One of our forum members getting screwed over by a dealership

[Darwins Child]

Originally Posted by SouthArk370Z

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.

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.

[Isamu]

Originally Posted by Darwins Child

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.

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

[Darwins Child]

Originally Posted by Isamu

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

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.

[Isamu]

Originally Posted by Darwins Child

It's my pleasure.

( Click to show/hide )

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."

[Darwins Child]

Originally Posted by Isamu

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."

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.