on Scribd

Absurd!

Not exactly what happened.

The suit was brought under what is essentially the state's fraud statute pertaining to motor vehicles. To prevail, the plaintiff had to demonstrate that the work invoiced was not actually performed.

Had the plaintiff brought the suit under an ordinary negligence action, it seems as though he would have likely won.

Why bring it under the fraud statute? Enhanced damages and separate attorney's fees.

Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

The headline is borderline clickbait.

-Rob

I have to agree with the court on this one. If the mechanic had loosened the lug nuts but never rotated the tires he would have violated that statute if they were charged for a tire rotation.

This was an issue of general negligence in that the repair was not completed properly and resulted in a dangerous condition ultimately resulting in injury. Their attorney probably went after this provision as it had higher penalties and payout than simple negligence.

This post was written by a non-attorney member

I have to agree that it was not an "unfair or deceptive" incident and was simple negligence. So going after the bigger payout is what cost the case.

Hey now, ya'll... Don't let mere facts get in the way of a good rabble-rousing.

Step right up, folks! Getcher torches and pitchforks here! (Note: Pitchforks may come negligently, but not fraudulently, misassembled.)

Hey, it's a tire rotation, not lug nut rotation. Got to pay extra for that extra effort.

Can we expect to see the following line items on an invoice?

  
Description                  Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Loosen and remove lug nuts.  20       2.00       40.00
Rotate Tires                  4       5.00       20.00
Install and torque lug nuts. 20       2.00       40.00

PSA here. Those wheels start doing some wonky things before they fall off. So if something starts feeling weird (especially after just having the car worked on) pull over and check things out. Maybe you won't have an accident resulting in injuries.

quote:

Originally posted by Patrick-SP2022:
Can we expect to see the following line items on an invoice?

  
Description                  Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Loosen and remove lug nuts.  20       2.00       40.00
Rotate Tires                  4       5.00       20.00
Install and torque lug nuts. 20       2.00       40.00

I actually had a customer come in that had a flat in front of a new car dealership. They charged them almost $20 to bolt on a spare tire. On the itemized bill was a charge for shop towels. I kid you not. I guess they didn't think that person was ever going to consider buying a car off them. Major stupid from a PR standpoint IMHO.

when my vehicle is pulled in for tire rotation, i'm watching + confirming all are tightened to the correct torque value.

I rotate my own tires. I barely trust a shop to get a four tire rotation correct, let alone a five-tire pattern.

-Rob

I do my own tires, torque the lug nuts to the correct specifications, one less thing I don't have to worry about.

Title is misleading.

Title should say: Dumbass plaintiff and their attorneys try to get their attorneys' fees paid by claiming dealership lied about doing a tire rotation. Judge finds that the dealership did in fact rotate the tires--but did a poor job of it.

quote:

Can we expect to see the following line items on an invoice?

Description Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Loosen and remove lug nuts. 20 2.00 40.00
Rotate Tires 4 5.00 20.00
Install and torque lug nuts. 20 2.00 40.00

Wonderful idea, I will pass it on. I notice the hand soap the mechanic used afterwards was left off the invoice.

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
Not exactly what happened.

The suit was brought under what is essentially the state's fraud statute pertaining to motor vehicles. To prevail, the plaintiff had to demonstrate that the work invoiced was not actually performed.

Had the plaintiff brought the suit under an ordinary negligence action, it seems as though he would have likely won.

Why bring it under the fraud statute? Enhanced damages and separate attorney's fees.

Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

The headline is borderline clickbait.

-Rob

Exactly correct. This article is one of the most poorly written articles I have ever seen on jalopnik which is saying A LOT.

The author is getting rightfully roasted and he's hiding behind 'well I talked to a lawyer about it'. Clearly that lawyer has never dealt with any type is unfair/deceptive practices cases before.

This article should be about a lawyer's greed coming back to bite him in the face. $70k in attorney fees on a $40k judgement is absurd.

Its kind of upsetting at this late point in time, but also legislators are usually attorneys, too. To accuse all of them of being crooks might seem unfair because somewhere, one might not be. But keep in mind most are, as demonstrated here.

Car mechanics aren't all crooks, but most are lazy and dishonest. Also as demonstrated here. If you take your car to a mechanic, and I use that work loosely, you have no guarantee of the work being done in a workman like manner. And if its not, you can expect a greedy crook-like lawyer to defend the mechanic. And then there are also a group we loosely call judges, all of which were once greedy lawyers, and probably are still crooks. I have no idea why more of them aren't tarred and featherd, or just lynched.

Is it time to start shooting them yet? Its an honest question asked in good faith. Not just the judges (but that might be a good start). No doubt the lawyers all need a good shooting, or maybe just a flailing to withing an inch of their lives. And nearly all the politicians, lawyer or not. No reason to distinguish between them. All seek to enrich themselves at our expense.

I believe it was Claire Wolfe who was quoted as saying it was too late to change things from within the system, and too early to begin shooting the bastards. Maybe she didn't call them bastards, I don't know or care. The descriptive term seems to be well placed.

Here we have lawyers defending poor mechanics, if that term even applies. Sure, they need and deserve a defense. But there is little doubt they need to be paying for their mistakes. I used the term "their" here because both the mechanics and lawyers need another line of work. Both the lawyers and judges have participated in a miscarriage of justice. I would even suggest that all should be disbarred, except that lawyers are a sort of self policing group, that rarely even does. There is no policing for mechanics other than the market place. Its enough to just say the mechanics and the dealership that employed him shouldn't be in business, any kind of business. They just can't be trusted.

I've held back on criticizing the lawyers answering here on this forum. But at some point they'll need to be wary of my sentiments on tarring and feathering. But only because its not nearly as permanent as it should be.

“They rotate when I drive”

quote:

Originally posted by airbubba:
when my vehicle is pulled in for tire rotation, i'm watching + confirming all are tightened to the correct torque value.

What is the correct value?

Do you see an air tool used to spin the nuts on, or a torque wrench applied?

Is it calibrated, how recently, and how is it stored?

Without knowing that, how could you possibly know if the lug nuts are torqued to the "correct value?" You couldn't. Further, once the vehicle has moved any distance under a load, the only way to know is to re-check the wheels, but it's something most don't do. In most cases, the lugs are overtorqued. ARe they dry or wet torqued? It makes a difference...and the ONLY thing that torque is checking is rotational friction which is about bolt stretch (lug stretch), not about how firmly the wheel is on the car. Additionally...the torque pattern, and method in which is is applied a second time, makes a big determination. You pick all that up from watching?

I say this to point out that while you may be certified mechanic who knows and understands this, most aren't. Most assume that the mechanic doing the work did it correctly, or make the wrong assumption that doing it correctly means the wheel can't loosen. Most don't know that the lugs should be checked after a short drive, and very few people actually do it. I've seen wheels come off from this failure.

The assertion by any court that a failure to complete the procedure is not a breach of duty by the mechanic is idiotic, as is the assertion that securing the lugs is not a function of performing a tire rotation.

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:
Car mechanics aren't all crooks, but most are lazy and dishonest.

Really?

Can you back that up with something other than an offensive, generalized swipe?

Most? Really?

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:


Most? Really?

OK, I'll take it back and replace it with "all I've ever seen or met". I used the term most to allow for the possibility, however remote, that there is a good one out there. I've just never met him.

And I have a "friend" who almost got fired from his shop because he installed new tires on a customer's car, but when the customer asked him to wash the blue stuff his new tires he refused because "this isn't a car wash". Wow.

His logic was pretty simple, like his mind. He gets flat rate for mounting and balancing the tires the front of the shop sold. No extra for the car wash portion. That shop is now out of business. Lucky for all of us.