- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Michigan court rules tire rotation doesn't need to include tightening lug nuts
Posted on 10/24/19 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 10/24/19 at 1:27 pm
quote:
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.
Does Tire Rotation Include Tightening Lug Nuts? Michigan Court Thinks About It For Awhile, Concludes 'No'
Posted on 10/24/19 at 1:30 pm to rickgrimes
quote:
Michigan court rules tire rotation doesn't need to include tightening lug nuts
Thats not what they ruled. THey ruled it didnt violate the MVSRA.
Im sure this is a case of the attorney choosing the wrong method of suing and not just a brain dead jury. is negligence a part of MVSRA?
This post was edited on 10/24/19 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 10/24/19 at 1:31 pm to rickgrimes
Did they call Ron White in to testify? Apparently the clerk may have gone to tire college but skipped lug nut day.
Posted on 10/24/19 at 1:31 pm to rickgrimes
Our legal system is both the best and worst in the world.
Posted on 10/24/19 at 1:34 pm to rickgrimes
quote:
Anaya, who sustained lower back and leg injuries in the crash,

Posted on 10/24/19 at 1:37 pm to rickgrimes
I imagine we’re not getting the whole story.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read stories like this that seem so unbelievably ridiculous. And then later we get the other side of the story, or, the full story.
Then you say ooooh that’s why the original story seemed so ridiculous. It’s because lots of crucial information was left out.
It happens ALL THE TIME.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read stories like this that seem so unbelievably ridiculous. And then later we get the other side of the story, or, the full story.
Then you say ooooh that’s why the original story seemed so ridiculous. It’s because lots of crucial information was left out.
It happens ALL THE TIME.
Posted on 10/24/19 at 1:39 pm to PrimeTime Money
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/7/25 at 10:19 am
Posted on 10/24/19 at 1:42 pm to rickgrimes
quote:
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
Not sure how forgetting to do something falls under "unfair and deceptive practices"?
Posted on 10/24/19 at 1:46 pm to MLCLyons
quote:
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
Anaya hired the wrong attorney.
Posted on 10/24/19 at 1:48 pm to MLCLyons
quote:
Not sure how forgetting to do something falls under "unfair and deceptive practices"?
Well me dropping my truck off for service then being told the service was done but key steps being forgotten or left out could be considered deceptive. Especially when I’m told it’s complete.
Posted on 10/24/19 at 1:48 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
Thats not what they ruled. THey ruled it didnt violate the MVSRA.
Im sure this is a case of the attorney choosing the wrong method of suing and not just a brain dead jury. is negligence a part of MVSRA?
Yea.. The ruling is still bad, but not what the article makes it out to be. They affirmed that the mechanic was negligent, so he is still on the hook.
All they held is that an incorrectly performed repair is not the same as failing to perform the repair at all, which is what the MVSRA prohibits.
Posted on 10/24/19 at 1:50 pm to MLCLyons
Way things are worded is misleading.
Like the woman suing McDonald's for her coffee being hot.
Everyone says, yeah duh, coffee is hot. But ignore that the coffee was excessively hot, boiling hot. Also, they point out the punitive damages awarded but neglect that the lady only asked for them to cover her medical and only lawyered up when McDonald's said no.
Here, upper Court ruled MVSRA was not violated, but they sued on that in addition to negligence
So the appeal courts decision would negate the $70,000 charge in legal fees but not the $40,000 in damages
Like the woman suing McDonald's for her coffee being hot.
Everyone says, yeah duh, coffee is hot. But ignore that the coffee was excessively hot, boiling hot. Also, they point out the punitive damages awarded but neglect that the lady only asked for them to cover her medical and only lawyered up when McDonald's said no.
Here, upper Court ruled MVSRA was not violated, but they sued on that in addition to negligence
So the appeal courts decision would negate the $70,000 charge in legal fees but not the $40,000 in damages
This post was edited on 10/24/19 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 10/24/19 at 1:52 pm to rickgrimes
Now mechanics can charge you a lug nut tightening fee
Popular
Back to top
