So now we can sue the manufacturer beacause we purchased a vehicle with too few airbags, without anti-lock brakes, or some other option we could have gotten elsewhere. When does the law-suit insanity stop?
Anti-lock brakes are an option just like other safety devices, depending on the brand, are options. Seatbelts are not. The consumer has no choice but to purchase a vehicle with the type of seatbelts it comes equipped with dumbass!!!!
This ruling is so infuriating. We are never goinifg to get anywhere in this country if we continue to allow grieving people to sue over a product that complies with minimum standards set forth by our own government. If these parents were that concerned about seatbelt safety, they should have researched the product before making the purchase.
The Supreme Court did not say they’d win, only that they had the right to pursue litigation. The ruling does not absolve a corporation from it’s responsility just by complying with a minimum gov’t standard.
Fred, I appreciate your comment and I understand the ruling. I guess my point is that I think that we have a few too many rights to pursue litigation in this country. We need to address tort reform, or establish limits, before litigation like this gets out of control. Most would agree that it is already out of control. Companies have to consider so many aspects of a product such as features, pricing, competition, current market conditions, etc. Safety is just one item on the list…but yes it’s an important one. The other problem is that saftey is one of those things that is almost unlimited in terms of what can be done on a vehicle. The problem is that the more features you add the higher the cost, and soon you have priced your product right out of the market. So how much safety is enough? If there were shoulder and lap belts in this car but no curtain airbags, would they still sue? If there were airbags but no crumple zones in the body…what then? These aren’t matters for a jury to decide. Especially a jury that will have to look at grieving parents, and pictures of a dead child. This is why we have minimum standards set to help push companies in the right direction. I know that we need to keep big companies in check, but we need to protect them against situations where they have made an effort,but there was still a tragedy that probably wasn’t their fault. We have seen the economic effects of big companies crumbling, and I don’t want that to happen again.
Litigation just makes more money for lawyers and increases insurance costs which ultimately makes the cost of the product higher for the consumer. When will people in this country wake up?
I find it very interesting that it is reported this is the position of the Obama administration. They have pushed the revisionist ideal of Federal over State in law. So it is with surprise they would support the state ruling of states rights.
The really sad part of this is that in the very remote off chance they should win any kind of settlement, the attorney will get 30% or more of the settlement. We we not only had tort reform, but limited the amount that an attorney can actually take of the settlement maybe there would not be so many lawsuits like this. They would want to spend the time and resources .
sorry I didn’t say that last sentence correctly. it should read
” They (the lawyers) would not want to spend the time and resources necessary for a case like this.
I remember all too well when Chrysler Corporation first started installing airbags in the 80’s. They were sued for not installing air bags in all cars and they were sued for injuries caused by airbags in vehicles equipped with them. Every evening when I turn on my TV I can see a minimum of 20 personal injury lawyer ads placed by bottom feeding greedy attorneys who tell their clients that there is always a big payoff for anyone who suffers a misfortune regardless of the nature of that misfortune. The truth is that like is full of unexpected setbacks and sometimes stuff happens.
How about, the people bought the car, knowing that it only had lap belts. If they didn’t like it they should have bought a car that had the shoulder belts. Personal responsibility is absent in the USA!
Where do you think all these “do nots” came from. Some idiot out there did just what commons sense would tell you not to do.
I agree, if you are looking for a vehicle that offers the most protection for all passengers, then the research should have been extensively done BEFORE purchasing the vehicle. Any nitwit would have to assume that shoulder belts would offer more protection then a lap belt on ANY SEAT. However, there are always ambulance chasers out there trying to earn their 30%.
So now we can sue the manufacturer beacause we purchased a vehicle with too few airbags, without anti-lock brakes, or some other option we could have gotten elsewhere. When does the law-suit insanity stop?
Anti-lock brakes are an option just like other safety devices, depending on the brand, are options. Seatbelts are not. The consumer has no choice but to purchase a vehicle with the type of seatbelts it comes equipped with dumbass!!!!
This ruling is so infuriating. We are never goinifg to get anywhere in this country if we continue to allow grieving people to sue over a product that complies with minimum standards set forth by our own government. If these parents were that concerned about seatbelt safety, they should have researched the product before making the purchase.
I expect that the automaker can now sue the US Government for having and enforcing a lax standard.
The Supreme Court did not say they’d win, only that they had the right to pursue litigation. The ruling does not absolve a corporation from it’s responsility just by complying with a minimum gov’t standard.
Fred, I appreciate your comment and I understand the ruling. I guess my point is that I think that we have a few too many rights to pursue litigation in this country. We need to address tort reform, or establish limits, before litigation like this gets out of control. Most would agree that it is already out of control. Companies have to consider so many aspects of a product such as features, pricing, competition, current market conditions, etc. Safety is just one item on the list…but yes it’s an important one. The other problem is that saftey is one of those things that is almost unlimited in terms of what can be done on a vehicle. The problem is that the more features you add the higher the cost, and soon you have priced your product right out of the market. So how much safety is enough? If there were shoulder and lap belts in this car but no curtain airbags, would they still sue? If there were airbags but no crumple zones in the body…what then? These aren’t matters for a jury to decide. Especially a jury that will have to look at grieving parents, and pictures of a dead child. This is why we have minimum standards set to help push companies in the right direction. I know that we need to keep big companies in check, but we need to protect them against situations where they have made an effort,but there was still a tragedy that probably wasn’t their fault. We have seen the economic effects of big companies crumbling, and I don’t want that to happen again.
Litigation just makes more money for lawyers and increases insurance costs which ultimately makes the cost of the product higher for the consumer. When will people in this country wake up?
I find it very interesting that it is reported this is the position of the Obama administration. They have pushed the revisionist ideal of Federal over State in law. So it is with surprise they would support the state ruling of states rights.
The really sad part of this is that in the very remote off chance they should win any kind of settlement, the attorney will get 30% or more of the settlement. We we not only had tort reform, but limited the amount that an attorney can actually take of the settlement maybe there would not be so many lawsuits like this. They would want to spend the time and resources .
sorry I didn’t say that last sentence correctly. it should read
” They (the lawyers) would not want to spend the time and resources necessary for a case like this.
I remember all too well when Chrysler Corporation first started installing airbags in the 80’s. They were sued for not installing air bags in all cars and they were sued for injuries caused by airbags in vehicles equipped with them. Every evening when I turn on my TV I can see a minimum of 20 personal injury lawyer ads placed by bottom feeding greedy attorneys who tell their clients that there is always a big payoff for anyone who suffers a misfortune regardless of the nature of that misfortune. The truth is that like is full of unexpected setbacks and sometimes stuff happens.
How about, the people bought the car, knowing that it only had lap belts. If they didn’t like it they should have bought a car that had the shoulder belts. Personal responsibility is absent in the USA!
Do not wear clothes while ironing them.
Do not put hands or figures in fans blades.
Do not run with scissors.
Where do you think all these “do nots” came from. Some idiot out there did just what commons sense would tell you not to do.
I agree, if you are looking for a vehicle that offers the most protection for all passengers, then the research should have been extensively done BEFORE purchasing the vehicle. Any nitwit would have to assume that shoulder belts would offer more protection then a lap belt on ANY SEAT. However, there are always ambulance chasers out there trying to earn their 30%.