Quote:
Originally Posted by trader4
He's not exactly suing each for the same thing. He'd be suing the MB
dealer for either not doing the filter change or using a crappy filter.
He'd be suing BMW for failing to correctly diagnose the car, sending him
away when he immediately returned with a CEL after driving only 1 mile
that then turned it into a catastrophic failure.
I don't know what the exact rules are regarding how one can or can't
proceed against multiple parties like that. It's not double dipping, he
wouldn't get paid sums by the two that exceed the
cost of doing the repair. He should check with a lawyer. You may be
right that he has to go after all 3 at the same time. If so, that's bad
for him because then he's up against the small claims limit.
It's kind of like I hire a guy for $5000 to paint my house, I supply
the paint. He does a
lousy job, but I also think the paint is defective. Do I have to sue both
at the same time? I can't sue the painter for $1000 back for doing a
sloppy job and then later sue the paint company for money back on
the cost of the paint because the paint was also defective?
|
For the paint, that would be two separate cases if desired. He cannot sue the MB dealer for using a crappy oil filter that caused engine damage and then the BMW dealer for failure to diagnose what led to the same engine damage. The end result was the same, the engine failed. It is either the same suit or to just one. If a new engine is $25k and if the small claims limit is $10k, he cannot go after the others for the additional $15k. the court already heard the case of the failed engine...that is the point. Just because a plaintiff used the wrong venue, that is not a problem the defendant has to deal with.Using you logic he could get $30k if he sued each individually. See why you can't sue more than once for the same issue? Your damages are capped by what the damages actually are and then by what the court can hear. If you pick small claims, you are bound by that limit.