Legal Question in Credit and Debt Law in Michigan

If he was driving the car when it was damaged, or otherwise caused damages to the car, then he needs to pay. Bickering and filing a lawsuit over $70 is ridiculous. If I was her, and he refused to pay the $70, I'd chalk it up to a learning experience - i.e., don't let anyone else use your car, especially an unlicensed or uninsured idiot. She's lucky it's only $70 in damages and not something worse. If she filed a lawsuit, she'd have to prove that the new tire was necessary because of his actions, and not because the tire was worn out or already damaged. The Judge would ask how long after the "incident" did she get the tire? What did the invoice say as to why the old tire needed replacing? It's also common knowledge that when most cars hit a curb or other low object, it's usually the rim that is damaged, and not the rubber tire itself (other than a scrap or mark that doesn't affect the tire's condition or performance). But, the curb could have caused a bubble or hit the tire just right, like in a weak spot.

Her case isn't necessarily easy to prove. However, courts often try to resolve petty cases like this by cutting it down the middle, i.e., having him pay half. It all depends on the court and the judge hearing the case, and the impression each party or witness makes (and the honesty of each). It's basically a waste of time for either her to file a lawsuit, or for him to defend the lawsuit, as they'll both spend a half day at court arguing about $70.