Most of the headlines I've seen on this veer towards outrage bait by saying that the court ruled that tightening lugs isn't part of a tire rotation, but that's not really the case.
What went on in this case was that a car dealership in Michigan performed routine maintenance on a customer's vehicle, which included a tire rotation. The dealership mechanic failed to properly tighten the lug nuts, causing the wheel to literally fall off the car when it was being driven away.
The couple sued the dealership, and their lawyer decided to get creative in the pursuit of maximum damages by accusing the dealership of not only negligence, but also fraud under the Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Act for "charge for repairs that are in fact not performed". Essentially, the legal argument was that by failing to tighten the lug nuts, the dealership never actually performed the tire rotation, and therefore committed fraud under MVSRA. Both sides in the case demanded a directed verdict, and the judge sided with the plaintiff, ruling that a tire rotation inherently involves the removal and replacement of lug nuts, and that by failing to complete this key step, the dealership did indeed fail to actually perform the tire rotation.
In practical terms, the bottom line is that for negligence alone the plaintiff would have been awarded damages in an amount determined by the jury, but for fraud as well the plaintiff would be awarded additional damages *plus* attorney fees, and possibly also double damages if there was a finding of willful or flagrant fraud.
-----
The court of appeals has just reversed the trial court, ruling that the incomplete tire rotation was negligent but not fraudulent as a matter of plain-language interpretation of the statute. Here's the actual ruling if anyone is interested.
----
In my opinion, this is a sound ruling. I think there's a clear common sense distinction between fraudulently *not performing a service at all* and negligently *performing the service incompetently*, the plaintiff in this case was certainly the victim of negligence, but claiming fraud was grossly overreaching and the plaintiff's lawyers deserved to be smacked for it.
What went on in this case was that a car dealership in Michigan performed routine maintenance on a customer's vehicle, which included a tire rotation. The dealership mechanic failed to properly tighten the lug nuts, causing the wheel to literally fall off the car when it was being driven away.
The couple sued the dealership, and their lawyer decided to get creative in the pursuit of maximum damages by accusing the dealership of not only negligence, but also fraud under the Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Act for "charge for repairs that are in fact not performed". Essentially, the legal argument was that by failing to tighten the lug nuts, the dealership never actually performed the tire rotation, and therefore committed fraud under MVSRA. Both sides in the case demanded a directed verdict, and the judge sided with the plaintiff, ruling that a tire rotation inherently involves the removal and replacement of lug nuts, and that by failing to complete this key step, the dealership did indeed fail to actually perform the tire rotation.
In practical terms, the bottom line is that for negligence alone the plaintiff would have been awarded damages in an amount determined by the jury, but for fraud as well the plaintiff would be awarded additional damages *plus* attorney fees, and possibly also double damages if there was a finding of willful or flagrant fraud.
-----
The court of appeals has just reversed the trial court, ruling that the incomplete tire rotation was negligent but not fraudulent as a matter of plain-language interpretation of the statute. Here's the actual ruling if anyone is interested.
----
In my opinion, this is a sound ruling. I think there's a clear common sense distinction between fraudulently *not performing a service at all* and negligently *performing the service incompetently*, the plaintiff in this case was certainly the victim of negligence, but claiming fraud was grossly overreaching and the plaintiff's lawyers deserved to be smacked for it.
