Comments on: Mraz v. Chrysler: an exchange with the plaintiffs’ attorneys

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:13:54 +0000

Here’s my question for the lawyer (I know TF’s answer):

Did Chrysler comply with the NHTSA? All those laws, etc?

Unless you can say they didn’t, there’s little if any case here, and CERTAINLY no “punitive” damages.

I repeat my question from the previous thread: what else could they have done? Stolen the vehicle, had the work done, then returned it? Yay, THAT’S a good idea…

I could be convinced on damages ($2 million-ish, as someone pointed out above), but punitives are compltely and utterly ridiculous.

By: Ted

Ted — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:18:45 +0000

As I mentioned, the federal obligation of the manufacturer is to comply with 49 CFR 577. NHTSA has the power to order a manufacturer take additional follow-up steps if it finds that the recall has not been effective. 49 CFR 577.10. If it comes down to a jury decision on a case-by-case basis instead of an objective standard, then there will be a problem akin to failure-to-warn claims: no matter what the manufacturer does, there will always be someone to say, in hindsight, if only the manufacturer had done just a little bit more up to and including a three-minute long Super Bowl Big Game ad with a skull and crossbones and loud warning buzzer, the recall would have worked.

By: David Nieporent

David Nieporent — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:06:34 +0000

Moreover, if the recall wouldn’t have worked, then what’s the theory under which the owner is liable?

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:55:18 +0000

My question is simple. What is the obligation of a manufacturer to notify a customer of a recall or potential hazard concerning their product?

I just bought a used car. Who’s job is it to make sure that there are no outstanding recalls on it? Is it the new owner, the used car dealer, the previous owner, the dealership where the car was originally purchased, any mechanic who worked on the car at any time or the original manufacturer?
Lucky this was a truck instead of an aircraft. If it was an aircraft everybody I just mentioned could be sued.

( By the way, I contacted the manufacturer with the VIN number and found out that there were no recalls on the car I bought)

By: Ted

Ted — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:45:21 +0000

1) It appears from the NHTSA documents that Chrysler thinks the problem is one of driver error, and is agreeing to the recall in an excess of caution. If so, it’s little wonder that one can find engineers who think that the recall wouldn’t fix the problem. (In the alternative, if engineers disagree on what is causing the problem, and a consensus is reached that X is the problem, and a recall is issued to fix X, then one can depose the engineer who thinks the problem is Y. Too, sometimes “engineers” refers to professional witnesses who used to work for the car company, are now disgruntled, and suddenly know everything about every litigation topic, and happily testify that Z is defective. One needs to know more to know whether one of these “engineers testified the recall wouldn’t work” scenarios apply. But that question is irrelevant, because the owner never returned the car for the retrofit. If Chyrsler had retrofitted the car, and then there was a gear-slip accident, the engineers’ testimony might have relevance to whether the gear-slip is due to defective design.

2) It’s not outside the range of possibility that a transmission is designed such that one can “park” the vehicle without completely setting the gear to park, but it is in the intermediate step between park and reverse, and the idling causes it to shift in reverse. That’s impossible in my auto, which has a push-button for park, but one can see that possibility in other cars. But that’s why one never leaves an automobile idling and unoccupied, or fails to engage the parking brake when one parks.

3) The truck clearly ran over Mraz. I don’t have a problem with that claim. One could slip trying to get into the vehicle as it is backing up, and have the front wheels run over you, which is apparently what happened.

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:24:05 +0000

Ted,

I don’t understand this case at all.

Chrysler sent out a recall notice that the engineers say would not fix the problem. Shame on the company! But wait, the NHSTA was involved.

Wouldn’t the regulators insist on anefficasious recall?

The truck was not taken in for the recall probably because it did not have the problem.

Why would the transmission slip when the truck was idling and unoccupied? And how does the truck run over you when you are trying to jump into it through a window?

If one wanted to use tort litigation to provide benefits to a needy family in this case, wouldn’t 2 million, the gross liftime earnings of the deceased, do the trick? Where did the extra 53 million come from? These judgements are slaps in the face to every person who works for a living.