You can't mak this stuff up.

[Terry M.]

Title is with apologies to John Ballard.

All I can say is "WTF?"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/does-tire-rotation-include-tightening-lug-nuts-michigan-court-thinks-about-it-for-awhile-concludes-no/ar-AAJcuaB?ocid=Login

[Frank D.]

Re: You can't mak this stuff up.

I've seen that ruling elsewhere; this is what happens when some legal interpretation of a simple task defies logic...
Mostly because I doubt judges and legislators have ever even changed their own tires before...

I bet if they called a plumber to "pump out" their septic tank and they guy did just that and left and told them they had to put the lid back on they'd be fuming to high heaven.

[Duke W.]

Re: You can't mak this stuff up.

This case really takes the cake. I'm currently about two-thirds through Justice Gorsuch' new book, "A Republic, if You Can Keep it."

He discusses judicial philosophy in interpreting the constitution, "originalism" and statutes, "textualism", and his philosophy is to interpret words based on their meaning at the time the Constitution or statue was written, but not all judges share this philosophy.

Some "legislate" from the bench, which in Justice Gorsuch' opinion is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, however, many statues, even though most are written by lawyers can be so vague so as to open the door for a wide range of interpretations.

A recent major ruling that I thought defied any kind or reasonable logic was the Supreme Court decision not to overturn "Obamacare", with Chief Justice Roberts being the swing vote in the 5-4 decision and writing the majority opinion.

All the "legal analysts" opinions I saw or read stated that plaintiffs had a good case under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution - the government cannot compel us to buy a product, which was the foundation of plaintiffs argument. None of them mentioned that it was legal because Obamacare was a "tax", and legal under the 13th amendment, but that's how Roberts justified the decision.

Duke

[Bob D.]

Re: You can't mak this stuff up.

Sounds like the judges were a bunch of lug nuts that need tightening.

[Kenneth B.]

Re: You can't mak this stuff up.

I read the same thread on the CF. The explanation was the law that they were suing under which would get them a lot more money did not apply in this case. They could still recover damages but not to the extent of the law they were suing under. You can read it there.

[Loren L.]

Re: You can't mak this stuff up.

In Michigan, "Tire rotation" is complete when the mechanic delivers the tire to its next location on the car.....

[Kent S.]

Re: You can't mak this stuff up.

I read the same thread on the CF. The explanation was the law that they were suing under which would get them a lot more money did not apply in this case. They could still recover damages but not to the extent of the law they were suing under. You can read it there.

The way I read it they wouldn't get a lot more money - the money was to pay lawyer fees and court costs. Their award was $40,000 - not sure how they are going to come up with the extra $70,000 to pay the lawyer and court costs.

[Dick W.]

Re: You can't mak this stuff up.

In Michigan, "Tire rotation" is complete when the mechanic delivers the tire to its next location on the car.....

If the barrister shops enough judges he can almost always find one that agrees with his opinion. Like the judge in the North Central US that handed down the decision that choice of law did not apply in online sales and the plaintiff can sue in his home state. I sure can see where that is going with the online car auctions. Got a case of buyers remorse, just sue the seller in your home state.

[Dominic B.]

Re: You can't mak this stuff up.

[QUOTE=Loren Lundberg (912);859706]In Michigan, "Tire rotation" is complete when the mechanic delivers the tire to its next location on the car.....QUOTE]

This is crazy. The lug nuts had to come off to deliver the tire to it's next location. I wonder why the appeal court considered the work to be complete when the lug nuts were not in the same place and position (tightened), as when the work commenced. There is also another great legal term.... "incidental", which should have been augured by counsel. It's part of the task. I can't believe our judicial courts are going down this road.

[Bill M.]

Re: You can't mak this stuff up.

I am sure if it was somebody from the legal community the ruling would have been much different. The shop would have probably been sued out of existence. I always say check your lugs within 100 miles of driving whenever a wheel has been removed. That would not have helped these people as they did not even get down the block.

[Tom B.]

Re: You can't mak this stuff up.

This could work the other way too. If the operation isn't "performed" if all the bolts weren't tightened then you should not have to pay for a job that wasn't performed. I wonder if there is a loose bolt somewhere on my last engine rebuild.

Tom