Jeep to be sued for optional equipment

Lawsuit says Jeep should have included optional equipment as standard.

Sure, it's sad a kiddo died, but allowing a manufacturer to be sued because the buyer was too poor to afford optional equipment seems a bit strange to me.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility and acceptance that sometimes accidents just happen?

Arizona Supreme Court: Jeep can be sued over girl's death

Bredo Morstoel wrote:Lawsuit says Jeep should have included optional equipment as standard.

Sure, it's sad a kiddo died, but allowing a manufacturer to be sued because the buyer was too poor to afford optional equipment seems a bit strange to me.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility and acceptance that sometimes accidents just happen?

Arizona Supreme Court: Jeep can be sued over girl's death

Personal responsibility?

It wasn't their car. They were rear ended by a Jeep.

Was the girl in the most advanced child safety seat on the market at the time of the crash?

Seems like to obvious question, logically, though not in a court of law.

I have been directly involved this type of technology, on self-adjusting cruise controls, not self-braking, and it is not cheap as in probably about 10 times the cost of a typical automotive electronics module. It also has functional issues with determining if there is an obstacle which requires braking and issues regarding the safety of the people in the vehicle being braked during the automatic braking. None of which will be in the court case, clearly.

This is going to be a major issue moving forward fast vehicles become more intelligent and autonomous. At some point a vehicle is going to "make a decision" to do something that will result in a death and who is responsible for that? The programmer or the AI that made the decision? The auto company?

The technology will likely save thousands of lives over time but will never eliminate death as a risk of traveling by automobile.

You really don’t need to voluntarily be a ghoul and say that they should just accept their daughters death and move on. Jeep is more than capable of doing that themselves, they don’t need you.

Count me as saying that if they get a few bucks from the giant faceless corporation that has been keeping people like them under their boot for decades in the name of profits, then good on em.

Motown Spartan wrote:This is going to be a major issue moving forward fast vehicles become more intelligent and autonomous. At some point a vehicle is going to "make a decision" to do something that will result in a death and who is responsible for that? The programmer or the AI that made the decision? The auto company?

The technology will likely save thousands of lives over time but will never eliminate death as a risk of traveling by automobile.

This.

Self-driving, when the technology is perfected for all conditions, will be so much safer than a human driver, that insurance companies will lower the rates if the car is always self-driven.

A further development, not talked about, is VtoV communications, the vehicles exchanging data traveling down the road, which will provide additional safety. Also, smart roads, which come online and are in the same loops to provide even more data to each vehicle.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:You really don’t need to voluntarily be a ghoul and say that they should just accept their daughters death and move on. Jeep is more than capable of doing that themselves, they don’t need you.

Count me as saying that if they get a few bucks from the giant faceless corporation that has been keeping people like them under their boot for decades in the name of profits, then good on em.

As noted, it isn't this simple, the restraints in the mother's car being in play, logically, the 40% of the time that this technology will not prevent the crash and of course if the Jepp driver had been paying attention this might not have occured.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:You really don’t need to voluntarily be a ghoul and say that they should just accept their daughters death and move on. Jeep is more than capable of doing that themselves, they don’t need you.

Count me as saying that if they get a few bucks from the giant faceless corporation that has been keeping people like them under their boot for decades in the name of profits, then good on em.

As noted, it isn't this simple, the restraints in the mother's car being in play, logically, the 40% of the time that this technology will not prevent the crash and of course if the Jepp driver had been paying attention this might not have occured.

It is actually quite simple- I do not care if it is unfair to Jeep. That’s all.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

As noted, it isn't this simple, the restraints in the mother's car being in play, logically, the 40% of the time that this technology will not prevent the crash and of course if the Jepp driver had been paying attention this might not have occured.

It is actually quite simple- I do not care if it is unfair to Jeep. That’s all.

Just going with the justice is blind angle.

I think on an Amazon show (maybe?) some futuristic show... one of the premises was the main guy died in a car wreck and everyone knew that wasn't possible so they suspected murder.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:I think on an Amazon show (maybe?) some futuristic show... one of the premises was the main guy died in a car wreck and everyone knew that wasn't possible so they suspected murder.

The show is called Upload. I thought season one was pretty good. Just checked, season 2 is coming this month, apparently.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

As noted, it isn't this simple, the restraints in the mother's car being in play, logically, the 40% of the time that this technology will not prevent the crash and of course if the Jepp driver had been paying attention this might not have occured.

It is actually quite simple- I do not care if it is unfair to Jeep. That’s all.

So let's explore your feelings on the subject a bit more.

Can you sue GM if some guy driving a 2015 car hits someone? Chevy didn't offer advanced braking in 2015. Should they have?

Can you sue Ford if some guy gets drunk and plows in to a school bus? Ford had the ability to offer an ignition breathalyzer, but didn't. Should they have?

Can you sue Tesla for not making their cars affordable to the poors? They have a lot of safety features. Maybe people would be safer if they could afford all of those neat features. But they're expensive. Should they be?

Again, I get it. Dead children are a great emotional visual. But we're even beyond the arguments used to sue firearm manufacturers here. You are WAY off the libertarian reservation and in to full on leftist fascism by thinking attacking Jeep is a good idea here.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

It is actually quite simple- I do not care if it is unfair to Jeep. That’s all.

Another liberal that hates American union auto workers.

RQA wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

It is actually quite simple- I do not care if it is unfair to Jeep. That’s all.

Another liberal that hates American union auto workers.

Do you think the workers are the ones being sued?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

It is actually quite simple- I do not care if it is unfair to Jeep. That’s all.

So let's explore your feelings on the subject a bit more.

Can you sue GM if some guy driving a 2015 car hits someone? Chevy didn't offer advanced braking in 2015. Should they have?

Can you sue Ford if some guy gets drunk and plows in to a school bus? Ford had the ability to offer an ignition breathalyzer, but didn't. Should they have?

Can you sue Tesla for not making their cars affordable to the poors? They have a lot of safety features. Maybe people would be safer if they could afford all of those neat features. But they're expensive. Should they be?

Again, I get it. Dead children are a great emotional visual. But we're even beyond the arguments used to sue firearm manufacturers here. You are WAY off the libertarian reservation and in to full on leftist fascism by thinking attacking Jeep is a good idea here.

“Can you sue…..” stopped there

Yes you sure as shit can. Why the hell not? Make the company at least work to defend themselves instead of letting them get away with whatever they want

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

RQA wrote:

Another liberal that hates American union auto workers.

Do you think the workers are the ones being sued?

He’s also ignoring the part where I said that I don’t care if jeep gets fucked over because jeep has been putting profits over people (their employees and others) for decades. But he’s not really good at this whole posting thing

Corporations are more important than individual, or any group of people.

Motown Spartan wrote:Corporations are more important than individual, or any group of people.

And we must defend them. If we don’t defend them who will? Their fleet of lawyers? No no no, that will never be enough.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

He’s also ignoring the part where I said that I don’t care if jeep gets fucked over because jeep has been putting profits over people (their employees and others) for decades. But he’s not really good at this whole posting thing

Do you think fucking over Jeep has no impact on their union employees?

Fucking them over for, what, a million bucks? No, I absolutely do not think that that has any impact on their union employees whatsoever.

What do you think the result of this lawsuit is going to be? That family is going to become the majority shareholder or some shit? It’ll be a drop in the bucket for jeep and they may even have insurance for this type of thing.

Settle down Nancy, your precious corporation will be just fine.

RQA wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

He’s also ignoring the part where I said that I don’t care if jeep gets fucked over because jeep has been putting profits over people (their employees and others) for decades. But he’s not really good at this whole posting thing

Do you think fucking over Jeep has no impact on their union employees?

Of course it wouldn't. You swung wildly because you had no actual point. You whiffed.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Fucking them over for, what, a million bucks?
It’ll be a drop in the bucket for jeep and they may even have insurance for this type of thing.

So, in other words, it won't really be much of a fucking.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

It is actually quite simple- I do not care if it is unfair to Jeep. That’s all.

So let's explore your feelings on the subject a bit more.

Can you sue GM if some guy driving a 2015 car hits someone? Chevy didn't offer advanced braking in 2015. Should they have?

Can you sue Ford if some guy gets drunk and plows in to a school bus? Ford had the ability to offer an ignition breathalyzer, but didn't. Should they have?

Can you sue Tesla for not making their cars affordable to the poors? They have a lot of safety features. Maybe people would be safer if they could afford all of those neat features. But they're expensive. Should they be?

Again, I get it. Dead children are a great emotional visual. But we're even beyond the arguments used to sue firearm manufacturers here. You are WAY off the libertarian reservation and in to full on leftist fascism by thinking attacking Jeep is a good idea here.

That is the whole point of the suit, dude.

If it stands up that vehicle manufacturers can be sued if they don't take "due diligence" to create the safest vehicles that technology supports, the lawyers will have a golden goose.

The laws are made both in legislatures and via case law in the courts, so this one has to be fought in court.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Fucking them over for, what, a million bucks? No, I absolutely do not think that that has any impact on their union employees whatsoever.

What do you think the result of this lawsuit is going to be? That family is going to become the majority shareholder or some shit? It’ll be a drop in the bucket for jeep and they may even have insurance for this type of thing.

Settle down Nancy, your precious corporation will be just fine.

Tell us where the bad CEO inappropriately touched you.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

So let's explore your feelings on the subject a bit more.

Can you sue GM if some guy driving a 2015 car hits someone? Chevy didn't offer advanced braking in 2015. Should they have?

Can you sue Ford if some guy gets drunk and plows in to a school bus? Ford had the ability to offer an ignition breathalyzer, but didn't. Should they have?

Can you sue Tesla for not making their cars affordable to the poors? They have a lot of safety features. Maybe people would be safer if they could afford all of those neat features. But they're expensive. Should they be?

Again, I get it. Dead children are a great emotional visual. But we're even beyond the arguments used to sue firearm manufacturers here. You are WAY off the libertarian reservation and in to full on leftist fascism by thinking attacking Jeep is a good idea here.

That is the whole point of the suit, dude.

If it stands up that vehicle manufacturers can be sued if they don't take "due diligence" to create the safest vehicles that technology supports, the lawyers will have a golden goose.

The laws are made both in legislatures and via case law in the courts, so this one has to be fought in court.

Which tells me our judicial system needs a strong make over. The system is badly broken.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

That is the whole point of the suit, dude.

If it stands up that vehicle manufacturers can be sued if they don't take "due diligence" to create the safest vehicles that technology supports, the lawyers will have a golden goose.

The laws are made both in legislatures and via case law in the courts, so this one has to be fought in court.

Which tells me our judicial system needs a strong make over. The system is badly broken.

You just want it to support what you believe.

Its purpose is to resolve questions just like this one.

It is working perfectly.

RQA wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Fucking them over for, what, a million bucks?
It’ll be a drop in the bucket for jeep and they may even have insurance for this type of thing.

So, in other words, it won't really be much of a fucking.  

Of course not. I’m not the one who started a thread crying about the poor poor corporations right to not be sued though.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

RQA wrote:

So, in other words, it won't really be much of a fucking.  

Of course not. I’m not the one who started a thread crying about the poor poor corporations right to not be sued though.

What about the four-year-old girl's personal responsibility to make sure that every Jeep driver in town had ponied up for the trim level with leather, a moonroof and automatic emergency braking?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Which tells me our judicial system needs a strong make over. The system is badly broken.

You just want it to support what you believe.

Its purpose is to resolve questions just like this one.

It is working perfectly.

You think wealth inequality is a problem in this country, and yet support frivolous things like this that make lawyers millionaires. Nice.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Of course not. I’m not the one who started a thread crying about the poor poor corporations right to not be sued though.

What about the four-year-old girl's personal responsibility to make sure that every Jeep driver in town had ponied up for the trim level with leather, a moonroof and automatic emergency braking?

More to the point, and I said this earlier, did her mother have her is the latest, most up to date, safety seat, or did she even have a seat belt on?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

You just want it to support what you believe.

Its purpose is to resolve questions just like this one.

It is working perfectly.

You think wealth inequality is a problem in this country, and yet support frivolous things like this that make lawyers millionaires. Nice.

Millionaire lawyers are mostly not the wealth inequality problem. Few of them are all that wealthy.

The solution to wealth inequality, btw, is to eliminate all the loopholes in the tax code for wealthy people and tax income above some level, (10 million a year?) at 70%.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

You just want it to support what you believe.

Its purpose is to resolve questions just like this one.

It is working perfectly.

You think wealth inequality is a problem in this country, and yet support frivolous things like this that make lawyers millionaires. Nice.

Millionaire lawyers are not the problem with wealth inequity.

Billion dollar corporations that exploit low and middle wage workers are the problem.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

What about the four-year-old girl's personal responsibility to make sure that every Jeep driver in town had ponied up for the trim level with leather, a moonroof and automatic emergency braking?

More to the point, and I said this earlier, did her mother have her is the latest, most up to date, safety seat, or did she even have a seat belt on?

Given the context here is that a judge said that jeep can be sued for this (a fact that is getting conveniently ignored throughout this thread, the legal expert in the matter is on my side and you guys are arguing that they’re wrong with your extensive background in litigation) then yeah I think you can safely assume that for conversation purposes given that there’s no way for you to know that.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Fucking them over for, what, a million bucks? No, I absolutely do not think that that has any impact on their union employees whatsoever.

What do you think the result of this lawsuit is going to be? That family is going to become the majority shareholder or some shit? It’ll be a drop in the bucket for jeep and they may even have insurance for this type of thing.

Settle down Nancy, your precious corporation will be just fine.

Tell us where the bad CEO inappropriately touched you.

Speaking of wealth inequality...what is the CEO being paid?

NigelUno wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Tell us where the bad CEO inappropriately touched you.

Speaking of wealth inequality...what is the CEO being paid?

I don't know. Probably less than some guy who hits a ball with a stick? Or some hot blonde who shows her tits on a movie screen?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

More to the point, and I said this earlier, did her mother have her is the latest, most up to date, safety seat, or did she even have a seat belt on?

Given the context here is that a judge said that jeep can be sued for this (a fact that is getting conveniently ignored throughout this thread, the legal expert in the matter is on my side and you guys are arguing that they’re wrong with your extensive background in litigation) then yeah I think you can safely assume that for conversation purposes given that there’s no way for you to know that.

Correct, one way or the other unless reported.

The big question, which everyone thought had been settled years ago, is the one regarding the legal requirements for vehicle safety equipment installed on vehicles. Is it enough that the vehicles have all the equipment required by law (current case law) or do vehicle manufacturers have to install all possible equipment? This judge has thrown a rock through the window of current case law. It has implications beyond vehicles to all manufactured products.

Probably the current US Supreme Court would rule in favor of the manufactures if the case went that far.

The question of if the dead girl was in the latest safety seat and properly restrained comes up as who is most responsible, which depending on the laws, may or may not have merit.

Logically, the driver of the Jeep was most responsible, followed by the girl being in correct safety equipment. The question of the Jeep having auto-braking is more about the question above. That the company followed accepted due diligence at the time of design and marketing suggests this really isn't going anywhere and we have a grandstanding judge.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Speaking of wealth inequality...what is the CEO being paid?

I don't know. Probably less than some guy who hits a ball with a stick? Or some hot blonde who shows her tits on a movie screen?

You should have stopped with your first sentence. While entertainers are very well paid, CEO's of major corporations are paid much better.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Speaking of wealth inequality...what is the CEO being paid?

I don't know. Probably less than some guy who hits a ball with a stick? Or some hot blonde who shows her tits on a movie screen?

That seems like a deflection.

Wouldn't a better comparison be what the CEO makes compared to the guy on the line?

Or do you just have issues with millionaire lawyers, athletes, and blonde actresses?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Given the context here is that a judge said that jeep can be sued for this (a fact that is getting conveniently ignored throughout this thread, the legal expert in the matter is on my side and you guys are arguing that they’re wrong with your extensive background in litigation) then yeah I think you can safely assume that for conversation purposes given that there’s no way for you to know that.

Correct, one way or the other unless reported.

The big question, which everyone thought had been settled years ago, is the one regarding the legal requirements for vehicle safety equipment installed on vehicles. Is it enough that the vehicles have all the equipment required by law (current case law) or do vehicle manufacturers have to install all possible equipment? This judge has thrown a rock through the window of current case law. It has implications beyond vehicles to all manufactured products.

Probably the current US Supreme Court would rule in favor of the manufactures if the case went that far.

The question of if the dead girl was in the latest safety seat and properly restrained comes up as who is most responsible, which depending on the laws, may or may not have merit.

Logically, the driver of the Jeep was most responsible, followed by the girl being in correct safety equipment. The question of the Jeep having auto-braking is more about the question above. That the company followed accepted due diligence at the time of design and marketing suggests this really isn't going anywhere and we have a grandstanding judge.

It also seems highly speculative that that auto braking system would have saved the kiddo's life. It's impossible to prove that definitively. It's all "experts" and percentages.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

I don't know. Probably less than some guy who hits a ball with a stick? Or some hot blonde who shows her tits on a movie screen?

You should have stopped with your first sentence. While entertainers are very well paid, CEO's of major corporations are paid much better.

I can assure you that Scarlett Johansson makes more than the CEO of Stellantis.