Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

>I highly recommend you ask an attorney about it,

Funny, that's exactly what I did.

> I'm reiterating the opinion they provided

So am I.

I repair and modify things, typically light commercial vehicles and the equipment mounted to or towed by them. I work on the economic low end of the market so I get all the stuff that real shops want nothing to do with and have had to consider how liable I am for my work. I have had these sorts of discussions in a non-professional context (i.e no money changed hands) with an attorney who specializes in businesses in social services settings (so the advice is probably biased toward whatever he finds his clients defending against most often) and aside from the typical disclaimers[0][1][2][3][4][5] that any responsible lawyer will give you I feel confident enough in my analysis that I put my money where my mouth is making similiar repairs in my day to day life.

The general gist of things is that for a successful lawsuit there has to be some evidence that the work you performed caused the injury and even if so there then also needs to be a precedent of strict liability or you would to have had to do something negligent or check the boxes for some other tort, but I've been advised negligence is the one you really have to watch out for in a professional setting. Negligence is a fuzzy concept but it suffices to say that proving it to the standard required for a civil suit would be a very uphill battle for a reasonably standard repair procedure performed in a reasonably standard setting.

Strict liability scares me far more than a lawsuit arising out of alleged negligence. I can do good, defensible work and stand by it. I cannot know all the areas of law where strict liability may be an issue. I cannot control whether my customers use the things I have repaired for them in a strict liability context (e.g. fumigation, overhead lifting) which could make my party to a lawsuit.

No I didn't pay for the advice but for the volume and riskiness of work I do I'm content.

[0] if you're not paying for it it's not legal advice

[1] nobody can make guarantees about what will happen in court

[2] you have the wrong demographics to get sympathy from judges in this state, they'll expect you to know better than to cut corners so don't cut corners

[3] bad facts, bad case law, hope your malpractice kills a skinhead and not a single mother or you'll be the case law

[4] just defending yourself can be no more than a consultation fee or it can be ruinously expensive

[5] if a megacorp or the state sues you everything goes out the window because the playing field is so unlevel.

magnusson moss - they will have to prove repair broke something.

The real problem here was charging the cost of a brand new battery pack without considering the old pack was fine for refurbishment.

> Tesla was then reportedly willing to return the pack, but apparently still questioned why he would want it. Given that the new pack was $16,000 and a new Model 3 cost just more than twice that, it's clear that the old pack was still valuable. A quick search on eBay confirms this, as used cell modules sell for thousands of dollars.

These terms are clearly defined in auto policies and are strictly regulated. I just read mine, and the things that are covered under my comprehensive policy are in a plain-english list that, clear as day, wouldn't cover this.

Although if we're just talking plain-english and not legalese, I'd say that your assertion is a stretch: that colliding with debris is not a "collision".

And yes, Tesla repairability is poor. That's kind of what you can expect to get when you prioritize time-to-market above anything else. I like to buy old motorcycles that don't have any parts availability and everything has to be custom done... but I wouldn't do that with my daily driver.