999tigger Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Well shed need to get them to admit or prove they had the car in their care and control, they fitted the bulb which involved opening the bonnet and they then handed it over to the husband. (hopefully she paid at least with a debit card) The event happened soon thereafter i.e on the way home from the garage. They have to provide a reasonable service. Leaving the car in an unsecured/ dangerous situation is not a reasonable service. Registrar will just have to decide who to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Well shed need to get them to admit or prove they had the car in their care and control, they fitted the bulb which involved opening the bonnet and they then handed it over to the husband. (hopefully she paid at least with a debit card) The event happened soon thereafter i.e on the way home from the garage. They have to provide a reasonable service. Leaving the car in an unsecured/ dangerous situation is not a reasonable service. Registrar will just have to decide who to believe. Absolutely. If she can prove that she has a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I'd write the letter before action and hope they tripped themselves up by confirming they repaired etc. She doesnt need any proof for that. Meh I cna never decide on such cases id say too much hassle depends what day of the week and how much damage caused etc. She'd also have to provide proof that the cause of the bonnet flying open was the cause of the damage. Btw didnt we both have the view too much energy to argue. Am sure if we both saw the evidence, did the max to gathering abailable evidence then we'd agree on the choice after. Am not a mechanic so i dont know what constitutes reasonable practice.>>>>>>>AA........zzz If mt partner had been injured as a result then i'd be rather more motivated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Absolutely. If she can prove that she has a chance. Theres no need for any proof.In court it would come down to one word against another i cant see that that saying they never saw the car that day would hold water,when they would have to lie.As the customer didnt open or close the bonnet then it would leave only two options,part failure or personnel failure. id be going to court. court procedings can be costly to defend and can often nudge in the right direction.Most people will go away and thats what they are banking on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Quote: Originally Posted by Moosey Absolutely. If she can prove that she has a chance. Theres no need for any proof.In court it would come down to one word against another i cant see that that saying they never saw the car that day would hold water,when they would have to lie.As the customer didnt open or close the bonnet then it would leave only two options,part failure or personnel failure. id be going to court. court procedings can be costly to defend and can often nudge in the right direction.Most people will go away and thats what they are banking on. No. It wouldn't. If it's one word against another that means that the evidence isn't sufficient to prove either case therefore she hasn't proved her case and fails. There's no "who does the judge prefer." It's my job to know this stuff and has been for nearly 20 years. I can assure you 50/50 cases before a judge must fail by definition. As I said further if they accept they went in the engine bay she's a lot more likely to succeed. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 It's odd the bonnet flipped up, all my cars have had a safety catch of some description to stop it happening if the primary catch fails. Angel1 IF the garage hadn't latched it fully then it will have been held only by the secondary catch. I still maintain the husband should have checked the condition of the vehicle before he accepted it back from the garage's care and even a brief visual inspection would have caught the bonnet not being latched correctly. http://i.imgur.com/ktkoTuI.png See, not difficult to spot how the bonnet will be misaligned if it's not latched on the primary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dardandec Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Even when only latched on the secondary safety latch the bonnet shouldnt come up when driving, sounds to me like it is in poor condition or not aligned with the striker bar on the bonnet properly. If the garage did pick up on this they have a duty of care to make you aware of it. But like I say thats only if they picked up on it. The general day to day condition and safety of a vehicle is down to the owner/driver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 You hit the nail on the head. Leaving aside all other liability issues you have no evidence it was this garage therefore any claim would be certain to fail. They could simply put you to proof (demand you prove it was them) and your claim fails at that point. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android It would only be to the balance of probabilities though, being a civil case. And since changing the bulb will require them to have the bonnet up, and there's no reason for the driver to release it himself... Surely it wouldn't be that difficult to reach the level of proof required... The lack of a receipt is irrelevant unless the garage perjure themselves and lie outright that the work was not done (and there's always payment details if it was paid on a debit/credit card). ---------- Post added 20-04-2014 at 00:04 ---------- It really is that simple. Bring that claim to me and without evidence I'd tell you you've no case. I do it day in day out. Burden of proof is on the Claimant. If the claimant can't prove his case it must fail. In a case that's one person's word against another there is by definition insufficient evidence to prove either account therefore the Claimant has failed to prove his claim. It really is as straight forward as that. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android What kind of evidence could exist? And equally for any other negligence by the garage, you can't have evidence of a negative thing. If your wheels fell off they could always say "well prove it was us". The fact that they have done work on the wheels (hypothetically) is enough to imply negligence if they subsequently fall off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dardandec Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 And equally for any other negligence by the garage, you can't have evidence of a negative thing. If your wheels fell off they could always say "well prove it was us". The fact that they have done work on the wheels (hypothetically) is enough to imply negligence if they subsequently fall off. A wheel falling off 3 miles down the road from just having a tyre fitted would be a no brainer in any court of law, but there are car repairs that aren't as cut and dried as that. The op suggested a spot light bulb, that could be a bolted to the bumper light in which case the bonnet would never have been released and opened as it would be accessible without that being carried out. The only way the op would have any chance of making a successful claim against the garage in court would be to have an independent assessor to look at the light and access if the bonnet would have to be opened, and also if the bonnet did need to be opened, if the faulty bonnet catch would have been picked up by releasing and opening said bonnet. Other than that they haven't got a leg to stand on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 It would only be to the balance of probabilities though, being a civil case. And since changing the bulb will require them to have the bonnet up, and there's no reason for the driver to release it himself... Surely it wouldn't be that difficult to reach the level of proof required... The lack of a receipt is irrelevant unless the garage perjure themselves and lie outright.... What kind of evidence could exist? And equally for any other negligence by the garage, you can't have evidence of a negative thing. If your wheels fell off they could always say "well prove it was us". The fact that they have done work on the wheels (hypothetically) is enough to imply negligence if they subsequently fall off. Again it comes down to evidence. The first point is the salient one. Would a defendant lie? Would a priest pray? I've seen thousands of lying clients and lying defendants over the years willing to tell those lies to a Judge. Don't think it doesn't happen. It absolutely does. As for what evidence? A witness saying they saw her take her car there? A bank statement showing payment? It happens all the time. Defendant companies love putting claimants to proof as without evidence it's 50/50 and a claim must fail. It is balance of probability as a test but tell me this - if you're a judge and this case is before you, assuming D is saying they haven't looked at that car, what evidence makes it more likely that C's story is correct? Bear in mind you'll be appealed instantly by any lawyer who thinks you just "prefer" one account without evidence. What makes you choose C over D? I'll say it again. If she can prove they fitted the bulb then possibly (or if they accept it). If they lie and say it wasn't them, and believe me it's possible, then there's no case without evidence that they touched it. Defending I'd be applying for this to be struck out as no case to answer. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.