ugly rulling for Chrysler

Status
Not open for further replies.
"ugly ruling for Chrysler"
I thought Chrysler was finally getting sued for building butugly vehicles.
27.gif
 
Not reading all the posts, but I am nearly positive Chrysler sent out notifications to owners. I am not my Jeeps first owner and I received one.

The hitch installation was the fix and a skid plate over the fuel tank was recommended. Earlier models without the skid package had a "brush guard" that was super thin. (You see most rusted through these days.)

*It hit the news too. I remember my GF's sister posting a link to my Facebook wall while I was on vacation 2 years ago.
 
Last edited:
The way our legal and regulatory system works is NOT that you're either required by law to do something, or else you're scot-free on whatever you do. You MUST learn from past mistakes.

Ford putting gas tanks in a susceptible position led to lots of people burning to death in Pintos, and Ford made a cold calculation that settling with the families was less expensive than fixing the problem. So, in other words, **** your wife and kids, we want to make $20 more per car, and the government hasn't outlawed it, so we're going to and you can't stop us. That's the definition of criminal, where I come from.

If another automobile company, decades later, makes the same choice(s) based on the same type of calculation that your kids are less expensive to kill than just making the vehicles properly in the first place, then I hope that other company fries. You MUST LEARN from prior art/mistakes/lessons. That's how our system works when it comes to product liability at least.

Is that the case here? Don't know; don't know a thing about the case. I'm struggling a bit with why the pickup driver, based on what's said here, isn't in deep ****. Could be any of a few good reasons; there's not enough info in this thread to say.
 
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl

Ford putting gas tanks in a susceptible position led to lots of people burning to death in Pintos, and Ford made a cold calculation that settling with the families was less expensive than fixing the problem. So, in other words, **** your wife and kids, we want to make $20 more per car, and the government hasn't outlawed it, so we're going to and you can't stop us. That's the definition of criminal, where I come from.


And yet, don't let the facts get in the way....

1. The Pinto met all applicable federally mandated crash and other safety designs.
2. The Pinto was no more likely to kill you or burst into flames than any other car of its era (http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf) and most of the reporting is sensationalism at its best.
3. The types of decisions Ford did are done every day at all companies. It's a cold hard fact that it's all about the #s.
4. Nothing is 100% safe. Nothing.

The same 4 things can be said about the GM side saddle gas tanks too.
 
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl

Ford putting gas tanks in a susceptible position led to lots of people burning to death in Pintos, and Ford made a cold calculation that settling with the families was less expensive than fixing the problem. So, in other words, **** your wife and kids, we want to make $20 more per car, and the government hasn't outlawed it, so we're going to and you can't stop us. That's the definition of criminal, where I come from.


And yet, don't let the facts get in the way....

1. The Pinto met all applicable federally mandated crash and other safety designs.
2. The Pinto was no more likely to kill you or burst into flames than any other car of its era (http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf) and most of the reporting is sensationalism at its best.
3. The types of decisions Ford did are done every day at all companies. It's a cold hard fact that it's all about the #s.
4. Nothing is 100% safe. Nothing.

The same 4 things can be said about the GM side saddle gas tanks too.


Is that like ABC (I believe) who put dynamite under a Chevy truck to show it blowing up? Then claimed that was the gas tank.
 
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
That's the definition of criminal, where I come from.


And just where exactly is that?

The very same decisions were made in designing and manufacturing your car, whatever it is you drive. Every car on the road could be made "safer". Every single one of them. You could have armor plating or steel i-beams in your doors. So why don't you? You could have armor plating around your fuel tank, to prevent penetration. So why don't you? You could have 1 cm thick glass, to prevent that deer from coming through the windscreen. So why don't you? You could have a full roll cage in the car, and 5-point harness with HANS devices to prevent roll-over injuries and whiplash. So why don't you?

Every single mass-produced vehicle represents compromises in design that balance safety, cost, ease of manufacture, material re-use (recyclability), inventory efficiency (parts bin instead of new design), etc. Every decision that's baked-in to your car represents a compromise that could have leaned further towards safety, but didn't due to any number of other factors.

It's not criminal.

It's just the way it is.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
IDK what evidence of wrongdoing by Chrysler the plaintiff introduced, but it must have been compelling.
I have a better idea for dealing with corporate wrongdoing.
How about criminal prosecutions?
A large damage award only harms the equity holders.
Criminal charges place the blame and the penalty where they belong.
It's also possible that the current entity will skate on paying any of this award.
After all, the Jeep in question was made by what was legally a different corporate entity.


I agree. There is way too much social work and not enough law enforcement going on in the regulatory arena. If you give them any possible way to rationalize their svrew up, human nature is that they will.
 
Originally Posted By: SLATRON
What I read was that Chrysler stared putting trailer hitches on new models and offering owners discounts to have installed. This was found in some documentation that hitch could help to reduce occurance. But they never notified people directly, because of liability I suppose. And I'm not bashing if had funds I'd probably buy a new 200.


Considering that some of the vehicles were TWENTY YEARS OLD (1993 Grand Cherokee) and probably on their third, fourth, or fifth owner (I was the 5th owner of my XJ), I suspect they couldn't have notified many owners if they had tried.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Considering that some of the vehicles were TWENTY YEARS OLD (1993 Grand Cherokee) and probably on their third, fourth, or fifth owner (I was the 5th owner of my XJ), I suspect they couldn't have notified many owners if they had tried.


In the US, if your vehicle is properly titled and registered with the state and your address of record is up to date, the notice will come.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top