Stupid lawsuit of the week

[reason]

What gives them the right to sue because they didn't buy something?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Where in this article does it offer the reader the motivations for the plaintiff's decision to not purchase the safety feature? It doesn't.

And please tell me, since when are car dealers bastions of honesty and integrity? I'm guessing most of car salesman are more concerned about earning their commission before informing a customer of some potential safety flaw.

[gae]

I'm beating a dead horse here, aren't I?

If the Clemens' had gone public to underscore the need for back up sensors, I wouldn't care. But they are SUING FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS AVAILABLE ON SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T BUY!

Come on, Reason. You're a smart man. If feature X is available and I choose not to pony up the extra bucks for it, what right do I have to sue because I don't have it?

Have you ever driven an Infiniti SUV?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nope. And since I fail to see the need for them, I probably never will.

[reason]

In a phone interview with News 8, Nissan/Infiniti spokesman Kyle Bazemore said the child's death was "very sad, very tragic," but added that even when an SUV comes equipped with a back-up video camera, it's not fool-proof.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I wonder if this is the text Infinit puts into it's promotional literature.

[reason]

Originally posted by gae:
I'm beating a dead horse here, aren't I?

If the Clemens' had gone public to underscore the need for back up sensors, I wouldn't care. But they are SUING FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS AVAILABLE ON SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T BUY!

Come on, Reason. You're a smart man. If feature X is available and I choose not to pony up the extra bucks for it, what right do I have to sue because I don't have it?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have you ever driven an Infiniti SUV?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nope. And since I fail to see the need for them, I probably never will.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, maybe if you would digest the full context of my points you'd get it. But you choose not to.

Get some rest and come back when you choose to not be so selective in your readings. You make some rather wholesale judgements over a short article. It's like trying to complete an algebraic equation without having all the necessary information.

You don't know what these people were told when they bought their vehicle. You don't even know the full circumstances of their accident.

I can see the possibility that Infiniti dropped the ball on this one.

[gae]

Dear, dear Reason.

I am digesting your posts. I simply disagree, because the Clemens' had the option to purchase a vehicle with the sensors and they chose to purchase one without them.

You understand choice, don't you?

Should those sensors be mandatory on SUVs? I don't know. That's a different subject.

Does your vehicle have side air bags? IIRC, you've had a bit of bad luck in traffic in recent years. If your SUV-lite doesn't have side air bags and another moron hits you, do you have the right to sue because other vehicles have side air bags?

[reason]

Will back up safety devices be next?

Rear center passenger seats must have belts by 2008


December 9, 2004


Washington (AP) -- All passenger vehicles sold in the United States must have shoulder and lap belts in the rear center seat by the 2008 model year under a federal rule issued Wednesday.

Three out of four new passenger cars already have the belts, but only half of pickups and sport-utility vehicles do. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's new rule requires 80 percent of vehicles to have shoulder belts by the 2007 model year and 100 percent the following year.

The NHTSA estimates the rule will save up to 23 lives and prevent up to 495 injuries each year. Automakers support the rule, which will cost the industry $179 million to $240 million, the NHTSA said.

[reason]

I am digesting your posts. I simply disagree, because the Clemens' had the option to purchase a vehicle with the sensors and they chose to purchase one without them.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No you are not digesting, because there simply isn't enough information in the article to know what they were told when they purchased the vehicle. If we're going to pit a car salesman up against a family who lost their child, I'm putting my money on the family.

[reason]

Should those sensors be mandatory on SUVs? I don't know. That's a different subject.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The first people who should know this are those who sell the vehicle, not the family who lost their child.

[reason]

Does your vehicle have side air bags? IIRC, you've had a bit of bad luck in traffic in recent years. If your SUV-lite doesn't have side air bags and another moron hits you, do you have the right to sue because other vehicles have side air bags?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's a good question, gae. I don't know. (But I should point out, that technically everyone has the right to sue, so ultimately, the answer to your question is "yes.")

I do know that my car is rated high in safety for its category. But if there is a history of problems with injury due to side collisions and the company had the means to rectify the problem but decided not to, I'm thinking there might be something to gripe about.

[Lew]

Actually, taking a few minutes to peruse through a new vehicle is a handy-dandy way to trace the history of product liability jurisprudence in American history (going through a Home Depot on a Saturday morning also provides this experience).

With few exceptions, most of the advances in car safety have been precipitated by lawsuits, many times the actual suits themselves being BS but the overall safety concerns being legit. For example, one of the cases that led to more fireproof fabric involved a drunk driver who wrecked and died not from the impact but from the resulting fire.

Now, on the one hand, you could say this guy was drunk, had he not been drunk he would not have wrecked, case dismissed.

On the other, you could say that, since wrecks are forseeable (indeed, most wrecks don't involve alcohol), what does it hurt the car maker to use fire-resistant fabric?

I do believe the devices Reason speaks of will be standard on cars one day in the future. But, because I believe this accident would have occurred anyway, I will agree with Gae and issue my verdict in favor of the Defendant.