|
|
|
I know this is probably not the best forum for this but I know the folks on here so they are the people I want to talk with this about :P
here is a strange story:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/volvo-held-liable-for-875-million-in-lawsuit-brought-by-yonkers-accident-victim-who-lost-his-leg-78519967.html
To summarize:
This guy bought a 1985 740 wagon, and while him and his neighbour were look at the engine with the hood up, the owner offered to start the car for the neighbour. The owner reached through the window and cranked the engine, forgetting the car was a manual. The car lurched forward and pinned the neighbour to a wall, and he had to have his leg amputated.
The article says that Volvo started installing an interlock that prevents this from happening (cranking the engine while it's in gear) starting in MY2000.
That's all fine.
I take issue with the article's tone really, as they make it sound like it was common practice to install this interlock, but the car was from 1985 when that was pretty much unheard of...
anyway, it's crazy to think that he got them to pay 8+ million dollars for not installing a piece of safety equipment that wasn't introduced for 15 years after that car was made!
(to be fair I'm sure they could have produced this interlock system in 1985, but I never heard of cars that old having such a thing installed, so I don't think it was common practice to be sure)
|
|
-
|
|
|
I have a 3-speed lawn tractor from 1972 that has one, so it isn't as if nobody thought of this device prior to 2000.
My 1990 Ford F-150 5-speed has one. Very annoying, because you have to press quite hard to get it to start. I have to say, I think they are a worthwhile feature, even though I disabled the one in the tractor.
The article describes a very unfortunate incident.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Just another example of a bone headed judge who let this go to trial in the first place. The guy with the missing leg should have sued the guy turning the key, and NO one else.
The lawyer was in it for the greed, nothing else.
Volvo was not at fault, there was no defective part or missing safety device. Just a forgetful dummy.
The ability to keep running my Volkswagen with a broken clutch cable for 6 months back in 1967, or limping to a gas station for 5 miles on the starter, could not have been done with the ignition override switch today. And, yes, there were a couple of times when my foot was not on the clutch when it should have been, but that was MY FAULT!
Klaus
--
Proud owner of a 220S. If I had more room, I would have more Volvos.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Hi Klaus,
As an attorney I am deeply offended that you conclude that the judge was "bone headed" and the "lawyer was in it for the greed".
This is a promotional story written for lay persons and not a review of the pleadings, proceedings, etc.
The fact that the trial court jury found for the plaintiff doesn't mean it will survive an appeal.
What should we say about you, based on your ruling in this case?
Bryan
|
|
-
|
|
|
There is a reason that accident is in the vocabulary, and courts should realize this. Any dummy who uses a step ladder and falls off, should not be able to sue the manufacturer of the step ladder for the dummy's lack of common sense. This also is the case with the Volvo owner who hit the starter while the car was still in gear.
A manufacturer should not be part of any litigation where there was no flaw in the manufactured item. The Volvo did what it was designed to do.
The lawyer included Volvo in the lawsuit only for the "deep pockets", when he should have just presented the case as one individual against another.
Klaus
--
Proud owner of a 220S. If I had more room, I would have more Volvos.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Hi Klaus,
Really, without knowing the facts all we can do is speculate.
Tort law's purpose isn't protection from the consequences of acting carelessly or to reward irresponsible behavior.
Maybe other manufacturers installed this safety device at the time the car was manufactured and it was shown that Volvo knew of the risk and decided not to address it.
Bryan
|
|
-
|
|
|
"Maybe other manufacturers installed this safety device at the time the car was manufactured"
maybe, maybe not. None of my older manual cars had this feature, and they weren't Volvos either.
I've forgotten about leaving it in gear and lurched them a few times too, but it's really an issue of COMMON SENSE, something I like to think Volvo owners more than anyone else typically have.
1)You just don't stand over a car while it's being started...and 2) the other guy shouldn't have started A MANUAL CAR without pushing on the clutch first. Most cars have this feature now, but still...
I really don't see how such cases go into court and actually win. I feel bad for him too, but it's not like the car started and went on a rampage by itself and decided to run him over.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I'll second that.
Lack of common sense is epidemic today. Trying to protect every idiot from themselves will never work.
Greg
|
|
-
|
|
|
I can recall my 1969 Pontiac Le Mans 3-speed manual tranny. You had to depress the clutch pedal to the floor in order to crank the engine. Even that far back, GM had foreseen some bozo trying to start his car while it was in gear.
That being said, just how idiot-proof do car designers have to make their vehicles? How is this any different than some jerk actuating the starter by jumpering the solenoid with his head under the hood and the tranny in gear? Would Volvo be held similarly responsible had this happened with a 1974 Model 142, which was my first Volvo and had a 4-speed manual.
Consider another lawsuit. This time a 1985 740 wagon with a safety interlock installed stalls on the railroad crossing. The driver panics, forgets that he cannot start the engine while in gear, and is killed or injured by the collision with the train. I bet his lawyer would be suing Volvo for installing this evil interlock, which prevented his client from starting his car and, thus, avoiding injury.
I am sorry that the guy lost his leg, but it is difficult to see how Volvo could be held even partially responsible for his recklessness. Volvo got sued because the plaintiff's lawyer knew who had the deep pockets and a reputation to protect. This brings us to tort reform and similar lawsuits for medical malpractice. But that belongs on another forum.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Hrmm. I don't like that this piece of "news" is just a release made by the law firm representing the poor man who lost his leg. I couldn't find any other version of the story. I'm no legal expert but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if Volvo appeals the ruling.
Yes, in a careless and forgetful state I've surprised myself once or twice. I wouldn't defeat such a feature but I do appreciate not having it. In a pinch I may be able to use the starter to propel the car out of precarious position after the engine has stalled.
-Will
|
|
-
|
|
|
Well he's a friggen idiot! Neither of my old 80's cars had that either, a Honda and a Saab. I ALWAYS leave manual cars in neutral with the parking brake on, unless it's parked on a huge hill. I dunno how he can wage a lawsuit over the other guy not having common sense - if anything, he should be suing HIM.
It's like grabbing a muffler and suing the car company for it being hot. Then again, I guess people have sued over hot coffee.
|
|
|
|
|
