Quantcast
Jump to content


ATLAuto

Alleged Faulty Inspection Leads to Manslaughter Charge

Recommended Posts



HarrythecarGeek,

Why would we help out someone who shirked his duties to do a proper inspection for a customer. What he did reflects badly on all of us. If you look into the facts, you will see that he was paid to do a safety inspection on the vehicle. He did not drive the vehicle. He did not put the vehicle on a lift. He did not do the inspection he was paid to do. He does not deserve our help.

 

I understand the potential liability we all face when working on vehicles. We take our responsibilities very seriously to do a proper inspection on vehicles. In NH I can not fail a car for rusty brake lines. I can only fail the vehicle if the brake lines are leaking. We will document, with pictures, the condition of the brake lines and let our customers know the condition of the vehicle, but this guy apparently did not even look at the vehicle before putting a sticker on the car. These lick and stick shops are not good for the industry.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not heard the Jury convict him, yet. Nor have seen the facts. So I choose to stay by my principles and believe him innocent until proven guilty. In the mean time, I have been in this business a long time and if he is a working man like the rest of us. I don't mind chipping in for his defense.

Edited by HarrytheCarGeek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HarrythecarGeek,

Why would we help out someone who shirked his duties to do a proper inspection for a customer. What he did reflects badly on all of us. If you look into the facts, you will see that he was paid to do a safety inspection on the vehicle. He did not drive the vehicle. He did not put the vehicle on a lift. He did not do the inspection he was paid to do. He does not deserve our help.

 

I understand the potential liability we all face when working on vehicles. We take our responsibilities very seriously to do a proper inspection on vehicles. In NH I can not fail a car for rusty brake lines. I can only fail the vehicle if the brake lines are leaking. We will document, with pictures, the condition of the brake lines and let our customers know the condition of the vehicle, but this guy apparently did not even look at the vehicle before putting a sticker on the car. These lick and stick shops are not good for the industry.

 

Oh please, I don't for a second believe that you, me or any shop out there does a perfect inspection 100% of the time. We are humans and whether it's just an over site or we just feel bad for someone down on their luck so we maybe let them slip by with something that isn't 100% right on their vehicle. We've all done it and something could have happened to every one of us. What we should be asking ourselves is how to doctors kill so many people every day due to incompetence and the insurance company just pays out yet a mechanic scraping buy is going to jail over a mistake.

 

IMHO that's the real travesty here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

phynny,

You are missing the point. This guy did not do an inspection. He put a sticker on the vehicle without looking at the vehicle. He is a thief, he took money and did not provide the service he was paid to perform. How would you feel if you paid your plumber/heating contractor to come out and service your burning. He takes your money and leads you to believe that everything is OK. You burner blows up 2-3 months later and you find out that not only where there problems with the burner, but that the guy never even looked at the burner. That's negligence. We are not talking about something being missed. As far as feeling bad for someone who is down on their luck, when we are doing safety inspections, we are agents of the state; I have no ability to change what the state has legislated for inspection laws and am therefore breaking the law by not enforcing those regulations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its hard to say without all the facts. The elderly woman might have been eating cat food to survive on $400 a month social security for all we know, and her 25 year old car was her lifeline to get firewood up to the house. The mechanic probably felt bad that she can't afford to drive and gave her a sticker out of kindness. Who knows, maybe he is the type that slaps a sticker on everything for cash or beer bribes.

 

Any state inspector knows that every car on the road can pass inspection today and break tomorrow after jumping a ditch or whatever. I'm really surprised his ins. Co didn't shut this down immediately, maybe he saved money in the wrong area.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its hard to say without all the facts. The elderly woman might have been eating cat food to survive on $400 a month social security for all we know, and her 25 year old car was her lifeline to get firewood up to the house. The mechanic probably felt bad that she can't afford to drive and gave her a sticker out of kindness. Who knows, maybe he is the type that slaps a sticker on everything for cash or beer bribes.

 

Any state inspector knows that every car on the road can pass inspection today and break tomorrow after jumping a ditch or whatever. I'm really surprised his ins. Co didn't shut this down immediately, maybe he saved money in the wrong area.

Al is correct. This guy could be a scoundrel or he could be a really good guy, soft touch trying to help someone out. Without the facts and first hand knowledge all of us are just speculating. Either way he will now face the courts. Whatever, if this guy is convicted it will not be good case law for any of us.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

xrac,

You are correct that it is not good for any of us. I do not have all the facts (who does), but from what I have read, it really is the fact that he didn't perform an inspection that is the basis for the charges. I have to believe that the State of Vermont has some pretty good evidence that negligence was involved, not just a minor oversight on the part of the inspector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

xrac,

You are correct that it is not good for any of us. I do not have all the facts (who does), but from what I have read, it really is the fact that he didn't perform an inspection that is the basis for the charges. I have to believe that the State of Vermont has some pretty good evidence that negligence was involved, not just a minor oversight on the part of the inspector.

 

But you know what they say about assumptions right. When has any state needed proof to "prosecute" someone? And what you say is misleading, this car didn't come in because the customer wanted to make sure her car was 100% correct, the lady was forced by the state to take her car to a shop that is forced by the state to do a full inspection for $10. In my opinion all these state inspections do is take the blame from the owner and place it on some shop. I have a strong opinion of this whole process as I'm sure you can tell. As far as I'm concerned if the states are going to dictate what we can charge then they can find their own inspector, and guess what, if that state inspector didn't do his job I'll guarantee you'll never be able to prosecute him.

 

It boggles the mind that if you are pulling your camper and hook it up wrong and it results in a death you are going to prison for manslaughter but if you drive a POS and find some desperate/idiot to slap a sticker on it then it's his fault.... Merica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

phynny,

Which one of us is making assumptions? In a court of law, with a jury of his piers, the State of Vermont will have to come up with some pretty substantial evidence to win this case. I never said that the customer was trying to get the vehicle to like new condition, but there is a legal requirement that the inspector would do what he was paid to do, the inspection. Where is anyone forced to do inspections? It's voluntary to become a State Inspector. Where is it required to do said inspection for $10? Each station can set there own fee. The only time you take on the blame from the owner of the vehicle is when you decide which parts of the law to ignore. When the state dictates what I can charge for the safety inspection, I will make a business decision about continuing to be a state inspection station. In fact it is because of some of these "Lick and Stick" shops that our inspection fee is artificially low. If someone is a desperate idiot that slaps a sticker on without doing his job, then Yes it's his fault. It's frustrating to run a professional shop when you have desperate idiots slapping stickers on cars that shouldn't be on the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New York sets the inspection price. $21 safety/emission, $6 trailer. The bad deal is on trailers with brakes, for $6 we are required to pull a wheel. After the authorization fee and the sticker we are left with $3. to pay a guy to do it. Overall inspections bring in work so I'm not complaining, but making money on the state inspection itself is a losing proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bickering aside,

 

I believe this is a reminder to all of us to make sure we perform our jobs to a "T" We all know we do certain jobs day in and day out. Maybe take an extra second to make sure we finished the job correctly and didn't hustle through it.

 

This also serves as evidence to our customer's of why we HAVE to follow the rules. Not only is it their safety and LIVES but it is our job. The loss of life is unfortunate but let's use it as education not only for the public, for ourselves as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WV requires you to pull wheels and put her on a lift for $10, PA is just a tad more. Yes, you are forced to because the customers HAVE to have it done and we HAVE to please our customers. That's be like saying a doctor isn't forced to see patients, sure he doesn't have to but then he doesn't have a business. And please, you think courts are fair and just?, it's all about who has the better attorney or pulls on some heart strings the best. Fine the guy, don't put him in prison for 15 years. I'll bet if it was a friend or family member of yours you wouldn't have already convicted him and neither would you be so callused about it.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you that we need to do our jobs but I certainly do not think we are at a point where the money nearly covers the risks. How can a guy making $10/hour or less be responsible for something that could put them in prison for years. And since you are a state inspector you know the "state inspector license" is a joke that an 8 year old could pass. That tells me they care more about the number of inspectors they have than the quality of inspectors. If this guy was a lick-it-stick-it clown then he'll deal with his consequences but I haven't seen anything to suggest that yet.

 

I suppose I'm speaking on a broader issue than this guys case, to me this whole system is flawed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is easy to believe what the State claims if you do not know how the legal system works and operates.

 

The people are not taugh civics or law in the public schools anymore, i won't speculate as to the reason why but can make a reasonable guess that they want the large majority of the people ignorant so they can be better controlled.

 

Now, if you have mastered this business you can tell from experience who is knowledgeable and who is not, you can basically tell a class A tech from a C class aprentice, the same with those that practice law, they know the vast majority of the people are not even aware of their political status nor their Rights or protections to seek remedy or redress.

 

Having said that, what we don't know is the motive for this Prosecutor to lay charges on that man. Is the prosecutor doing it for political motives, where he sees a benefit to his career or the family of the victim is truly seeking justice?

 

Look at a definition of manslaughter from the old law books:<iframe src="https://app.box.com/embed/preview/p8q1pgd7k65sbizymru426o2xyuady8b?theme=dark" width="500" height="400" frameborder="0"allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>

https://books.google.com/books?id=j1MUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PT449&dq=manslaughter+defined+law&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAGoVChMImoTZtNe_xwIVQjY-Ch3Kwgai#v=onepage&q=manslaughter%20defined%20law&f=false

 

Allegedly, there were two months passed since the date of the inspection to the day of the victims demise. A lot could have happened to that car in between the inspection of the vehicle to the day of the incident, she could have gone through a pot hole that stressed the frame of the vehicle and that may have ruptured the rusty brake lines.. now, does the old definition of manslaughter give you any guide line as to how to see how to judge this incident? I don't know how Vermont currently defines manslaughter, so I couldn't know if the charge as it currently is laid is appropriate.

 

Nevetheless, I hope that man finds a competent lawyer, because in the alternative I suspect he will be pressured to take a plea bargain that is beneficial to the prosecutor and not to the man and his family.

Edited by HarrytheCarGeek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/vermont/2015/08/11/mechanic-charged-manslaughter/31466163/

 

During an Aug. 24, 2014, statement, Jalbert said he replaced one of the rear brake lines and the other three “showed indications of serious rust and corrosion” in April 2012. Jalbert said Ibey didn’t want them replaced, but also could not remember what he used for a reason.

 

 

Read some of the comments from the above linked article:

 

Janine Cary ·
Alot can happen in 383 miles or 2 months of time.. Everyone needs someone to blame.. and why not take it out on someone paid to do something. Im not sure how it can be "proven" he knew of the problem if it were not on the inspection report. If you fail an inspection they still let you drive your car away too. This is an insane act of placing blame.. and no- i do not know any of the parties involved.
Cathy Lavelle Ryan ·
The entire underside of the car and brake lines can't rust out in two months (two summer months, at that). And you're right, if you fail inspection, you can drive it away, but you are TOLD that the car is unsafe. I think if the driver had been told it was unsafe, he would have done something about it. Finally, you say it's not the inspector's fault if he didn't KNOW about the problem (rust). But rust is one of the things inspectors are REQUIRED to look for, before passing a car. So if he didn't know, he should have.
Like · Reply · Aug 12, 2015 7:47am
Laurie B. Sabens
Cathy Lavelle Ryan you also have to note that Mr. Ibey allegedly stated that he did not want the brake lines repaired. I agree with Katherine Whitley - this WILL set a precedence and one that will change the history of car repair for years to come.
Like · Reply · like.png1 · Aug 13, 2015 7:00am
Cameron Chapman ·
This is ridiculous. A lot can happen in 2 months, and holding this mechanic responsible is ludicrous. If this guy is convicted, good luck getting any car that isn't brand new inspected in Vermont. No mechanic is going to want to touch an older vehicle.
Katherine Whitley ·
Let me first say that this is the most insane, slanderous, defamatory thing I have ever seen.
The State of Vermont, in its quest to find a way to terrorize mechanics, have overstepped themselves and introduced a ridiculous charge to level at a decent working man, as well as his family's business.
I want every mechanic in the state to take heed; if these insultingly stupid charges are allowed to stand, it will set a precedent that should not only make every working mechanic halt inspections forever, but every doctor should stop caring for patients... Nurses should walk out of the healthcare fac
...See More
Cathy Lavelle Ryan ·
Inspectors don't have to worry about this happening to them, if they follow the law and inspect the car the way they should. This guy didn't even look for rust. If you hire someone to check your furnace in the fall to make sure it's safe, and they do an absolutely inadequate job of checking it, and it blows up, yeah, you can hold them responsible. Basically, people can be held responsible if they purposely do a horrible job at their job and someone is hurt or killed. If a doctor does a terrible job and someone dies, yes they can be sued for malpractice. If a doctor does the best that ca...See More
Like · Reply · like.png1 · Aug 12, 2015 7:48am
John Searles ·
WOW - this is incredibly faulty logic!
Like · Reply · Aug 12, 2015 8:02am
Katherine Whitley ·
Cathy, you can follow the law to the letter and get blamed and charged, if someone decides to go after you. Our legal system has ensured that you can be sued for anything, by anybody.
This sets a sick precedent, and it is clear. The criminal charges leveled, don't even follow legal guidelines on the definition of manslaughter.
It is a propaganda witch hunt.
This is the sickest stretch I've ever seen, as far as a state being so determined to issue criminal charges to a mechanic due a car's malfunction, months later.
There can be no explanation, other than the fact that the DMV has an agenda
...See More
Katherine Whitley ·
And Cathy, I have to add that there is a HUGE difference between malpractice suits for doctors who do not accurately treat a patient, or miss an illness that causes death, and a state bringing charges of murder or manslaughter against you.
What is missing here is criminal intent.
Did the mechanic knowingly and with willful malice take actions that caused death?
The answer here is "no."
Inspections have many areas that are subject to a mechanic's opinion on whether the item in question is fail able, or should be okay until next inspection. And there is a grey area there. I took a car to AJs wh
...See More
Brad Barratt
Why did the mechanic pass a car that should have failed? I think it's a stretch to connect the inspection to the accident.
Don Jacob ·
To start with, this should NEVER have been on the front page of the BFP.
Next, the root cause of the problem......RUST. Who caused the rust.....the state. They seem to be intent on destroying a new car in 5 years. So, after 5 years, your car won't pass inspection, you must buy a new vehicle or pay way more than your vehicle is worth to fix it. This whole thing stinks..........
11247710_10153365902950020_2151393309583
Janine Cary ·
The state is responsible for rust? Are you talking about salt and brine put on the road in winter? Who would be responsible for the accidents if this was not done? How about instead of blaming something like rust on the state/state employees/anyone that does not drive or maintain your car.. that you actually maintain your car and hell.. i dont know, get a car wash!
Like · Reply · Aug 13, 2015 8:37am
10622816_10203688241545801_7283364803711
Scott Albert ·
This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. And even if one brake line failed, the master cylinder has 2 ports for safety as shown in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAcRMqCSlCs So why dont we go after the car manufacture and 2 Months later, Come on?? And isnt it law that the driver have control of the Vehicle at all times. I mean come on, the Mechanic wasn't driving the car and who is to say what really happend???
10306382_324105911074564_505000741417718
Herman Planten ·
The current VT inspector certification process is weak; applicants merely need to pass a simple true/false quiz. (Page Gen 5)

http://dmv.vermont.gov/.../DMV-VN112-Vehicle_Inspection...

Many high school kids earn the designation of “inspector” every year.

The inspection process could be improved by requiring those inspecting vehicles to be nationally certified by ASE

https://www.ase.com/Home.aspx
...See More
321301_10201024783851877_988409835_n.jpg

T Edward Wetmore ·

In my experience in the car business, I have often seen a customer fail an inspection, then call around asking friends if they knew anyone that would put a sticker on it for them. Many times they left the dealership, went to a small independant and got a sticker. Soon the state will be able to monitor failed inspections, and if there is a pass at a different shop within a short period of time, they will investigate.
Edited by HarrytheCarGeek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We inspected an older vw motorhome last year and it FAILED. exhaust manifold cracked and leaking. Hole in floor (large hole). Rear brake shoe lining completely detached from its backing. Brake light out. She was not Happy. She took the vehicle to another station who in turn passed it. I recieved a call from PA state trooper in charge of vehicle fraud. I was investigated. We did our due diligence documented everything and We were the ones that were scrutinzed. The womans son is a friend of mine. He asked why the other garage would pass the camper with a brake light out. He brought me the receipt. Passed with flying colors. The date of the receipt was the day after she picked it up from us. The women did not repair any of the issues, was issued a safety sticker fraudulently and we are the ones that are looked at. Damned if you do Damned if you dont. Moral of the story WRITE it down. If brake lines are really rusted we state that. no they can not be failed unless they are leaking but.... CYA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...