Have you guys seen this...what do you think?

[K-Man]

We need to know more about how the girl died in the accident. Was she wearing a seat belt or in a properly mounted car seat for her age? My crystal ball says maybe not.

Chrysler lost a lawsuit over the design of minivan hatches in 1997 when a child was ejected through the hatch opening in an accident. Left unsaid was how the child could have been ejected if the child had been properly restrained in the minivan seat. A letter in the Wall Street Journal claimed the child had been unbelted, but the jury wasn't allowed to hear that bit of information.

So this new suit, if it goes to court, might go badly for Jeep after all.

 

[billt460]

So this new suit, if it goes to court, might go badly for Jeep after all.

It won't go badly for Jeep. It will go badly for every one of their customers. They'll be the one's who ultimately pay for this nonsense, not Chrysler Jeep. The price of new Jeeps will reflect the cost of whatever settlement they're forced to pay out.

 

[4WD]

Lawsuits drop in like dominoes these days. Next, Jeep can sue the Feds for the feature not being required - they can argue it’s not a competitive/level playing field until all vehicles are required to install xxx …
Our Tahoe was rear ended by a young woman in a Tacoma. I was surprised that side curtain airbags deployed - and wife/daughter were shocked by how tight the seat belts locked down. (1 of the most expensive items)

We have AEB in all 4 of our vehicles …

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

It is when you don't have loser pays laws on the books. And the plaintiff drags you up and down the courthouse steps for months, running up your legal bills into the stratosphere.

You can counter sue to recover court costs.

 

[billt460]

You can counter sue to recover court costs.

Still more money gone if you don't prevail. Lawsuits, (especially counter suits), based on legal recovery costs are not good financial producers.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Still more money gone if you don't prevail. Lawsuits, (especially counter suits), based on legal recovery costs are not good financial producers.

Not that much money because the judge can make that decision when case is decided Some states allow it by statute where others it's up to the individual discretion of the judge. The reason why you don't hear about it with cases involving big corporations is that it can be bad publicity.

In any case this isn't a class action lawsuit. It's a one-and done which will probably be decided in 2-3 days.

 

[billt460]

Not that much money because the judge can make that decision when case is decided Some states allow it by statute where others it's up to the individual discretion of the judge. The reason why you don't hear about it with cases involving big corporations is that it can be bad publicity.

In any case this isn't a class action lawsuit. It's a one-and done which will probably be decided in 2-3 days.

It doesn't change the fact that if it doesn't go your way, you are going to pay, period.

With loser pays laws, the entire mess is avoided, because no lawyer is going to march into court with a huge, frivolous, class action law suit, tying up the court system for what could amount to years, if he / she knows they're going to be on the receiving end of the defendants legal bills if they lose. And the bigger the stink they make, the more They'll lose.

Lawyers like sure bets. And without loser pays, they have everything to win, and absolutely nothing to lose financially. Their time is no more valuable than yours or mine....... Unless they can bill someone for it.... Or take a 40% chunk of the award if they win.

And always remember, judges weren't born with a black robe. They all were lawyers themselves at one time or another. You want to put your money on those odds?..... Be my guest.

 

[PandaBear]

We need to know more about how the girl died in the accident. Was she wearing a seat belt or in a properly mounted car seat for her age? My crystal ball says maybe not.

Chrysler lost a lawsuit over the design of minivan hatches in 1997 when a child was ejected through the hatch opening in an accident. Left unsaid was how the child could have been ejected if the child had been properly restrained in the minivan seat. A letter in the Wall Street Journal claimed the child had been unbelted, but the jury wasn't allowed to hear that bit of information.

So this new suit, if it goes to court, might go badly for Jeep after all.

No you don't. Even if someone is walking on the shoulder and a drunk driver killed the pedestrian you should not sue the manufacturer of the car just because it is not installed with top of the line optional equipment not mandated by law.

 

[PandaBear]

You can counter sue to recover court costs.

Doesn't work that way if a dead beat customer with a dead beat lawyer sue a large corporate with a large legal bill. One side has nothing to lose the other has something, there is no way to counter sue. The dead beat lawyer and the dead girls' family are just looking for insurance settlement from Jeep's corp liability insurance, they know it is cheaper to settle than to go to court.

 

[K-Man]

No you don't. Even if someone is walking on the shoulder and a drunk driver killed the pedestrian you should not sue the manufacturer of the car just because it is not installed with top of the line optional equipment not mandated by law.

It's up to a judge. In the 1997 case the jurors weren't allowed to hear that the child ejected had not been restrained. In another case against Ford involving a Ranger in a high-speed collision that killed the driver, the jurors weren't allowed to hear the driver was legally drunk and speeding far above the speed limit. In both cases the manufacturers had to pay big. I expect something similar with this one.