Comments on: SUV suits follow-up

By: tim king

tim king — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:31:31 +0000

You have to look at the basis for holding these manufacturers liable. Read http://www.ecovitality.org/newfiles/SUV.pdf , which is Howard Latin's (Rutgers Law prof) argument for holding the manufacturers liable... It is a very well written article with some good policy and law arguments for holding the manufacturers liable. [Latin's article is on a completely different topic: he creatively argues for holding SUV manufacturers liable even for accidents where a bad SUV driver injures a passenger in another car or a pedestrian, in effect banning SUVs through litigation. Again, society can choose to ban SUVs (and there are perhaps good arguments for safety regulations requiring consistent bumper heights), but the judicial system is the wrong place to achieve this change. Latin does not address any of the points I raise (except to essentially argue that all SUVs are unsafe in the rollover context, which effectively proves my point about the position of the plaintiffs' bar); the words "driver error" do not appear in the article. -- TF]

By: Colin P. Varga

Colin P. Varga — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:10:46 +0000

“You pay for it; don’t pass the costs on to the rest of us.” We all helped to pay for the SUV’s. Remember a few years ago, “If you buy now certain tax incentives may apply.” Every SUV has some of your tax dollars in it. Personal responsibility in driving a car/truck should be paramount, but there is also the psychological effect of surrounding the driver with a ton of steel, a more powerful engine, and a sales pitch saying that the driver will own the road. Reason should rule but the psychology behind advertizing works on some people.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:37:56 +0000

“don’t pass the costs on to the rest of us.”

Heresy! BLASPHEMY!!! BURN HER!

Heh, “don’t pass the costs on to the rest of us.” That’s funny. I almost thought you were serious about that for a second there.

[/lawyer]

By: Amy Alkon

Amy Alkon — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:32:58 +0000

Moreover, a vehicle should be viewed in totality: an auto that is more likely to roll over may be safer in other particulars that more than compensate for that increased propensity. So I question the premise. One can’t change the rollover propensity without creating a different vehicle entirely. The vehicle should be viewed holistically, and holistically, the Bronco is a safe car when used as designed.

This is a very smart argument. People need to take personal responsibility for their purchase decisions. A Volvo station wagon lacks something in style, but when I was investigating auto safety for a piece I was writing on SUVs, a California insurance investigator told me it was the safest car on the road. You want safe, it’s not a big secret which cars rate highest. You want to hedge your bets, fine. You pay for it; don’t pass the costs on to the rest of us.

By: Baumann

Baumann — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:42:42 +0000

You want to talk about cars having a bad rap for no reason… I own a Corvair.

By: dwight Meredith

dwight Meredith — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:07:24 +0000

The link to the $500 per car figure is to a statement by the head of Chrysler when annoucing his support of tort reform. How was the figure calculated? What was included and excluded from his calculations? Is there some better evidence to support the claim? [This is discussed in more detail in this post, including by Jim Copland in the comments section. -- TF]

By: Amsterdamsky

Amsterdamsky — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:18:43 +0000

I think your polonium argument really addresses this. It's a bandwagon effect from the previous attention and successful suits. I find it hard to believe that a gas guzzling 1950's technology monster of a car like an Explorer fares worse in a collision that say a Renault Clio or a Fiat Panda but they can show neglegence because Ford never fixed the "problems" after the earlier suits and the Explorers are already associated with rollovers from the Firestone tire blowout/rollovers. Some women flipped her Explorer on highway 8 in San Diego in clear weather with no traffic and was awarded something like $300 million last year. I would be curious what survivors benefits for US military people are? Maybe 1/10,000 of that? [We posted on the San Diego lawsuit in 2004; I have a piece coming out for the AEI Liability Outlook shortly on this case. -- TF]