Not to argue, but how is it negligent not to know that a previous
owner or shop made a change to a vehicle? Dipstick level is so seldom
altered that it is not likely on the checklist of things to look at
when a car comes into a shop. If shops did check a car over to this
level of detail, they would have been sued for padding the bill with
unnecessary procedures as only one in ten thousand vehicles might have
the problem. If they checked for everything that could possibly be
wrong with a car when it went in, nobody could afford ANY automotive
service.

And, if the owner or previous owner knew about the modified oil level,
the car has been operating this way for some time, and the symptoms
should have shown up already. If the owner or previous owner DID know
about the situation and didn't tell the shop, then they are
responsible.

The law normally looks at a course of action in light of whether a
reasonable person would take it. It seems unreasonable that a shop
would look at marks on a dipstick as anything but accurate, especially
if the car had never exhibited overfilling symptoms before.

Jim

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Bob Stevens <mtbiker62@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's the mechanics responsibility to KNOW what they are doing, what they are
> working on, how to fix "the problem", while the customer
> has no responsibility or liability for any of that whatsoever. This is only
> one example, but there are hundreds if not thousands like it.
> http://ezinearticles.com/?Auto-Mechanics-Liability-For-Damages-Resulting-From-Negligent-Repairs&id=2675550
> State licensed technicians of ANY kind, who are taking $$ in exchange for
> their services, are always held liable for their work.
> It's a very poor precedent to let a paid individual off the hook for their
> "professional services".
> That's why Utah Imports drove 6 1/2 hours each way, to pick up my van in
> Montrose, CO after they installed a cam belt tensioner
> that seized after 600 miles in the fall of 2007 ... they know how this
> works.
> bob
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Don Hanson <dhanson928@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> � The idea to go to the manual and get the proper capacity from the specs,
>> then fill the engine and mark the dipstick...that will solve the problem of
>> overfilling.
>>
>> � Expecting that shop to 'make good' for damage to a motor they filled to
>> "the mark"? �That might be difficult and actually a bit unreasonable. �They
>> can't be expected to double-check everything to make sure the vehicle they
>> are working on conforms to the specs it is supposed to have. �When you get a
>> vehicle to work on you can reasonably expect it to be accurately
>> configured. � A miss-marked dipstick is not something any mechanic "must"
>> anticipate in his normal trade.
>> � Don Hanson
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>