Uh, I did say this thread.
Apparently a tire rotation (in Michigan) does not have to legally include them tightening your lug nuts back up...
https://jalopnik.com/does-tire-rota...zJbnjE8OwpUV6ImJhiL8vcmarlu1t4dV6cEfqh7-BLuUg
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. To accept the trial court’s interpretation would essentially turn every incorrectly performed repair into a violation of MVSRA. We do not believe that comports with the Legislature’s intent as expressed in the language of the statute. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erroneously granted plaintiff a directed verdict regarding defendants' alleged violation of this provision of MVSRA.
For what it is worth - I disagree. In order to "perform" a tire rotation you have to complete the performance. Tightening the lug nuts is essential to complete the performance.
EXACTLY... They were on tight when you took them off. you should be require to replace them back on to their original condition... tight. The court is dead wrong.
Sure, it's negligence not to....but the statute is going after fraud, not negligence.
I was thinking more about the conclusion they arrived at that the rotation was 'performed'. I don't think it was 'performed'. It was started but not 'performed'.
Did the tires from the front end up on the rear and vice versa? If the answer is yes, then the tire rotation was performed. Essentially, negligence is doing the job improperly or less than fully, fraud is not doing the job at all.
I would say 'No' the tires did not end up rotated. The front tires ended up 'near' the rear but were not 'on' the rear because they were not attached to the rear.
I would say 'No' the tires did not end up rotated. The front tires ended up 'near' the rear but were not 'on' the rear because they were not attached to the rear.
Ok. It was a single, front tire. It wasn't near the car, it was on the car. Had it merely been near the car, neither the car or the tire would have made it out of the shop and onto the road. Still, even assuming what you described was at all accurate, that would not constitute fraud. It would still be negligence. Fraud assumes a deliberate attempt to deceive for personal gain. Where is the deliberate deception in rotating 3 of the 4 tires(by your definition)? Where is the gain?
Reason # 57 why you don't use an impact gun on lug nuts.My friends dad owned a body shop. We hung around and did body work for experience and beer.
The dad hired a young guy to help him out.
One day my buddy changed a tire and used the impact to tighten the lug nuts and started for work at the bank. On the way the tire came off an rolled off into a corn field.
When he got back to the shop he checked the pressure on the compressor and it was at 20 psi. He almost killed the kid who had turned it down so he could do some fine work with a DA not knowing that there is a speed switch on the sander.
Reason # 57 why you don't use an impact gun on lug nuts.