$150M Award in Chrysler Lawsuit

[bumperm]

Another example of the utter stupidity of the average American, the get-rich-quick mentality, and the us-against-them mentality the lefties successfully peddle when it comes to "big business". The truck driver was obviously completely responsible, and the jeep met applicable safety standards at the time. I despair when I see things like this.

Agree.

One should also consider the burden on our economy that are truly broken tort system incurs. Inventors and especially smaller companies don't bring new products to market for fear of liability. Companies and professionals pay exorbitant insurance premiums due to the risk of huge jury awards and the costs of defending them. A very many large settlements to frivolous lawsuits occur simply to avoid the costs of defense. All of this BS is paid for by us in one form or another, all of it is a drain on our economy contributes to the high cost of doing business here, and helps drive jobs to other countries.

But, this grossly flawed system is vigorously defended by the Trial Lawyer's Assoc. and most of our reps in congress happen to be attorneys.

We're screwed.

 

[tcreeley]

Exploding firestone tires anybody? Toyotas that speed up? Who is responsible?

 

[Zick]

Per Chrysler:


I see two issues here:
1. You cannot make a vehicle that is 100% safe in every possible accident, in this case, it sounds like the other driver hit the (stopped) Jeep going over 50MPH. The rear impact fuel leak standards for pre-2006 vehicles was 30MPH, for post 2006 vehicles, it is 50MPH.(source)
2. If it met the standards when it was built and if it still meets them (ie: its a case of newer cars being safer vs a part that fails over time), IMO the liability should not fall on an automaker who made a vehicle which met the applicable standards at the time of manufacture.

Aaron Z

+1
This is exactly my feelings too.

So even if Chrysler moved the tank to some where in the middle, this same scenario would probably get played out the same if the vehicle would have been T-boned instead of rear-ended.

 

[aczlan]

+1
This is exactly my feelings too.

So even if Chrysler moved the tank to some where in the middle, this same scenario would probably get played out the same if the vehicle would have been T-boned instead of rear-ended.

Or if it got rear ended hard enough to push the axle into the mid mounted gas tank...

Aaron Z

 

[tcreeley]

So you design and mass market a car that you know will burst into flames if rear ended at a speed greater than 30mph.

Why would you do this with a clear conscience?

--A few weeks back we had a 77 car pile up due to snow on rt 95. No fatalities due to good design of vehicles and air bags. It can be done.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

So you design and mass market a car that you know will burst into flames if rear ended at a speed greater than 30mph.

Why would you do this with a clear conscience?

--A few weeks back we had a 77 car pile up due to snow on rt 95. No fatalities due to good design of vehicles and air bags. It can be done.

A very astute observation. Just because a vehicle meets regulatory standards, does not mean that the engineers did not know that it had shortcomings that could be remedied with a little reworking and a few extra bucks. If this was forseeable at the time of manufacture, a jury could easily find that the company was negligent in its manufacture. As for big jury awards, sometimes they are justified.

 

[TCJatko]

So you design and mass market a car that you know will burst into flames if rear ended at a speed greater than 30mph.

Why would you do this with a clear conscience?

--A few weeks back we had a 77 car pile up due to snow on rt 95. No fatalities due to good design of vehicles and air bags. It can be done.

Were there any front-to-rear collisions with a fifty-mile-per-hour speed differential? The roads were slick with snow, struck vehicles would tend to slide. This is hardly a valid comparison.

 

[Zick]

So you design and mass market a car that you know will burst into flames if rear ended at a speed greater than 30mph.

Why would you do this with a clear conscience?

--A few weeks back we had a 77 car pile up due to snow on rt 95. No fatalities due to good design of vehicles and air bags. It can be done.

Do you realize how many variables there are in every traffic accident. It would be impossible to design a vehicle to cover every possible scenario.

 

[tcreeley]

Were there any front-to-rear collisions with a fifty-mile-per-hour speed differential? The roads were slick with snow, struck vehicles would tend to slide. This is hardly a valid comparison.

pickups, suv's, tractor trailers, vehicles folded - Look at the school bus eating up a car's rear bumper.View attachment 420006View attachment 420007View attachment 420010

Speed led to 75-car pileup on I-95, speed limit sign recordings show

The sign at Mile 159 northbound, 14 miles south of where the pileup began, showed every vehicle in the hour leading up to the 7:30 a.m. crash exceeded the reduced speed limit. The 333 drivers heading north were driving an average 62 mph, with the lowest recorded speed at 51 mph and the highest at 73 mph.

This is improved vehicle design at work.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Do you realize how many variables there are in every traffic accident. It would be impossible to design a vehicle to cover every possible scenario.

Not only is it impossible, it's not required. You only have to look at the foreseeable scenarios and provide for them if it's feasible. If it's forseeable that the car you have designed will be rearended...and that a couple uncovered bolts could rupture the gas tank and catch fire...and you could spend another few bucks to fix it, and you don't, be prepared to pay when the jury gets hold of it.