akiratdk

Ally BcBeal??? Who is that???
Anyways... yea... the thing is that Austin... you used a base map..... I think that leaned the crap out of the car.... and pop goes the weasle...

jsplit

its "pop goes the wankel" dammit :\

nickpapagiorgio

I agree for the most part, but I still think you should sue the shop in small claims court. Basically under a standard negligence theory, you will have to prove several elements including causation. Negligence is proven by showing that (1) the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, (3) that the defendant's breach caused the injury, and (4) that the plaintiff suffered some type of damages or injury. When the first two elements are satisfied, i.e., duty and breach, the defendant's actions can be considered negligent. But just because he was negligent doesn’t' t mean that you will win because you still need to prove causation and damages. It makes sense if you think about it because people are negligent everyday but if their negligence doesn't cause any damages, then they are not liable. Here, the damages element is easy to satisfy because you now have a blown motor that is going to cost money to fix. Assuming you can establish duty and breach, which will be relatively easy in this situation, your hurdle will be proving causation. Causation is broken down into two sub-elements called (a) proximate cause and (b) cause in fact. Cause in fact can usually be determined by applying what is known as the "but-for" test of causation, which basically asks, "if but for the defendant’s negligent conduct, the plaintiff wouldn’t have suffered injury." If the answer is yes, then the defendant is the cause in fact of plaintiff’s injury. Proximate cause is more complicated but basically (and I am really simplifing this) requires that the injury and the defendant's negligent act be "proximate" to one and other, or, in other words, not too attenuated. Proximate cause is not a problem here because, assuming their negligent act was the "but for" cause your injury, there is no indication that it would not be considered legally proximate because, generally speaking, it was not too attenuated. Therefore, your problem is going to be proving cause in fact because you have no way of showing that "but for" their negligence your engine wouldn't have blown (because as stated earlier, there is literally hundreds of ways your engine could have blown in the absence of anyone's negligence).

Although I think you have a tough case to prove, I think you should sue this guy in small claims court because I think you have a decent chance of winning (unless he shows up with an attorney) and because even if you loose, it only cost like $60 to file the claim, what do you have to loose? Also, if you do file a claim, he may decide to come to some kind of settlement to avoid court. Keep in mind however, that if you bring this claim in small claims court a complicated legal analysis isn’t really required because small claims court is very informal. Basically it is simply the judge hearing both sides then deciding, based loosely on some principle of law, which side is right. It is a very "commonsensical" approach. So you aren’t going to need to worry about things such as “duty” and “breach,” but just keep those issues in mind when you are telling your story because it makes it easier on the judge to decide in your favor.

Good luck in what ever you decide,

Kevin

Edit: Please don't accuse me of "playing Alley Mcbeal"

Fumanchu

I think it was the Mc Donald straws he used for intercooler pipes that blew his motor. And the repeated burn outs he did at the RXecret7 BBQ didn't help either.

nickpapagiorgio

Damn, they are some small *** pipes.

Fumanchu

What you can't see there is he tried painting his blue couplings with red spray paint and the paint was melting off

The Lawyer

I completely agree with the advice from 'nickpapagiorgio' but would suggest that you exhaust all avenues of negotiation first. As soon as litigation begins you will become adverse parties and any amicable resolution often gets pushed further away. Litigation is the final resort.

nickpapagiorgio

I agree, but provided they're not willing to budge, nothing gets the old negotation ball rollin faster than a good old fashion certified-mail-sent complaint.

GoodfellaFD3S

iTrader: (213)

Jason----was the tuner baddog?

Fumanchu----damn, dude, ax to grind, lol?

Fumanchu

This how I see it. You ran around for over a half a year on a base map and at way over stock boost levels. Judging by your high school antics at the RXecret7 BBQ, chances are you did not take it easy on the car for all of those months. I thought base maps were to just be used to get your car front point "a" to point "b" until you could get it tuned. So 9 months later you strap your car on a dyno and the motor lets go. It would be one thing if the motor had 2k miles on it, or you just installed the PFC days earlier. But how the story sits right now, I feel it is not the shops fault. You shouldn't have half-assed it for 9 months.

austinsFD

sometimes thats better so break stuff in, you watch Ally McBeal, i feel sorry for you and your crashed rx7

austinsFD

no it was running rich e.g. flames out the tail pipe and 200 miles to a full tank (-:

austinsFD

sigh...once again they were replaced, and at the time i was running no more than 5 psi

austinsFD

the motor was fine. It passed on the compression test and was running great with no major signs of wear.

The main reason it blew was that the blew was because the boost spiked over 19psi and the engine port couldn't handle it. Wonder why the tuner didn't stop the dyno when he saw the boost spike from 15psi to 19+..hmmmm

Narfle

iTrader: (16)

that would ot have saved your engine, the spike is what killed it and its instant, thats why its called a spike. its not negligence. he didnt neglecgt yoru car he did what you told him to and something unforseeable happened. it was a problem withing your car that caused your engine to go hence it is your problem. if he had done 150 on the highway and hit a tree then he would be liable. but since you asked him to throw it on a dyno and he did and what you asked him to do with your car caused it to blow and they obviously have strong claims that it things you did that were detrimental to the life of your engine and you cant prove otherwise SUCK IT UP! its not their liability, its not their negligencem and its definitely not thier problem.

as per my law book
"there are five elements normally involved in negligence:
1) an obligation or responsibility on the part of the defendant towards proper coduct.
2) a standard of proper conduct. the conduct that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable, prudent person under the same conditions.
3) breach or violation of that standard. there must be soem conduct that violated the standard.
4) A chain of causation. there must be some connection shown between the negligent conduct and the result or final criminal outcome.
5) some harm or injusry results fromt he negligence.

there are 3 general typs of obligation
a) statutory(ie: written law)
b) unwritten obligation involving safety and welfare of others including property.(ie: a hunter doesnt shoot at moving bushes because it might be another hunter even thgouth it is not written anywhere)
c) occupational reponsibilities(railroad switch persons are obligated by their job to switch the track and upon failure to do so causing the loss of life or damage of property would be negligent)

"if a person suffers some harm or damage because of the actions or failure to act of anothe rperson the first step to consider in determining wether there was negligence is to establish whether there was an obligation or duty required of the person responsible"

"it msut be shown that the defendant had direct recourse to prevent the harm"

"the 'but for' rule says that if not but for the defendant the action harm would happened"

ill post more on this later... i have to go to a play

nickpapagiorgio

It's not possible to say that they are definitely not negligent. As I said earlier, negligence involves finding a duty and finding that the defendant breached that duty. The duty is always the same, to act as a reasonably prudent person would have under the circumstances. The problem is that it is somewhat of a subjective standard and cannot be determined as a matter of law. The duty issue here boils down to what a reasonably prudent performance shop mechanic would do under similar circumstances (i.e., when performing a dyno test). It is really impossible to define; all you can do is compare what the reasonably prudent auto mechanic would do with what these guys did. If a reasonably prudent auto mechanic would monitor the boost and make sure the boost didn't spike, and these guys didn't do that, then their conduct was negligent. The problem is proving what a reasonably prudent auto mechanic does and when it comes down to it, in small claims court, this issue will probably come down to whether the judge thinks that the mechanics failed to act reasonably. I honestly think that this will be easier to prove than causation because of how subjective it is.

Not tryin to argue, just tryin to clarify.

Kevin

Fumanchu

Yea, those damn boost spikes take minutes to build from 15-19psi.

diablone

iTrader: (2)

I find that hard to believe.

austinsFD

uh no, it happend in secounds

austinsFD

you would be suprised =P

Fumanchu

No kidding Einstein... How is your mechanic supposed to shut down the car before it spikes then??

MrFuzzy

iTrader: (1)

it was those damn kids with the wrenches

iluvmy3rdgen

i admit... i telapathically told him to cut the wastegate line...

mad_7tist

the tuner told me "it would have been fine, if it wasn't for you meddling teenagers!!"

austinsFD

whatever guys now its turning into a belligerency fest

when i see my boost spike i let off the gas..duh