Rep Power: 0

HI,

I recently rented a beaten-up (salvaged?) '93 civic for 100$/week with 290,000 miles on it from a repair shop here in Los Angeles that also has some cheap rentals/rent to buy, while I look for a new car (was in an accident recently).
The car seemed to run ok but not in great shape- speedometer didn't work properly, a rag instead of cap on gas tank, etc...

The other day I was on the freeway and noticed more smoke than usual coming from the hood (thought I'd noticed a little previously but didn't think much of it considering the condition of the car) and also noticed the temp gauge was at high. Shortly afterwards, all traffic was stopped for about 5 minutes due to an accident. I turned off the car.

Five minutes later I restarted the car (with a bit of difficulty), smoke was still coming from under the hood (not a ton of it but some) and temp gauge was still at high. Not being mechanically inclined, I wasn't sure what to do and decided to try to make it to the place I rented it from, about a 10 minute or so drive.

When I got there and told the owner what happened, he got a bit angry and said 'why'd you drive it here? you made it worse! you should've used common sense and stopped the car and waited for it to cool off, or gone to the closest gas station.' Shortly afterwards he told me that the engine had a cracked head and that he'd appreciate it if I contributed to the repair bill, and that he'd let me know what it costs.

- I had asked him and his assistant for a reliable car and apparently they hadn't given me one. I looked up the value of the car on kbb and it is 1000$, approximately. A mechanic told me this repair could be from 1 to 2000$. On the back of the rental agreement it says it is prohibited to drive the car, among other circumstances," if further use of the vehicle would cause damage i.e., steam rising from engine, warning light on, etc..)"

I was really stressed out about this while waiting to hear back from this guy. I spoke to a lawyer and police officer about it, both feel I would win in court.

The two issues for me are
1)Moral- is it likely that I caused the head to crack by continuing to drive it after it began to smoke or equally likely that the head was already cracked when it began to smoke? If my fault, I would at least give him something- 100$, maybe.

2)Legal- obviously don't want to lose if I go to court. Not sure if this car was even in good enough shape to be legally rentable or drivable.

Looking up the shop online it got an F from the better business bureau and had a number of negative reviews on yelp- overcharging for service, saying a vehicle needed x repair for 700$, owner going to another shop and finding out its y for 200$, etc..

Feedback from the mechanically knowledgeable would be greatly appreciated.

 
Rep Power: 518

I am not a lawyer, and I don't play one on T.V.


Your fault, partially. But

Are you an expert in the field of car repair?

I'm pretty sure that because there is no clause in the rental agreement (contract) about the person renting the car "must be knowledgeable in all things mechanical", then there must be no assumptions that anyone renting the car would have any "mechanical common sense". If everyone on the road had that common sense, many of us would be out of a job.

Cracked head, no.
Warped and blew the head gasket, sure.
Rebuildable? Who cares, it's a 20 year old car.
Almost 300,000 miles on it, that car is well past its prime.
Anything could have gone wrong.
Used engines should be cheap.


Rest assured, if they have been renting out this wreck for $100 per week for a significant period of time, that car has paid for itself many times over.

IMHO: You owe them nothing. Zip. Nil. Nada. Not even a second thought.


If someone had let the car burn to the ground, it would NOT be your fault.
A rag for a gas cap would not pass an emissions (EVAP) test either.

 
Rep Power: 204

what ?!? You mean I have to stop using a rag for a gas cap...

I dunno, ezone could probably answer this better than I can but....

If there was a rag for a gas cap shouldn't the check engine light been on? Was it? If not they probably disabled it and judging by your description of the car, they probably did. That should make the whole clause about driving the car with 'warning lights' on prohibited invalid. Although I'd guess you'd have to prove the CEL wasn't functional.

 
Rep Power: 518

[quote=Stock 99;4623848]

Only on cars with OBD2. Those are the only ones that would run on-board self tests for checking the integrity of the fuel tank and canister system.

The 93 in the OP would have been OBD1.
No CEL for a gas cap missing. It doesn't care.


That makes the rest of your theory invalid......but the car was still a rolling sh!tbox nonetheless.