Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:22:22 -0700
Reply-To: Don Hanson <dhanson928@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Don Hanson <dhanson928@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Diesel - too much oil saga
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=3iGVazcpTHOkHAT5sh7txK2c3=AMdF-umgNS3@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
You are right...a mechanic should know what they are doing. And if they
do mess up with a blatant mistake that causes harm, they should be
responisble. But filling oil to the indicated line on a dipstick, without
checking that the dipstick is marked accuratly...that is not a blatant
mistake unless the mechanic changed that dipstick, too.
Anyhow...State licenses...(friday semi rant) aren't The Answer by any
means. They are one reason why shops must charge $80 plus... per hour for
each guy working there.
And other trade licenses are often only an indicator that the license
holder has paid his fees and all his requierd obligations in order to go to
work..they (a license and business permit) are no indicator he actually know
a thing about his trade, other than how to get the license to do that
trade. These license fees must be passed on to the customer..
Say you want to build a house..Ok, you hire a general contractor, required
by law to have a license and a bond. But not required to prove, in most
states, that he or she knows a thing about how to build a house..They, in
turn, hire a bunch of sub-contractors to do the seperate jobs...each sub is
also required to be licensed and bonded.. There can be anywhere from 5 to
15 sub contractors involved in a home building project....15 license fees-15
insurance fees-15(+/-) inspections...Jacks the cost of building a house
about 3 times over what it should cost if you had a master carpenter build
it for you for wages and materials only....So, in order to "protect" the
homeowner, he get to pay about 3-times the actual cost of building to defray
the license, bond, permit and insurance fees of everyone involved in his
project...I know this, being in the trade for many years and doing my own
building. Subtract the fees for licenses and permits from the cost of a
project and it shrinks to about 1/3rd.
I'll give you the need for the UBC...Universal Building Code...and the
state inspector's who make sure your home gets built to comply with that, or
something like it.
But most licenses are a total joke.."Licensed and Bonded" on someone's
business card means nothing about their skills...it means they have done the
paperwork for the state and paid their fee to get the license...period. Now
a days in the building trades many licensed and bonded tradesmen don't do
the work themselves...they hire illegal workers to do it and pay them
minimum wage, then charge out at high dollar and pocket the
difference..."It's MY license, after all. And I got the work...I deserve
Big Bucks..."
Sorry totally off topic on that last...but Jim, below, says it right about
the oil level...You can't expect the shop to check everything on the whole
vehicle, only what is "reasonable and prudent" and expecting the oil fill
line to be correct is a reasonable assumption..
Don Hanson
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:31 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
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >
>
| 
