Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway0a5e | Hacker News Reader

Your peddling FUD. Just because you touched something in a way that wasn't specifically authorized by the original manufacturer of that something doesn't make you liable for anything that something does in perpetuity unless there is evidence that it's actually your fault.

Homeowners insurance covers the fire. They probably don't go after anyone unless they have specific reason to believe the loss was probably caused by a pattern of action that could result in a winnable lawsuit (good luck figuring that out when you have a melted lump of car to to work with). If someone does somehow go after the shop their insurance goes to bat for them and digs up all the reasons they're not liable and this was a reasonable repair that their customer performed.

View on HN

I highly recommend you ask an attorney about it, that's what I did (and paid for) and I'm reiterating the opinion they provided. Not an attorney, not your attorney, not legal advice.

I'm not in the repair business, and I own no TSLA stock; I have no incentive to peddle FUD, and actively support right to repair. Crucially, right to repair does not mean an absence of or indemnification from liability.

>I highly recommend you ask an attorney about it,

Funny, that's exactly what I did.

> I'm reiterating the opinion they provided

So am I.

I repair and modify things, typically light commercial vehicles and the equipment mounted to or towed by them. I work on the economic low end of the market so I get all the stuff that real shops want nothing to do with and have had to consider how liable I am for my work. I have had these sorts of discussions in a non-professional context (i.e no money changed hands) with an attorney who specializes in businesses in social services settings (so the advice is probably biased toward whatever he finds his clients defending against most often) and aside from the typical disclaimers[0][1][2][3][4][5] that any responsible lawyer will give you I feel confident enough in my analysis that I put my money where my mouth is making similiar repairs in my day to day life.

The general gist of things is that for a successful lawsuit there has to be some evidence that the work you performed caused the injury and even if so there then also needs to be a precedent of strict liability or you would to have had to do something negligent or check the boxes for some other tort, but I've been advised negligence is the one you really have to watch out for in a professional setting. Negligence is a fuzzy concept but it suffices to say that proving it to the standard required for a civil suit would be a very uphill battle for a reasonably standard repair procedure performed in a reasonably standard setting.

Strict liability scares me far more than a lawsuit arising out of alleged negligence. I can do good, defensible work and stand by it. I cannot know all the areas of law where strict liability may be an issue. I cannot control whether my customers use the things I have repaired for them in a strict liability context (e.g. fumigation, overhead lifting) which could make my party to a lawsuit.

No I didn't pay for the advice but for the volume and riskiness of work I do I'm content.

[0] if you're not paying for it it's not legal advice

[1] nobody can make guarantees about what will happen in court

[2] you have the wrong demographics to get sympathy from judges in this state, they'll expect you to know better than to cut corners so don't cut corners

[3] bad facts, bad case law, hope your malpractice kills a skinhead and not a single mother or you'll be the case law

[4] just defending yourself can be no more than a consultation fee or it can be ruinously expensive

[5] if a megacorp or the state sues you everything goes out the window because the playing field is so unlevel.

There is a fair bit wrong with this advice.

CA is a joint and several liability state. Joint and several liability is the legal doctrine that each defendant in a personal injury claim may be held responsible for ALL the victim's economic damages. Importantly this can occur if you are fractionally at fault.

You've parked 10 feet off the side of the freeway, 16 feet away from any lane. Someone is going 80 miles an hour, passing cars, then (likely) falls asleep and veers sharply off the road, then along the side of the road and hits your parked truck.

Even though you are fractionally at fault you are on the hook for everything.

From actually seeing cases first hand

1) If you have money

2) you have a connection to an accident however small, particularly a fatal one, and very particularly with any kind of sympathetic angle (wife and children bereaved and at risk of being homeless etc

then you will be named in the lawsuit. And at least in CA - even if the husband was 90% at fault (to a normal person the one who did things wrong). YOU could pay out everything

I kind of took for granted the fact that my customers are typically the party with the money by several orders of magnitude so I don't have to worry much about joint liability even though I live in one of those states.

You're definitely not wrong, "don't be the only party with the money" was one of the things my law professor drilled into us but for a consumer getting their car (or whatever) repaired they don't really have to worry about being the guy with the money since any shop will have a ton of money via insurance and insurance will have a ton of practice defending frivolous claims.

I also forgot the "anyone can sue anyone for anything, doesn't mean they win, doesn't mean it won't cost you money to fight them" disclaimer.

Perfect - the best defense BY FAR is to have less / little / no $$.

This is unique in CA - other party can be 90% at fault - so you’d think they’d have to pay (some states do whoever is 51%+ pays). But you can actually be the one paying rather than getting paid even if they hit you.

> This is unique in CA

No its not, its the pure comparative fault rule followed by 13 states.

> - other party can be 90% at fault - so you’d think they’d have to pay

And you’d be right, if you suffered damages. If they were 90% responsible and you were 10% responsible, they’d have to suffer 9× the compensible injury that you did to net anything, because California is a pure comparative fault state.

> (some states do whoever is 51%+ pays).

Incorrect.

Some states do each of:

* Whoever is >0% at fault cannot collect from other parties (pure contributory negligence).

* Whoever is at least 50% at fault cannot collect from other parties (one modified comparative fault rule.)

* Whoever is at least 51% at fault cannot collect from other parties (another modified comparative fault rule.)

None require 51% fault to be required to pay.

Let me give you an example - see if you can figure out who will pay and how much. The answer may surprise you.

Husband / driver falls asleep at the wheel while trying to speed home (going 70-80MPH). Weaves and then veers sharply off the freeway, hitting a parked vehicle parked well clear of the roadway and killing themselves, damaging the parked vehicle and causing pain and suffering to driver of parked vehicle.

Wife and family brings suit against driver and company owning parked vehicle for damages including funeral and burial costs, unreimbursed medical expenses, other out-of-pocket expenses, loss of income and financial support, loss of insurance coverage, loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support.

Questions you may wish to consider.

Family bringing case has no money - there is no chance of collection. Guy falling asleep and running off the road was only source of income.

Company owning parked vehicle has money - there is a high chance of collection on any judgement.

Who will pay out in CA. The guy causing the situation by running off the road and smashing into a parked vehicle at 80 MPH? Or the company owning the vehicle he smashed into.

In CA - the answer may surprise you. And the size of awards may surprise you.

This makes me want to move out of CA as soon as possible.

Your choices then are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.

The rest either have pure joint and several liability in which each defendant is responsible for the full amount of damages (Alabama, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia), or like California have modified joint and several liability in which defendants above some threshold fault percentage are responsible for the full amount of damages (Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin).

Threshold fault is much much less bad / weird

> Even though you are fractionally at fault you are on the hook for everything.

It is important to note that you can then sue the other at fault parties for whatever you had to pay that was above your fair share.

For example if I'm 90% at fault and you are 10% at fault in something that causes $1 million damages to someone and they come after you and win $1 million, you can turn around and sue me for for $900k.

I might not have $900k and so you might still end up screwed but in that case it is either you who gets screwed or the person you and I injured, and the idea behind joint and several liability is if we have to screw someone it should not be someone who was at fault.

I think you meant injured at end.

Another part you are forgetting is these are often designed to save govt money. Should a rich person slightly involved pick up the tab, or should the kids be homeless and costing $ in social services kind of thing.

Note though that YOU can be the one 90% at fault and the person you hit has to pay if you are broke (wife will sue because you died ) Ralph’s grocery caught this type of case all the way and lost

> CA is a joint and several liability state.

Most states are either joint and several liability states or (more commonly, and as California actually is), modified joint and several liability states.

> And at least in CA - even if the husband was 90% at fault (to a normal person the one who did things wrong). YOU could pay out everything.

No, because California is also a comparative fault state, so if the decedent (for wrongful death claims) abd/or plaintiff (for any claims) is 90% responsible, other actors who might be jointly (for economic damages) or severally (for non-economic damages) liable would only be liable for up to a total of 10% of the resulting damages (any tortfeasor for the full amount under joint liability, or the amount of their proportionate responsibility for several liability.)

To be fair when you ask an attorney "how to", their default answer is "don't".

I would bet a lawyer would tell you not plug a third party phone into the AT&T phone system either in case you damaged it, as AT&T disingenuously argued would happen.

> Your peddling FUD. Just because you touched something in a way that wasn't specifically authorized by the original manufacturer of that something doesn't make you liable for anything that something does in perpetuity unless there is evidence that it's actually your fault.

I dunno. I think if I walked in with some random "brake rotor" that wasn't like any of the OEM or aftermarket ones they were used to seeing, the mechanic didn't know much about and couldn't verify would work sufficiently, even if it bolted into place, they might tell me to take a hike. I expect they would do a similar thing if I wanted airbags that went off replaced with something that looked like it wouldn't work right. Or a gas tank that looked suspect.

I know I would turn people away if I was a mechanic and they came to me with those requests. Maybe those items worked perfectly fine, but if I don't have assurance I'm making a good call (like, for example, by knowing I'm replacing components with parts that are trusted by the OEM or have a proven rack record), why would I take that risk, legally or morally (if I think the person is making a bad decision)? Some decisions impact safety (especially when dealing with components that have a lot to do with safety), and I think those deserve some consideration.

That doesn't mean Tesla should be the only entity allowed to repair though. Perhaps some of these components are perfectly fine, and you just need to find a mechanic that has enough experience with them to know that (but good luck finding the experienced mechanic instead of the one that doesn't care when looking around I guess, I'm not sure how you tell them apart). Competition is generally good.

>I dunno. I think if I walked in with some random...

They'd tell you not to bring your own parts because they make money off parts and it's a variable they can't control and can introduce warranty headaches for them if it fails and it can waste their time if it's not rich (which is a real PITA for the tech in a flat rate pay system, they lose money directly). They have suppliers they like to deal with and want to stick to. As you get into less cookie cutter, higher dollar or more informal work it is much more common for the customer to provide parts. Oddball or obsolete heavy equipment is often dropped off with a rebuild-able core the repair shop is expected to use and/or modify because that's more economically efficient than having the repair entity source parts. Of course this can create hang-ups but these businesses expect that to happen sometimes. It's not super streamlined for high speed parts swapping on consumer automobile repair is. For side gig type work the mechanic might just tell the customer to go to the car parts store or Rockauto and buy it himself.

>wasn't like any of the OEM or aftermarket ones they were used to seeing

>couldn't verify would work sufficiently

You're giving examples where the professional using their judgement is assessing the parts to be suspect causing the potential work to be sub par and not something they can stand behind. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a case where the professional used their judgement and called the repair (tap the plastic, install a nipple) good enough and there was no reason to believe it wasn't other than pure speculation.

>but if I don't have assurance I'm making a good call

That's the thing, the guy tapping the plastic does have fairly good assurance he is making a good call because he has training and or experience repairing vehicles. He's going to have a good idea what does and doesn't work. At some point someone has to stick their neck out and make a judgement call. That's why people get paid, to make decisions. You can try and be a drone kick all the thinking up the chain to corporate but you're leaving money and satisfied customers on the table. You can run a business that way. It's perfectly valid. But you can also be the independent shop that just uses their professional judgement to do things like repair the battery on a Tesla or, a drain and fill plug to a Ford PTU or replace the Toyota oil filter cap with the metal one after the plastic one gets chewed up.

The auto shop by my house lets you bring your own parts, but if you do so, they charge a higher labour rate, and don't provide any warranty.

"Just because you touched something in a way that wasn't specifically authorized by the original manufacturer of that something doesn't make you liable for anything that something does in perpetuity unless there is evidence that it's actually your fault."

That would technically be part of "right to repair" legislation.

insurance companies underwrite warranties.

thats enough to frighten anyone. insurance companies live on FUD

Reply on news.ycombinator.com