trailer wheel came off after repairs

[Berttx]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? TEXAS

I do some trailer repair and have ended up in an interesting situation. I performed repairs on a trailer as requested by the customer which included having the wheels off. The next day I was notified that one wheel had come off and the trailer was damaged ( slightly twisted frame ). I am being accused of not tightening the wheel enough, though it was torqued to specs. I have inspected the damaged trailer and have now noticed the trailer ubolts are not tight to the axle ( not part of the repairs or worked I performed ) and the trailer literally floats side to side on the axles with the u-bolts not tightened all the way. It is a 2003 trailer in fair condition and I am being asked to replace the trailer with either a new or very good condition used trailer

First of all I am concerned that the trailer "floating" on the axles due to loose u-bolts could have contributed to the wheel coming off. Secondly, the wheels were tightened as they should have been. On top of it all they did not call the police to the scene of this "trailer in the ditch" so there is no police report. I just have to take their word for it. I was lied to and told the trailer was kept inside a shop at night when indeed it is kept outside so who is to say someone tried to steal the wheels and failed in their attempt which left the wheel loose? Anyway, and suggestions or thoughts on liability etc...?

Thanks in advance!

 

[ecmst12]

When you reported this to your business insurance, what did they tell you?

 

[Berttx]

When you reported this to your business insurance, what did they tell you?

To be perfectly honest I am very small and do not have insurance yet. Of course that is about to change after this.

 

[ecmst12]

Then I would suggest you meet with a lawyer. You need to determine the potential costs of defending against his claim vs the cost to settle with him, and if you settle you will need a well written release to protect you.

 

[latigo]

There is no immediate need to be visiting an attorney. The ball is not in your court. Not yet anyway. You can make that decision when and if sued. Meanwhile simply deny responsibility, but that is all. The less you say to the owner the better.

Bear in mind that if you are sued, the burden is on the claimant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the accident was the proximate result of you negligence. The mere fact that the wheel came off may be probative of that question, but it is not conclusive evidence that it was due to your negligence.

But I have a question. You say that you inspected the damaged trailer and apparently discovered that not only were the axle u-bolts loose, but the wheel blots as well. The question is, in transit would the loosened axle u-bolts cause the loosening of the wheel bolts. If that is so and you are sued, it would be well that you have available as a defense witness someone qualified to testify on the subject. (Frankly, it does seem likely, but then I no little about it. It wasn't covered in law school.)

Also needed is some independent evidence corroborating your contention that the trailer was not safeguard from would-be thieves and vandalism.

 

[justalayman]

But I have a question. You say that you inspected the damaged trailer and apparently discovered that not only were the axle u-bolts loose, but the wheel blots as well. The question is, in transit would the loosened axle u-bolts cause the loosening of the wheel bolts. .

he did not say the wheel bolts were loose. To the rest:

No, it wouldn't. A wheel is subjected to the same lateral loads as a loose axle u bolt might cause continually and especially during any cornering. If one wants to argue there is an additional force, along with that, one must also argue it is so great it would cause a wheel to fall off in less than a single day. Simply not going to happen.

Also needed is some independent evidence corroborating your contention that the trailer was not safeguard from would-be thieves and vandalism.

really? You believe a simple suggestion it was possible is adequate? If the OP wants to use such an argument he is going to have to show the neighborhood is prone to such activity to such an extent it is a realistic possibility, or even probability.




there is a great probability of the OP losing a suit, especially in a small claims action unless he can present proof he has a system in place where things like the wheel lugs are torqued to spec as a matter of procedure. Otherwise it becomes the OP's claim he did ut and the plaintiff's argument he didn't and since the wheel apparently did fall off, well, you can take a guess as to where I think a small claims judge would go with this. I think it's based on something I read about called res ipsa loquitur.


Berttx:


were any of the wheel studs broken?

were any of the threads on the studs damaged and if so, where along the length of the stud?

what are the torque spec's of that particular trailer?

did you use a proper torquing pattern when torquing the nuts?

was the tire clearly off the ground (as in could you put your hand under it after it was mounted on the axle)?

 

[Zigner]

(Playing Devil's Advocate

I'm wondering if the vibrations caused by the loose lug nuts could have caused the u-bolts to loosen up...

 

[Berttx]

(Playing Devil's Advocate

I'm wondering if the vibrations caused by the loose lug nuts could have caused the u-bolts to loosen up...

No. The u-bolt nuts are literally rusted in place and there has been no movement of the nuts. They have been that way for a long time. What I am getting out of this discussion is that the logical conclusion a judge would make is most likely the lug nuts weren't tight and without some strong evidence that the wheel was tampered with over the course of one single night it will be hard to come out on top in this one. Smart thing to do is torque the wheel lugs in front of the customer at the required setting and get them to initial and sign a repair invoice stating they witnesses that. Butt covered and peace of mind in place.

Unless I hear from some others here on the forum, I would say it may be smart to settle this matter.

The evening the customer picked the trailer up him and his employee were drinking and driving so it stings to take their word for what happened and pony up a few thousand dollars to a couple of drunks who operate vehicles with trailers while drunk.

 

[Berttx]

he did not say the wheel bolts were loose. To the rest:

No, it wouldn't. A wheel is subjected to the same lateral loads as a loose axle u bolt might cause continually and especially during any cornering. If one wants to argue there is an additional force, along with that, one must also argue it is so great it would cause a wheel to fall off in less than a single day. Simply not going to happen.

really? You believe a simple suggestion it was possible is adequate? If the OP wants to use such an argument he is going to have to show the neighborhood is prone to such activity to such an extent it is a realistic possibility, or even probability.




there is a great probability of the OP losing a suit, especially in a small claims action unless he can present proof he has a system in place where things like the wheel lugs are torqued to spec as a matter of procedure. Otherwise it becomes the OP's claim he did ut and the plaintiff's argument he didn't and since the wheel apparently did fall off, well, you can take a guess as to where I think a small claims judge would go with this. I think it's based on something I read about called res ipsa loquitur.


Berttx:


were any of the wheel studs broken?

were any of the threads on the studs damaged and if so, where along the length of the stud?

what are the torque spec's of that particular trailer?

did you use a proper torquing pattern when torquing the nuts?

was the tire clearly off the ground (as in could you put your hand under it after it was mounted on the axle)?

-=--------
were any of the wheel studs broken? Yes.

were any of the threads on the studs damaged and if so, where along the length of the stud? Damaged or broken

what are the torque spec's of that particular trailer? 140 pounds

did you use a proper torquing pattern when torquing the nuts? Yes

was the tire clearly off the ground (as in could you put your hand under it after it was mounted on the axle)? Yes

 

[justalayman]

as another suggested, I think it comes down to the cost of defending versus the cost of paying a negotiated amount (note the term negotiated. don't just pay a demand without attempting to negotiate it).

You do sound knowledgeable as it appears you do understand the questions I asked and I presume you even know why each of them are relevant, you might be able to pull it off but, it's really a crap shoot and barring some strong evidence there was some other reason, it kind of comes down to you were the last one known to tighten the nuts so you are the most probable cause of the damage. Simply suggesting there were other possibilities is not likely to allow for a win. That may work in a criminal trial but in a civil trial, especially if a small claims court, means much less besides the fact the plaintiff is charged with proving by a preponderance of the evidence (51/49) their claim. Of course there are other possibilities, including aliens came down in their flying saucer and loosened the nuts but the court is more likely to make the call based on reasonable possibilities and probabilities.

if you were certain they would file in small claims, court, it might be worth refusing to pay simply to get it in front of a judge given the costs are minimal. If there is a possibility they may hire a lawyer and sue in a superior court where you would likely be required to hire a laywer as well, it would be cheaper to just pay now. Even if you won you would likely spend more than what their demand will be.


.

It is a 2003 trailer in fair condition and I am being asked to replace the trailer with either a new or very good condition used trailer

all they are entitled to is the value of the damages or the market value of the trailer, whichever is less. There are not entitled to an upgrade at your expense.

 

[Berttx]

as another suggested, I think it comes down to the cost of defending versus the cost of paying a negotiated amount (note the term negotiated. don't just pay a demand without attempting to negotiate it).

You do sound knowledgeable as it appears you do understand the questions I asked and I presume you even know why each of them are relevant, you might be able to pull it off but, it's really a crap shoot and barring some strong evidence there was some other reason, it kind of comes down to you were the last one known to tighten the nuts so you are the most probable cause of the damage. Simply suggesting there were other possibilities is not likely to allow for a win. That may work in a criminal trial but in a civil trial, especially if a small claims court, means much less besides the fact the plaintiff is charged with proving by a preponderance of the evidence (51/49) their claim. Of course there are other possibilities, including aliens came down in their flying saucer and loosened the nuts but the court is more likely to make the call based on reasonable possibilities and probabilities.

if you were certain they would file in small claims, court, it might be worth refusing to pay simply to get it in front of a judge given the costs are minimal. If there is a possibility they may hire a lawyer and sue in a superior court where you would likely be required to hire a laywer as well, it would be cheaper to just pay now. Even if you won you would likely spend more than what their demand will be.


.
all they are entitled to is the value of the damages or the market value of the trailer, whichever is less. There are not entitled to an upgrade at your expense.

-------

Value of damages or the market value I can understand. However, I can see where he would ask for lost wages/earnings from the time lost due to the incident...etc. I think I have to figure out what hurts the least and get the pain over with. Lessons learned and take the time to cover the butt in the future.

 

[justalayman]

-------

Value of damages or the market value I can understand. However, I can see where he would ask for lost wages/earnings from the time lost due to the incident...etc. I think I have to figure out what hurts the least and get the pain over with. Lessons learned and take the time to cover the butt in the future.

since you mentioned it:

if he might have a claim for damages due to loss of use, if that is the case he is required to mitigate damages. He doesn't get to just sit back and let damages accrue and then expect you to pay them. He has to take action to limit his damages, whether that be renting a trailer or purchasing a replacement. While there could be a short period he could claim loss of income, unless there is some reason he cannot rent or purchase a replacement trailer within a short time, the damages are limited to a relatively short period of time.


and given this is a commercial use;

another possible defense; overloaded trailer. You might investigate if whether he was hauling anything and if so, was it over the capacity of the trailer.

 

[Berttx]

since you mentioned it:

if he might have a claim for damages due to loss of use, if that is the case he is required to mitigate damages. He doesn't get to just sit back and let damages accrue and then expect you to pay them. He has to take action to limit his damages, whether that be renting a trailer or purchasing a replacement. While there could be a short period he could claim loss of income, unless there is some reason he cannot rent or purchase a replacement trailer within a short time, the damages are limited to a relatively short period of time.


and given this is a commercial use;

another possible defense; overloaded trailer. You might investigate if whether he was hauling anything and if so, was it over the capacity of the trailer.

----

He thought he had 10k axles when he actually had 7k axles and he state he hauled loads that weighed over the capacity of the trailer. Proving that is another story though...

 

[justalayman]

----

He thought he had 10k axles when he actually had 7k axles and he state he hauled loads that weighed over the capacity of the trailer. Proving that is another story though...

if it gets serious enough; his bills of lading would prove it, yes? He would presumably retain them for business purposes.

 

[Berttx]

if it gets serious enough; his bills of lading would prove it, yes? He would presumably retain them for business purposes.

He actually uses it for his own business and in all likelyhood doesnt have a record of his loads as far as weight goes.