let me know if you hear anything back! :hello::tup:

that is a bit f****d :shakes head:

No word from jalopnik or Lehto. The old lawfirm I use to work at all agreed that you should lawyer up out of county. This is strictly a dealership fault. Especially if you went in with the dealership knowing you were paying out of pocket. Warranty voiding only works if the warranty is actually in place.

Mechanic was out. I'll give him another call tonight. How is RJM coming along with it?

they're not

Good, thought I was going to have to make an account over there and knock some heads together lol

Disagreeing with something like this on a public forum is one thing, trying to fix what reputation that dealership still has in spite of their opinions on Isamu's situation is complete BS and I would have a few choice words for them.

We are trying to do as much as possible help Isamu out here and having a bunch of "kids" screwing with what we are able to do is BS.


Speaking of which, I went to my shop on Thursday 6/16/16 and talked to my service guys (does bolt ons, asthetics, service, no engine drops, tranny/clutch work) at 168 Motoring about everything and he had the following things to say after giving me a very shocked look most of the time:

RE- mechanic not being able to re-create brake failure due to brake line fluid leak in service bay, needed to take vehicle on test drive at highway speeds to test. Engine bay caught fire after test drive in service bay.

"We never take our customers cars out for a test drive at highway speeds because is unnecessary. Not only that you have no brakes... so why take the car out at highway speeds? You wouldn't be able to stop.
There's no situation that would help a vehicle with a known brake fluid leak on a test drive, period."

I asked him what the dealership should have done to prevent this;

"They should have fixed the brake line, cleaned the engine bay from any brake line fluid and residue, filled the brake lines, waiting for any sort of leak to form. If no leak formed, then take it for a test drive to make sure that after braking usage there was still no leak formed. Not to highway speeds though."

I asked him if that was the same thing he would do the same thing the dealership did or if he would do it the way he just said.

He said "The way I just said is the only way it should have been done"

Don't have a document written up, but hope it helps!

I don't understand the need for the written/signed statements. Is that just another hurdle the dealership owner is throwing at you to save face?

It's very apparent the mechanic drove it just for fun, because...

How would the mechanic be able to tell the existence, location, and severity of the brake fluid leak if he didn't clean up the fluid that was already spilled all over the engine bay? Gotta wipe off the mess to see the wound, that's just common sense.

This is extremely minor compared to the fire itself, but I've been wondering why the dealership would use a dry powder extinguisher, instead of CO2, on a customer's vehicle for a Class B fire. Sure, a dry chem works, but look at the mess. A CO2 would work just as well and leave little to no residue.

BTW, the powder in most dry chem extinguishers is sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), potassium bicarbonate (very similar to baking soda), or monoammonium phosphate, all of which become corrosive when they become damp/wet. If you haven't done so already, do a through cleanup.

The dealership might have only one type of fire extinguisher, One for all classes. Class A, B and C. It's cheaper that way, and they are cover.

Thanks. Crappy way to treat a customer's car, but I guess it makes business sense if you are insured.

it's more of a, "If i have to take this to court, I have written backup stating the dealership was wrong."
When I go speak with the owner, i'd like to have all my ducks in a row. and if need be, and I have to take them to court. I want all the evidence to slam dunk this thing.

And not some weakass slam dunk either.... He wants to SHATTER THEIR BACKBOARD beyond replacement when he dunks on them

Thank you for the kind words. I'm glad I could help out. I'm out of town but once I get back ill get back into the facts of this deal. I hope you a quick and just solution.


PS Dont hate on 240's... Okay maybe S13's J/K But seriously every car group has idiots just happens the 240 game has a large number of them due to the cheap entry price and high hp potential as well as a well balanced package from the start.

Zilvia is a fickle Bi**h and posting anything over there is a risk. LOL Stupid Gen poppers I hope they arent giving positive reviews. I noticed some idiot with a civic did last week but he seemed too stupid to be zilvian. Thats saying summin.

awesome! I hope your out of town trip was good.
I know plenty of guys with 240s/silvias, and they are mostly good people :)

Exactly right.

CO2 should be standard fare in automotive shops for precisely the reasons you state (and I stated back in post 32 of this thread). We have two of them in our home, as well as a water hose at the ready. I acquired those CO2 extinguishers because I saw what a dry chemical extinguisher did to a kitchen and adjacent rooms after the homeowner used one on an oven fire. It wasn't pretty and it was expensive to clean up.

One of the main advantages of CO2 in an automotive application is that the expanding CO2 will not only deprive the fire of oxygen and snuff it out instantly, but it will also very rapidly cool the hot metal in the area of the fire, making it very unlikely that whatever it is that's burning will re-ignite when the CO2 stops.
Frostbite injury of the foot from portable fire extinguisher [eScholarship]

If this particular fire started while the vehicle was on a lift and there was a CO2 extinguisher closeby, it is more than possible that the fire could have been extinguished so fast that the damage to the vehicle caused by the fire would have been inconsequential and inexpensive to repair. And with that economically different result, the dealership may very well have promptly proceeded with the repair, swallowed the cost of the parts damaged by fire, and finally charged the owner only for the repair -- which is what the owner fully expected when he brought in the vehicle.

In a legal proceeding I would mention that, even though a CO2 extinguisher may not be required by law or the dealership's insurance company, the dealership was negligent for not having one at the ready for a vehicle that was known to have a flammable-fluid leak that was quite possibly located somewhere in the engine compartment. The fact that, even knowing this, the dealership then allowed the engine and attached parts to heat up
Ignition > Autoigntion > Underhood Surface Temperatures
to a temperature well above the flash point of that liquid
http://www.kmcoinc.com/DOT4%20Brake%...S%20(9-09).pdf
is blatant negligence and even a bone-ignorant adjudicator will almost certainly agree.

The lawyers don't want to touch it because it's a small town and he is considered a "transient". So they score one for our guy and lose any business for the next decade.

The last time my Z was at the stealership was when I purchased it. Have no plans on ever taking it in, unless it's warranty work and even then I'll take it to one out of town as the local dealer mechs are idiots.

You might also want to try contacting Nissan corporate. They will have a US branch responsible for their operations here. The people to locate are those responsible for dealerships.

The inquiry coming from corporate that controls who gets dealership rights may have some impact.

Nissan wasn't any help. They told me that they have no control over the dealership

great post! thank you, and the information is great! this could potentially help me if i have to goto court! :happydance:

It's my pleasure.

I assume you did not bring the vehicle into the dealership and say only "something's wrong with my car, so fix it". You described the problem you were having. You can prove this, as well as the dealership's understanding of the problem, by producing any kind of document that the dealership gave to you at the time you brought it in that states what the potential problem was -- for example, "brake pedal low" or "losing braking", etc. This will be solid evidence of a possible leak in the brake system and that the dealership had at least some idea of where to start looking in order to repair whatever was wrong and, quite possibly, that a test drive should / may have been unnecessary to repair what was wrong.

Ultimately, everybody in the world knows that you and other vehicle owners bring their vehicles to automotive repair shops to be repaired, not to be set on fire. Luckily, most people --even judges and lawyers-- are themselves vehicle owners and have probably gotten shafted at dealerships' repair shops themselves. They are going to be very sympathetic as they listen to another victim's plight. (Payback time!)

Therefore, I think you would prevail in a simple small claims court action in which you represent yourself. In North Dakota it seems to be a very simple procedure.
Legal Services of North Dakota » Complete Topic List

If you don't get satisfaction from whatever your insurance company does, if I were you, small claims court is the route I'd take to Justice. You'll get plenty of advice here for specifically what to say and produce at the proceeding.

Good luck.

I specifically told them I had a brake leak, and the service manager even said to me, "you're lucky it didn't catch fire, brake fluid is flammable."

They lied.

I assume the Service Dept is the responsible party at the other end. Nissan Corp owns 50% of it.

If this goes to court or even in that direction make sure they are named as defendants as well, not just the dealer.

Hell, name the Service Advisor and the Tech. Everyone you talked to or had any sort of care and/or control over the car from the moment you rolled in. Shotgun approach. Let the Ryan's explain to the judge why they shouldn't be named. Remember they have a whole lot more exposure here than you do. You can make it real expensive in a hurry for them to try and defend this thing. Sure, they can afford it but the cost will surpass that of the damages to the car in a hurry.

You didn't happen to record that conversation, did you? If you did, IMO, you've got a slam dunk for small claims court. If you did not, you'll soon find out that the service manager has early-onset Alzheimer's disease and can't remember a thing about your initial visit. ("I can't recall" seems to be the gold standard when it comes to lying, especially under oath. Most management-level employees at dealerships are virtuoso liars -- maybe not as good as presidential candidates, but close.)

Did you receive a service document from the dealership that states anything specific about the reason the vehicle was brought in for service? If you did, what does it state, exactly?

BTW, next time you go into the dealership's service area (if you ever are allowed to again), try to see if they've got a security camera either at the service counter or, better still, inside the service area where your vehicle was hoisted. Their insurance company may require such devices in order to insure the place. If either location has a security camera, if you decide to go the small-claims route, I believe that before the hearing you can get the video record via subpoena:
What Is a Subpoena? - FindLaw
but you may have to get one through an attorney or court, which should be relatively easy and inexpensive. Considering the circumstances, I cannot see on what grounds an unbiased third-party could refuse your request.

^ Makes a good point. start recording any conversation you have with anyone involved with this ****. You're in a one-party consent state so anything they say and you have recorded you can use in court

Some thoughts
 

As a general rule, when the car is in possession of the dealer, they are liable for damage to it at least with a standard of reasonable care (ie. they cannot be negligent in the handling and protection of the property). They may attempt to disclaim the liability in the agreement (check the copy of the service agreement that you signed for such language, probably the fine print).

Ideas:
(1) Record all conversations and video of your interactions with the dealer, if it is legal (check your state laws).

(2) BBB is a waste of your time, don't bother, they are a private company that profits from charging companies to clear their name.

(3) Option 1 - Call your insurance company and make a claim for the fire damage, but tell the insurance company the dealer caused the damage. This is similar to the dealer causing an accident against your car. The insurance company has lawyers that could go after the dealership for the cost and make them pay. The dealer's insurance company may pay up shortly after. If the insurance company feels there is no liability, they might increase your rates, but they should cover the fire if your policy includes it. Caution: they may rate your risk higher in either case and increase rates, but the advantage is you can avoid messing around with legal claims.

(4) Option 2 - File your own claim in small claims court if the value is under the amount in controversy requirement. Document everything. Make sure you have an idea of the basis for your claim - you may need to find out what under what law the dealer is liable for goods in his possession, although the small claims court tends to be forgiving. Hint: UCC Article 1, bailment may be relevant, also read up on tort negligence. Bailees are expected to insure or protect goods under repair. Having documentation such as they acted improperly our with negligence will help.

(5) Option 3 - Get an attorney to draft the complaint and serve the dealership with a formal claim. If the dealer doesn't budge, then file in the local court and get ready for a fight. Note, that if you do not live in the state, this could be interstate commerce and you may be able to file in federal district court.

This is not legal advice, merely information and is not a comprehensive list of options. You should seek counsel from an attorney to protect your rights.

Good luck.

I have a recording of the conversation when I picked up the "waiver"

Further to what TwinTurboZ has to say -- North Dakota legal assistance:

Legal Services of North Dakota » How to Contact Us for Legal Help

And the above's Minot branch address:

"Minot Law Office/Central Intake Unit
20 - 1st St SW Suite 201
Minot, North Dakota 58701

Hours of operation are:

Under age 60 call 1-800-634-5263
Monday, Tuesday, Thursday between 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. CST."

If I were you I'd call that 1-800 number and see what they have to say about your eligibility for legal assistance and maybe even what they have to advise about you and your vehicle's situation.

Good luck.

This dealership have the same type of folks protecting them from wrong doing as does Hillary. Good luck!!

just waiting on a few letters from some master techs, and hopefully a Nissan tech

I read your blog and I think those involved are outright lying about the need to test drive the vehicle in order to find the brake line leak. After all, how do you tell where a brake line leak is located if you're inside the vehicle as it is moving down the road? Such a repair procedure is ludicrous to downright absurd. Therefore, the one and only plausible explanation is that they simply wanted to take your vehicle for a joyride.

Knowing that there was a leak, quite possibly in the engine compartment, first, with the fully-cooled engine NOT running, the grease monkeys should have placed a large piece of brown paper or cardboard under the vehicle. Then they should have filled the master reservoir and then had somebody in the vehicle press hard on the brake pedal for a couple of minutes. Then, in order to more isolate the location of the leak along the vehicle, they should have checked the paper / cardboard for drips. Etc.

If, and only if, the above did not show the leak, should a stone cold engine have been briefly started so that the power brake would function; and this only done with a CO2 extinguisher literally at hand in order to use it to instantly extinguish any small fire that might erupt from a tiny leak. Etc.

Hopefully a competent auto tech who makes his living repairing vehicles will state the above for any legal proceeding. Luckily, the safety reasons why something similar to this should be performed will make perfect sense even to the bone ignorant; and why what the dealership did from stem to stern not only did not make any logical sense repair-wise, but also resulted in a fire whose damage was almost certainly exacerbated by the use of dry chemical fire extinguisher.

Is the dealership actually going to try to support an argument that no one could have operated or fixed the vehicle without starting a fire that would have caused so much damage regardless of what repair procedure had be used, or what safety precautions had been put in place, prior to the fire?

Such an argument could be instantly and positively refuted by the fact that you had driven the vehicle, not had it towed, to the dealership without a fire erupting either during that trip or shortly after the vehicle was stopped at the dealership with its engine at its hottest. How could it be that you could drive the vehicle without having a fire, but after the dealership drove it there was a fire?

Most likely the reason is that whoever took the vehicle for the test drive drove the vehicle much harder than you did and heated up exhaust / turbo system components to a much higher temperature. This should also be pointed out in any legal proceeding. This logic will also support your contention that the vehicle was taken for a technically unnecessary and unsafe joyride which ultimately resulted in the fire.

:iagree:

:iagree:

:iagree:

:iagree: I narrated this story to a mechanic friend (owns a giant turbo RB26 240sx), and that's the exact conclusion he gave me. For a 2 miles drive, the guys must've driven it hard

I've talked to 2 master mechanics and the first words out of both of their mouths was some one took Tim's Z out for a joy ride.

I might be able to get a letter from a Nissan tech

ask him if he would mind writing up a letter stating that, If you don't mind

found a lawyer in MN that serves ND as well.. just waiting on a call back

got the call back.. they want to help, but they need to see if the can roll their fees into a settlement.. heres hoping they can

They should be able to, especially if you state in the suit that you are asking for damages, repairs and reasonable attorney fees....



I'd ask for at least $10k for pain and suffering... deprivation of the pleasure of your Z's company..... :driving:

I am asking for repairs to the vehicle, and 15k in diminished value, stress, pain and suffering and what not.. I talked to Lou Fusz, and asked if 15k was too much. he said no, if I was asking for a new car AND 15k it would be a little outlandish

no joy on the lawyer.. the search continues..

still hoping to get more master techs input, please give them my contact info you guys can!

this fight is no longer just about me.. its about us as a community and making sure other dealerships don't do slimy **** to people because they think they can get away with it. I appreciate all of your guys support..