Tink - your statements are becoming contradictory. (And I'd note that this would not benefit you at all in court ...)
Here is what you initially said:
Originally Posted By: Tink
The oil appears to have pumped out rapidly as there was no "check engine" light or oil pressure light. My son who was driving drove a couple of miles and heard a strange noise in the engine (but no low-oil lights!) so he called me when he arrived, and I told him to park it in a safe place (lots of tow-away zones at a college) and call the local dealership in the morning. The safest place to park it was back in the large lot a couple of miles away, but it seized up on his way there - again, until the actual seize up, no trouble lights were on.
But here are some of your statements now ...
Originally Posted By: Tink
Not necessarily. It takes time to pump out the oil, and the distance driven was very short - less than a couple of miles I think. So on the way to the destination, the filter finally comes loose and oil is pumped out about the time he gets there. It sits for a few hours allowing oil all over the engine to drip down into the pan/reservoir, and then he starts it up and drives back home, only to have it seize up. The service manager at the dealership said that they verified that the oil pressure system was working properly.
I'll note that first you said it "pumped out rapidly", and yet now you state "It takes time ...". Sir, you have zero idea how long it took to pump out the oil; it could have been quick or taken a long time. And there is zero assurance that the loss of lube was at a constant rate; it could have started slowly and escalated over undetermined period of time. If the engine was low enough on lube to make a "strange noise" and alert your son, then there would be been very little oil left upon restart. An engine that has been warmed up will return oil to the pan very quickly, and therefore by the time the engine was making noise, it was (nearly) devoid of oil, and upon shut down, had very little left to drain back for restart. Here is what you know; it lost oil at a rate sigificant enough to cause a noise, and ultimate failure. Nothing more; nothing less.
Originally Posted By: tink
Not quite - according to the dealership, by the time the oil pressure light comes on, if it had come on, it is already too late - damage is done. When the noise was heard, there was no oil pressure light or check engine light. I was called when he got to his destination (no lights still) and that is why I told him to call the dealership, but before it could be towed to the dealership if that is what they wanted done, it had to be parked where it would not get towed by the campus police. So, since there were no lights, I told him to drive it someplace where he could park it until he called the dealership. I am also of the belief that if it takes that long for an oil pressure light to come on, then you might as well not have it, or perhaps the dealership was wrong and the oil pressure light was not actually working properly.
Here is what you said at first, twice ...
" ... but no low-oil lights ..." and " ... no trouble lights were on."
First, we have contradicting information. You state twice that your son affirms the warning systems did not alert him, but the dealership indicates it's functioning. You need to determine which is true.
Next, you'd need to better define what functions you're speaking of. Are you talking about low oil level lights, or low oil pressure lights? There is a difference.
And I would disagree with your dealer here. We should define what damage means in terms of engine damage and regard to what kind of timeline. If the engine lost all oil pressure, and the low oil pressure light came on, and one shut down the engine within 15 seconds (a reasonable time to glance down and see a light) then I SERIOUSLY doubt total destruction would be the result. While the oil film is very important to reducing wear, I'd remind us all that there is little if any pressure at start up, especially when cold. A loss of pressure and resulting quick shutdown is not likely to damage the bearings any more than the hundred "dry" starts after an oil change, or the thousands of starts during an engine's lifecycle before the pressure is fully up to the top end. Further, the tribochemical barrier (the desirable physical film present on surfaces as a result of oxidation) does not drain down with the loss of oil; it is a film present at all times, to varying degrees. And so, even though one might loose the hydrodynamic film barrier due to no oil pressure, the tribochemical barrier would still be protecting the surfaces for a short time. Therefore, if your son had noticed a low oil pressure warning light in a resonable amount of time (10-15 seconds perhaps), I'd contend that little if any damage would be present. But you claim the engine has sezied And hence, I can only deduce one of two things is true:
1) the low oil pressure warning system was not working (as you indicated twice, but now contradict due to the dealer's statement), or ...
2) the system was operational but your son was unaware of it for a LOT longer than he should have been
Let me tell you about my interpretation of true engine seizure. I have never had it happen to me personally , but I've seen several examples in videos, etc. It takes MINUTES for engines to seize up from no oil pressure, not seconds. I've seen car shows such as "Top Gear" where they purposely drained the oil out, and drove around to kill the engines, in an attempt to decide which is the toughtest engine. It took several minutes. I've seen the same thing in video clips where engines were purposely sezied; no oil and it takes several minutes. I've been at a demo-derby where a vehicle lost all oil on the track, lost all coolant, and STILL RAN for more than five, screeching horrid minutes before total seizure. Additionally, they often overheat on the way to seizure. These are not absolute assurances, but they most certainly are reasonable generalizations. Therefore, I contend that one of those two aforementioned conditions HAD to be present.
Let's look at your statements in regard to a timeline ... I am combining the info from your mutliple statements, and trying to piece together what really happened.
From a matter of sequential events, here's what you've generally told us:
- your son was driving and heard a "strange noise", but no lights were on at that time
- he shut it down and called you
- you told him to move and then park it so it would not be towed by campus police, and then to call the dealership in the morning
- he restarted it to move it where it would not be towed by campus police (unclear if the noise continued)
- he drove less than a few miles (still no engine light)
- it seized
Look, when you are the plaintiff, the burden of proof is upon you. The defendent (whom really is yet to be defined) only has to deflect blame here. You could presume the defendent is the filter installer, but they could also deflect blame to the filter maker. Again - they don't have to prove what happened; you do. They only have to deflect blame with plausible options. For example, the installer could claim that the gasket material on the filter was root cause failure. So, you'd also have to name the filter maker as a co-defendent. And they (the filter makers) have warranty stipulations about making claims in a timely fassion, and also include inspection rights. Have you complied with those as well? The installer could claim that the filter itself was defective, and that it was not the installation that cause the failure. The filter maker could claim the opposite to be true. And so it is upon YOU to prove what really happened. And I mean PROVE what happened, not throw out conjecture and say "somebody owes me a new engine". Additionally, you'll have to definitively prove whether or not the oil pressure warning system was working properly. The rate of oil loss is really an unknown, and cannot be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Even if your state only required preponderence of evidence for small claims civil actions, you're stil the one that has to prove what occured. If you claim a low oil-loss rate, where is your basis? If you claim an immeidate loss of lube, what is your proof? You have circumstantial statements, but no viable proof.
You can certainly take this to small claims, but to actually have an expectation of winning, you're going to need this as a minimum:
1) inspection of the filter by the maker, and a statement of suitability of resaonable function admissable in court; hopefully the claims period is not expired. You'd possibly have to name them as co-defendents
2) independent qualified inspection of the oil warning system by a source that is willing to testify in person in court, or provide assertion of statement via an affidavit under penality of perjury (at your cost intially, I might add; you would only be reimbursed for this if you win the case)
3) clear, consise timeline and testimony from you and your son
4) admissible statements from the service installaion facility, or their direct participation, as defendent or co-defendent
By the way, if you compell people to appear, I believe you are liable for their costs (time, travel, etc). If you win, and you have compelled people to appear, you can be held accountable for their costs, but you could ask for that reimbursement in the judgement. So, if you name co-defendents, it is possible that there might even be a split decision, and each state holds those accoutable in differnt manners, so I'll not say what may or may not happen; it could be partial award of fault. Or, they would have to bring suit separately; one against the other after your case? But if you lose .... you are likely to be accoutable for ALL compelled costs for any/all defendents. And so not only would you be buying an engine for your son's car, but paying for all the costs involved in your losing case.
So - how confident are you that you can WIN a small claims case, given your lack of evidence and somewhat contradictory statements?
Like I said, you may be the victim here as someone caused harm to your situation, but I SERIOUSLY doubt you'd win in court. And to prove it takes a lot of time and money up front on your part, plus the acknowledgement that there is signficiant risk in that you'll have even more costs after judgement if you loose. You could consult an atty in your area, and that might be a good idea, but that, too, adds to your costs.
Good luck. I hope some of my thoughts will help you prepare for what is sure to be a long, uphill, agonizing, expensive battle with no clear assurance of victory.
I hope you can prove me wrong.
