• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Well this is news to me.. Tightening of lug nuts not part of tire rotation.

BeepBeepRR

Well-Known Member
Local time
6:18 AM
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
9,558
Reaction score
14,930
Location
Atlanta,Ga
Michigan Court Rules Tire Rotation Does Not Include Tightening Lug Nuts

This is a wild case out of Michigan. If you’re a resident, turns out, a Michigan appeals court has decided a tire rotation service does not include tightening the lug nuts.

Not only is that illogical, but it also opens up a whole new arena for safety and legal issues.

The way this information came to light was through Samuel Anaya and Doris Myricks. Back in 2013 the couple took their car to a dealership in Grand Rapids for basic maintenance which included a tire rotation. On the way home, the left front wheel came off because, of course, the mechanic failed to tighten the lug nuts. The Myricks’ proceeded to sue the dealership for negligence.

Their attorney for the trial brought in the Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Act (MVSRA) which is a 1974 law that protects car owners against “unfair and deceptive practices” by mechanics in addition to negligence charges. When used, a defendant that violates the MVSRA must pay damages along with the plaintiff’s legal and court fees.

Initially, the court ruled that the dealer and mechanic had violated the MVSRA since the mechanic admitted he forgot to tighten the lug nuts. The jury went ahead and awarded $40,000 in damages and that the dealership cover the $70,000 in attorney and legal fees.

All sounds well. However, that motion was appealed by the dealership. And the appeals court ruled that the MVSRA had NOT been violated. Huh.

While the MVSRA protects drivers from “charge for repairs that are in fact not performed”, the judges decided the next step was to see if the tire rotation was performed. The word “perform” is where things get tricky and technical. Because yes, the rotation was performed. But was it performed correctly? If you want the exact words:

“We conclude, under the plain language of MCL257.1307a, that defendants “performed” a tire rotation, albeit negligently…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.”

So, essentially, the judges ruled that a tire rotation does not include tightening the lug nuts. The only requirement is “remov[ing] the tires and replace them on different axles or sides of the vehicle.” It does not involve using a torque wrench to tighten the lug nuts.

Basically, going forward, Michigan residents have two options. Either appeal the case and hope it heads to the State Supreme Court. Or, have the MVSRA clarified to include such details.
 
So then putting oil in the car after an oil change is not included as part of the deal ? ! ?
 
What kinda legal logic is that? It's like getting your oil changed and the mechanic forgot to refill the engine, "the oil changed from some to none" so there...LOL you cant make this **** up.
 
It's the leftie snowflakes! They refuse to turn the lug nuts to the right! Righty tighty,leftie screw loosey! If I took my 70 Charger into that shop,they would only tighten the lugs on the drivers side!
 
Well I hope the next time that judge has a tire rotation, they don't tighten his! And this guy is a judge!!!
 
So them loosening them to take the wheels off is part of the rotation. How in the HELL is tightening them not part of that? I am sure this will be over ruled. Freaking world today is full of brainless people. Loosen that fat as judges seat bolts under his chair and watch him bust his ***.. I bet money he would sue the people who assembled his chair.
 
If I sold and or installed tires I now know how my next advertisement would read!!!
 
Here is the document discussed in that article. Not sure where in this mumbo jumbo it says the mechanic can be an asshole or limited on brain waves but I'm sure its in thee somewhere..

MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICE AND REPAIR ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 300 of 1974

257.1307 Prohibited conduct.

Sec. 7.

A motor vehicle repair facility that is subject to this act, or a person that is an owner or operator of a motor vehicle repair facility that is subject to this act, shall not, directly or through an agent or employee, do any of the following:
(a) Enter into a contract with a customer that uses a waiver to circumvent or evade this act.
(b) Enter into a contract that takes advantage of a customer's inability to reasonably protect his or her interests because of his or her illiteracy or inability to understand the language of an agreement, if the facility knows or reasonably should know of the customer's illiteracy or inability to understand.
(c) Enter into a contract with a customer that has gross discrepancies between the oral representations of the facility and the written agreement covering the same transaction.
(d) Make, either written or orally, an untrue or misleading statement of a material fact to a customer.
(e) Fail to reveal a material fact to a customer that the customer could not reasonably know if that omission tends to mislead or deceive the customer.
(f) Enter into a contract with a customer that attempts to abrogate, disclaim, or disallow the legal rights, obligations, or remedies of the customer.
(g) Allow a customer to sign an acknowledgment, certificate, or other writing that affirms acceptance, delivery, compliance with a requirement of law, or other performance, if the facility knows or has reason to know that the statement is not true.
(h) Set up contractual provisions with a customer, including the statement of repairs and waivers, that are not specific in language, clearly described, or reasonably legible.
(i) Attempt to avoid or evade the law through a contract with a customer or any provision of a contract with a customer.
(j) If a contract with a customer is rescinded, canceled, or otherwise terminated under the terms of the contract or under this act, fail to promptly return any deposit, down payment, or other payment to the person that is entitled to receive it.
(k) Allow a customer to sign a document in blank relating to the repair of a motor vehicle.
(l) Fail to give a customer a copy of a document evidencing the engagement of a facility at the time the document is executed by the customer.
(m) When returning a repaired vehicle to a customer, fail to give a written statement of repairs to the customer that discloses all of the following:
(i) The repairs needed, as determined by the facility.
(ii) The repairs requested by the customer.
(iii) The repairs authorized by the customer.
(iv) The facility's estimate of repair costs.
(v) The actual costs of repairs.
(vi) The repairs or services performed, including a detailed identification of all parts that were replaced and a specification of which parts are new OEM, new, used, rebuilt, OEM surplus, or reconditioned.
(vii) A certification that authorized repairs were completed properly or a detailed explanation of an inability to complete repairs properly. The owner of the facility, or an individual designated by the owner to represent the facility, shall sign the certification statement. The statement shall include the name of the mechanic who performed the diagnosis and the repair.
 
So then putting oil in the car after an oil change is not included as part of the deal ? ! ?

Oh, yes, of course! But theres no need to screw the filter canister all the way on.
Sounds like Michigan needs visiting judges, this time a visiting mechanic judge would have been good!! More seriously, it does seem that a judge needs a little more in the way of credietials to understand the situation at hand, and not just twist the sh*t out of the law like they did when they were lawyers!!! I'd bet any judge who is also a car hobbyist such as ourselves would have not ruled in this fashion.
 
The Supreme Court isn't much better, they say Police do not have to protect individuals. The case they heard was of a cop watching as an ex beat, cut, and stabbed his ex-wife. He had a club and gun, but only told the guy to quit. She lived, but was severely hurt and disfigured.
 
Well I hope the next time that judge has a tire rotation, they don't tighten his! And this guy is a judge!!!

Right! And the Unabomber didnt blow up bombs, he merely assembled them right??!! Why did the judge have a problem with him?**

(** Disclaimer; Lefty71 does not encourage, approve of or otherwise condone bringing any harm to others under any circumstances).
 
Last edited:
No, putting new oil in is part of an oil change, but putting the drain plug back in may not be.

And a new plastic washer is 1 hour more plus the cost of the washer . I hope a wheel falls off on a judges car. Then they can complain about there ruling
 
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top