Vehicle sold by David Stanley with Tinted Windshield

[FamousAJ]

 

[RidgeHunter]

Fines have gotten ridiculously high. A $200 ticket can destroy a family that are stretched to the limit already. Seems harsh for such a minor violation.

True, true. Especially if they already spent the grocery money on faux beadlocks.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

True, true. Especially if they already spent the grocery money on faux beadlocks.

Too far Ridge... You've gone too far.

 

[piston10]

True, true. Especially if they already spent the grocery money on faux beadlocks.

But they make your super badass, never been off-road jeep that much better.


I hate when my fake breadlocks leak on my Kia. Just pisses me off.

 

[Jwryan84]

I'm

I honestly believe the real problem is predatory Tactics from OHP.

This weekend I saw ohp searching several cars on the side of the highway only to find nothing and let them go. 3 cars in a span of hour and half. Same strip of highway.

I wonder if the OP was searched for suspicion of transporting drugs because he had tinted windows

Those dangerous OHP JBT, performing illegal searches on those scary over tinted Jeeps

 

[Dale00]

The Department of Homeland Security swat squad just found a new mission.

 

[Coded-Dude]

hasn't this law been in place for decades(at least 15-20 years)?

 

[Jwryan84]

hasn't this law been in place for decades(at least 15-20 years)?

Don't bring logic into this argument

 

[soonerwings]

For a cause of action chargeable under the cited statue it'd be time of sale. I think for a tort it's not so clear. The tort claim for damages isn't explicitly covered under that title.

Bad faith is five years I think, and given this was a vehicle sales contract on a car not legal to sell I think bad faith is the general claim this would fall under.

That was my point. Dave said that IF there was a negligence case (which is a tort) that it'd be time barred. I disagree. I think the statute is vague on purpose when it says "after the cause of action has accrued." The effects of negligence aren't always immediately obvious, and the cause of action doesn't accrue until the plaintiff knows (or a reasonable man in the plaintiff's position should have known) that injury occurred.

The statute wants people to go figure out when their cause of action accrued and then gives a time period to bring an action after accrual. Do I think he has a case? No. I think he fails somewhere in the "duty" or "standard of care" analysis. I just don't think he's automatically time barred. Even if he had a case, he'd likely spend more on attorney fees than he'd recover. Good luck trying to find a lawyer that would take the case on contingency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[inactive]

That was my point. Dave said that IF there was a negligence case (which is a tort) that it'd be time barred. I disagree. I think the statute is vague on purpose when it says "after the cause of action has accrued." The effects of negligence aren't always immediately obvious, and the cause of action doesn't accrue until the plaintiff knows (or a reasonable man in the plaintiff's position should have known) that injury occurred.

The statute wants people to go figure out when their cause of action accrued and then gives a time period to bring an action after accrual. Do I think he has a case? No. I think he fails somewhere in the "duty" or "standard of care" analysis. I just don't think he's automatically time barred. Even if he had a case, he'd likely spend more on attorney fees than he'd recover. Good luck trying to find a lawyer that would take the case on contingency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ag for some reason I skimmed and conflated the time barred part to be based on the title 47, which is the criminal statute. You properly cited bad faith at 5 years.. I think the cause of action being the sale was 2.5 years ago, so we are well within the statutory time frame.

Though I agree it's a hilarious concept to assert the $200 in damages when that's like, less than half a car payment on a Jeep like this.