Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
. . .
Highlighted for emphasis: I think that is what I am referring to - things that are hinted at, but not explicitly forbidden.
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
.....For areas where the regulations are silent or ambigious, we often rely on industry standards, as opined by experts, to delineate the requisite field duties.
This is where I think people get confused. Many people will use the "industry standards" and cite them in conversation as "law" to justify their actions (or inaction).
By the same token, many people will cite that lack of a law as cause not to follow certain practices even if they are "industry standard." (Not to mention what industry standards really are as opposed to what an expert thinks they are.)
Just a couple of comments:
Just because a regulation is indirect in a prohibition does not diminish its force. For instance, that regulation (as I last recall it, again subject to later amendments) states "regrooved", and does not appear to expressly prohibit placing a re-groovable (but not yet re-grooved) tire on a steering axle. But if it has been re-grooved, and involves a weight range above the stated threshold (or a bus), it violates the reg to remount it back on that axle. In that respect, the service of re-grooving it for that purpose is prohibited, even though the reg doesn't come out and say it. There' s no hinting about it. A lot of the regs work that way. A common sense interpretation is applied.
As far as industry standards, they are, legally, unless there is a Daubert issue, what the expert opines them to be in his expert report, once accepted by the fact-finder. And in practice (mine), in this field, there is usually not much disagreement among experts as to generally accepted industry standards as to tire maintenance and repair in the field (again, I am speaking of commercial trucking). So to the field, while not the codified "law", it is the standard that will be legally applied to them for purposes of liability. And because the standards ARE so generally accepted, the field is charged with that knowledge. Ignorance of the generally accepted standards is not a compelling defense in these matters. And as we all know, it is liability that "guides" the field, regardless of whether by violation of codified or generally accepted uncodifed standards.
Common law standards typically have as much legal force as codified standards, a point typically ignored by laymen in the field (sometimes to their carrier's dismay). They are equally "the law".
Again, I am tempering the above to the Motor Carrier context, only. And what constitutes a Motor Carrier is dictated under law. It may or may not apply outside that context. Frankly, I don't have the time for that. But it was in response to your question whether there were any laws regulating tire servicing.
A final disclaimer, as I am cautious: none of what is referenced here or elsewhere in this thread by me should be relied on as legal advice for anyone's situation. Consult an attorney about your own situation before contemplating all such matters.
