Taking the a$$hole mechanic to court

[minidisco]

Hey gang,

I've filed papers with Ontario Small Claims Court to ask for restitution of some of the funds "taken" by the a$$hole mechanic last year - you may remember reading my post on that fiasco - and I NEED SOME HELP PLEASE. I'd like to ask for some backup from the members of this forum, to combat the following allegations:

[1] taking our truck "off road" greatly exceeds the manufacturer's specifications
[2] installing Rancho shocks greatly exceeds the manufacturer's specifications
[3] having an AAL installed impedes the driveability of the vehicle
[4] having an Shrockworks bumper and Fabguy sliders greatly exceeds the manufacturer's specifications

The mechanic's mommy (a lawyer) is representing him. Their response to my claim, received last week, consists of 13 pages of accolades from a motorcycle forum on which he was praised for having changed oil and some brakes on a few bikes; also has 10 photos of my truck (from Facebook) showing my vehicle mostly-stock (except for my KC Hilites) and a pic of my driving through a muddy puddle in 2003; and 4 pages of ranting in which he consistently claims that the work he performed was according to Ontario guidelines (??) and that the "damages" are a result solely of "exceeding manufacturer's specifications" by installing the AAL [previously], changing the old Rancho shocks with new Rancho shocks, and his inability to properly index the new torsion bar because of my stock 15" tires.

I have photos of the truck being worked on; pics of it before taking it in; pics of it "slammed" when I got it back from him twice, Mike's report from Milton Nissan with additional photos... and 2 buddies who were with me when I collected the truck the last time and put it on a flat bed to take to Milton Nissan. But I'd sure love to also have:

[1] some members as witnesses to what our trucks do, even when stock
[2] any Nissan mechanic (or best, if Mike could come) to note that my tires ARE stock 15" rims with rubber
[3] any other backup any of you could recommend

So who can help me out please?

[minidisco]

Here's a reminder of the initial posts from last year:
http://www.cntc.ca/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3983

[Snafu]

Need to be mindful of the public that can read these posts

The points raised really do not have anything to do with the repair job they performed (R&R the torsion bars). Namely how does exceeding the manufacturer specifications or the driveability of the vehicle prevent a proper installation of the torsion bars?

What are these "manufacturer Specifications" they claim that you have greatly exceeded? If you painted the truck a different colour would this exceed manufacturer's spec and make him unable to replace the torsion bars?

Is there a standard definition for "off-road"? Could the unpaved shoulder be considered off-road? What car or truck cannot drive on that?

Careful of the smoke and mirror show and stick to the objective...incompetent mechanic/shop.

[Bow_Tied]

Standard lawyer practice to mention as many points as possible, even if some are weak arguements, as humans tend to stack arguements in a comparison setting. Return the favour.

[minidisco]

OK, I've received the forms from the Small Claims Court - and now I need a few of you kind folks to come out in person and help me out by speaking to the nature of some of the driving we do with stock-equipped trucks as well as by some of us with "improvements" done to the trucks. I've asked my 3 friends - who were with me each time this guy released my truck, and then I had to bring it right back within minutes - to come and stand witness. I've also asked Mike (Morpheus) to come and speak on my behalf, as his shop was who put my truck back in ship-shape in just a few hours....

.. but what I need would be 2-3 more people WITHOUT shops, with improved trucks, who can address the claims that installing better shocks and a better stabilizer bar makes the truck "grossly exceed manufacturer's specifications", something to which I hope Morpheus can also speak volumes.

Please PM me your name, phone number(s) and mailing address if you can come out to help me.
The hearing is mandatory, and it's on 20Dec @ 2pm, at Yonge & Sheppard. As a witness, you would NOT need to appear at this hearing, but your name and address needs to be submitted by me to the courts by Dec.4 at the latest.

[medic]

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/WorkArea/Download ... 2147489377

Section 2.04

"Where a lawyer is acting for a friend or family member, the lawyer may have a conflict of interest because the personal relationship may interfere with the lawyer’s duty to provide objective, disinterested professional advice to the client."

Bring this up.

[minidisco]

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/WorkArea/Download ... 2147489377

Section 2.04

"Where a lawyer is acting for a friend or family member, the lawyer may have a conflict of interest because the personal relationship may interfere with the lawyer’s duty to provide objective, disinterested professional advice to the client."

Bring this up.

Very good find, thanks a lot!!!

[Nd4SpdSe]

grossly exceed manufacturer's specifications

He doesn't say that it was exceeded in a negative or positive way?

Guess he should install aftermarket replacement parts either, since most "meet or exceed original equipment manufactures specifications"

Also a question. With your modifications, could you legally pass a safety inspection? If you can get a recent and passed safety inspection, maybe ideally by a 3rd party that doesn't use Milton since they did the work, than it's another way to CYA

[Bow_Tied]

.. but what I need would be 2-3 more people WITHOUT shops, with improved trucks, who can address the claims that installing better shocks and a better stabilizer bar makes the truck "grossly exceed manufacturer's specifications", something to which I hope Morpheus can also speak volumes..

Mike aside, would any of us practically qualify as expert witnesses? His lawyer would have a hayday with that I bet.

A safety and etest would mean more, no?


If these aftermarket parts were unsafe or inappropriate why would he even install them without informing you?

[Bow_Tied]

I wonder if a law student would help you pro-bono?

[Nd4SpdSe]

A safety and etest would mean more, no?

No need for an e-test. His issues revolve around the suspension system, no need to being in irrelevant information, especially since they tend to fail

[Bow_Tied]

A safety and etest would mean more, no?

No need for an e-test. His issues revolve around the suspension system, no need to being in irrelevant information, especially since they tend to fail

I disagree. You are looking at this from strictly a practical and reasonable perspective which has no place in this case.

Seriously though, I would include a valid etest report if it was available. The case against him stacks a number of useless points on top of each other to make it appear like a monumental problem truck. The more official data that indicates the truck is legally: owned, insured, operated, and compliant with all applicable provincial regualtions, the better. This defence, IMHO, needs paper work that demonstrates, insurability and compliance with safety standards. If some of this paperwork is somewhat "indirect" to the main point it doesn't matter, it lends to the credibility of a maintained vehicle in compliance with regulations which I'd bet a lot is exactly what the judge can look for to make the decision easy.

If this was my case to fight I would have:
safety certificate
etest
proof of current registration and insurance
before and after print-outs of the alignment specifications/measurements
statements from at least one licensed mechanic indicating the truck is:
"compliant with provincial regulations", "safe", and that the components in question "meet or exceed the strength and safety of the OE equipment", and that "the work done previously was of inferior/inadequate workmanship" and was "not within specification" and that "was able to be reworked to specification without the replacement of the components in question".

JMO.

[Nd4SpdSe]

Ah, ya, makes sence.

that "the work done previously was of inferior/inadequate workmanship" and was "not within specification" and that "was able to be reworked to specification without the replacement of the components in question".

I'd ask what are these "specification" he's listing.
1) How does "Use" (referencing off-roading) become a specification? How you use your truck is your buisness, all he needs to do is make sure your vehicle is safe for use. If you use your truck for the Baja 500 on the weekends, you decide to tow 10'000lbs on a regular basis (with a 5000lb limit truck), fill the truck with cement bags and drive with the rear axle on sitting on the bump stops for 200km until you get home, or constantly curb hop while mall crawling is none of his business. He can curse at the "abuse" that you do to your truck all he wants, but he has no right to control you use of your vehicle. His job is to perform the work required and make sure your vehicle is safe for use when it leaves.

2) Shocks as far as I can tell, would only fail if they are physically damaged or missing. Specifications is more "how you like your ride quality". I'd really question these "shock specifications" he's referencing. Curious to know if there's suspension differences between the XE and SE. Stock wise, it looks like there's different ride height options, especially if you include the 02-04.

3) This may require testimony by a suspension specialist. People add leafs all the time, especially for those who haul and tow heavy loads. He's a mechanic, not a suspension expect. I would see about getting a statement, written even, by a leaf spring specialist.

4) Which "specifications"? They talking about safety or load/weight? Sliders/steps are an accessory and I would say it a moot point, but bumpers have to obide by safety/crash/dot standards. I can't say how these are categorised in that aspect, but a safety test would give you your answer.

5) "any Nissan mechanic (or best, if Mike could come) to note that my tires ARE stock 15" rims with rubber"
Shouldn't need to go that far. How about this?:
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/2001-Nissan-Xter ... 84&vxp=mtr
A sales prochure would/should not only list the tire size for the truck, but it should list and show a picture of the stock rims. This would be clear-cut evidence IMO.

[minidisco]

Among the 10 photos he leeched from my Facebook account (don't know how he got access to them, they're in a private folder), he included these shots - to his detriment, naturally, if it did come to a full court case and presentation:













In every one of these photos I have "stock size rims and tires", the first few are the actual 2001 Xterra XE steel rims, and on the last 2 shots it shows that I exchanged them with the aluminium rims from my old 1990 Pathfinder SE (tires included). According to my owner's manual, they are identical specs. So coming up with "tires" as a defence statement is already moot.

On the Rancho shocks, I can get the specs from their website. I am going to try and solicit the attendance of my previous mechanic (the guy who worked on my truck between the demise of Dermac and the discovery of Milton Nissan). In fact, if any of the mechanics from Dermac are still around, perhaps I could also talk to them... wish I could remember the name of the "big guy" who worked on my truck while at Dermac a few times: he changed my clutch to the Bully clutch back in 2004(ish) and also installed my first set of Rancho shocks and the AAL - and then personally took care of the alignment then.

Lastly, the Shrockworks bumper has NOTHING to do with how the truck drives. Neither do the sliders - that replaced the stock rails, which I still have and would love to bring along with me to the courtroom if I had to...

[minidisco]

So: anyone else wanna volunteer to help me out on this..? I need to send in the forms to court by next week Tuesday at the latest - and I'd love to have at least 2 more names on it before sending it.

[Bow_Tied]

I don't wheel a nissan, so my opinion on what you are asking for I think is not what you want.

I wonder if the after market parts manufacturer's have any standard wording on their product or website indicating "compatible with" stock equipment or similar?

[Miner]

Can you find a Nissan brochure or advertising material for your year / model? The images depicting the same use should support your case.

[Nd4SpdSe]

Even the Press Kits seem to give you what you need:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2000-NISSAN-XTE ... 0472933249



http://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/usa/ ... ress-kit-2

[minidisco]

These are great leads, thanks - I'm also bringing in the TV commercials they had in 2002 and 2003 (see my screen capture in the previous post) showing the same thing. But definitely stuff in writing helps. Thanks again for this.

I would still like to have at least 1 or 2 more names on my list, though. If for nothing else, so at least it looks "overwhelming".

[Fyrtowr]

I have a few videos on YouTube of my wife and I wheeling my stock Xterra on Hydroline and stuff. You can use any of that if you want. Username is Fyrtowr