[Vettezuki]

Now you guys are being persnickety.

[enkeivette]

Originally Posted by BADDASSC6

Fellas, I don't really care what was or wan't done. I just thought it was funny that I was familar with the car.

Enkie,
That's a great assessment. That first semester of law school is really paying off.
CNJ

My first semester was a year ago. If you want some legit assessment read what I wrote about negligence.

Funny thing about negligence in the automotive world, if you pay a tech to service your car and he fucks up causing you an accident (say your brakes fail) you are still on the hook to the other driver. Not him. But then you can sue him directly. Kinda strange to hear at first, but the policy behind it makes sense.

Btw, everything I've communicated to any of you either in the past, this present thread, or hereinafter is purely fictional and for your enjoyment alone. None of it is to be taken seriously as actual legal advice.

[big2bird]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

When a tech works on your car, he owes you a duty to return to you a safe car. If the burden of precaution is less than the probability and severity of the risk (if it's easy to drive the car around the block and there's a probability it could save you risk of harm if the tires fall off or ball joint pops out) then the tech is negligent if he does not perform that duty. And the shop will be vicariously liable for your injuries and any damage to your car.

So legally, they should drive it.

SO, when a shop test drives a car IN PUBLIC, and something fails and causes injury to an innocent bystander, the shop was "Doing it's duty?"

[enkeivette]

Originally Posted by big2bird

SO, when a shop test drives a car IN PUBLIC, and something fails and causes injury to an innocent bystander, the shop was "Doing it's duty?"

Yes. Although, the tech could also be negligent in testing. And the innocent bystander could sue for that. If the tech was not negligent, then the bystander would have a cause of action of negligence per se against the car manufacturer. I passed all of my Torts classes already, I know what I'm talking about.

Wouldn't you rather a qualified electrician electrocute himself testing his work, rather than the person who paid him? Ben, feel free to step in an answer this one.

[enkeivette]

FYI, if you own a Mercedes and have the transmission serviced and the tech needs to reprogram it, he will need to get into 7th gear and allow it to downshift by itself coasting all the way without touching the brakes. They do this on public roads, tell me this sounds like it can be done legally.

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

. . . Wouldn't you rather a qualified electrician electrocute himself testing his work, rather than the person who paid him? Ben, feel free to step in an answer this one.

Power's off.

[big2bird]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

Wouldn't you rather a qualified electrician electrocute himself testing his work, rather than the person who paid him? Ben, feel free to step in an answer this one.

If an electrician gets electrocuted testing, he wasnt that qualified to begin with.

[big2bird]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

FYI, if you own a Mercedes and have the transmission serviced and the tech needs to reprogram it, he will need to get into 7th gear and allow it to downshift by itself coasting all the way without touching the brakes. They do this on public roads, tell me this sounds like it can be done legally.

I would imagine that can be performed statically.

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by big2bird

If an electrician gets electrocuted testing, he wasnt that qualified to begin with.

Now THAT'S what I call survival of the fittest. And I thought I was a hard ass.

[enkeivette]

Originally Posted by big2bird

If an electrician gets electrocuted testing, he wasnt that qualified to begin with.

They don't use a dyno. They find a nice public road.