My car broke down a little over a week ago. When I took it to the shop, they could not figure out what was wrong with it. When I tried to start the car, it wouldn't start. But once the tow truck took my car to the shop, it started perfectly. The shop did a 30 point inspection of the car and came up with $3,000 of other repairs that I needed. However, in an attempt to show that they were not trying to rip me off, they tried to point out stuff that was broken that I did not need to fix. For instance, they highlighted my center brake light, which is mounted on my rear window, as an example of something did not work but that I shouldn't get fixed. My left and right brake lights worked fine.
The shop explained that the third center brake light was optional. Therefore, under California law, it made no sense to fix the light, saving me $500. It seemed to make sense. However, I was skeptical because I recalled in the back of my mind that the Vehicle Code required all lighted equipment to be operational (See Cal. Veh. Code § 24252). I wanted to research the situation and had the opportunity to do so today.
My conclusions:
- The Vehicle Code only requires two stoplamps. (Cal. Veh. Code § 26103.)
- A supplemental light may be mounted inside the rear window (Ibid.)
- However, when you have a third stoplamp, it must be operational. (In re Justin K. (2002) 98 Cal. App. 4th 695). If it is not, there is reasonable suspicion of a Vehicle Code violation. (Ibid.)
- My car shop either needs to get better lawyers or stop giving out erroneous legal advice.
