Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Have there been any recalls for the Azera's ESC? Actually, have there been any recalls on the Azera at all?
Just curious, can you cite case law or statutes that support your claim? I'm asking about a products liability/strict liability theory, not a negligence case.
And I'm not saying it has to be 147 mph on 125 mph tires either. It could be 99 mph on 81 mph tires, or some other set of numbers. Same principle, right?
A manufacturer could foresee that a driver might test the top speed of his car even in violation of the speed limits. Foreseeability is an important consideration.
Did sit in the Azera, and it looked pretty classy. Has a little more style to it than does the Sonata, I guess. Fairly close. The seats in feel better. Do wonder why the crash test score is not as good as the Sonata. Pretty close though. The 168HP is impressive. If they discount the base Azera near the end of the year, I may consider one. Or maybe wait another year. A Sonata Coupe would be kinda neat too. OR how about an Azera Coupe in bright red. :shades:
-Loren
-Loren
Case law where manufacturers have successfully defended against liability when the product was used in unsafe manners.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The cases you refer to (without actually citing any) are probably those in which plaintiffs misused the product in a way that was different from the products intended use, e.g., using an ice pick to clean a child's ears. And I can find cases like that too. (If I am wrong about that, give me the actual citations, ok?)
But car tires are intended to be used to carry a car down the highway, so there was no misuse of that sort in my example.
I grant you that different states may treat product/strict liability cases differently, and I do realize court cases are all over the map when it comes to how much an award may be reduced for fault attributed to a plaintiff, but in my example, the winning argument would start out something like this: But for the defect, which defect is tires under-rated for the car's foreseeable attainable speed, the accident never would have happened. It was not plaintiff's speed which caused the blowout, but rather a tire which was not safe at the high speeds the car was designed to reach. That inadequate tire choice which caused the unreasonable risk of injury was the manufacturer's choice.
The risk was unreasonable because for just a little more expense on the part of that manufacturer, it could have eliminated that risk by choosing an adequately rated tire for speeds the vehicle was capable of attaining, or by having installed a speed governor on the car to keep it within the safety speed range of the selected tires.
It is well established in most states that a plaintiff's mere failure to discover or guard against a product defect does not support a finding of fault against him.
Refer to Restatement of the Law, Torts, 2nd or 3rd, since I am finished trying to explain it.
Anyway, thanks for your viewpoint. If you can cite a real case with facts similar to my example, let me know.
Peace, out.
But it boils down to the fact that the user of an item has to operate said item reasonably and prudently.
the winning argument would start out something like this: But for the defect, which defect is tires under-rated for the car's foreseeable attainable speed, the accident never would have happened. It was not plaintiff's speed which caused the blowout, but rather a tire which was not safe at the high speeds the car was designed to reach. That inadequate tire choice which caused the unreasonable risk of injury was the manufacturer's choice.
To which the winning argument would be "Your Honor The car was being driven at speed at which the car was never truly designed for. Regardless of what the vehicle can acheive it is the responsibility of the driver to drive in a safe and prudent manner. The tires placed on the car were more than adequate for speeds in excess of any reasonable and prudent speed that said vehicle would be expected to be driven. This accident was not the fault of the tires but of the driver driving in a very irresponsible and reckless manner without regards to the safety of himself and others."
It is well established in most states that a plaintiff's mere failure to discover or guard against a product defect does not support a finding of fault against him.
But this is not an issue of a product defect, if it was I would agree with you. But we are talking about a product built and outfitted to be more than adequate for reasonable and prudent use. Driving at 135MPH in a Sonata is not reasonable nor is it prudent.
BTW the name is an old nickname I got back when I was just grass high to a kneehopper. It was said that I was as slippery as a snake and could weasel my way out of just about anything.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Anyone else notice? Any way to see if A/C is on even without the A/C button pressed?
Pop the hood while the engine's idling and watch the A/C compressor. If the inner hub of the compressor's drive pulley electric clutch is rotating, the compressor's operating.
Hyundai, not the individual programmer(s), would ultimately be held accountable through a recall and/or product liability litigation for damage awards in the event of injuries or deaths. Contingency lawyers follow the money trail in deciding whom to name as defendants. If the NHTSA orders a recall, it names the automaker, not one of the automaker's specialized component suppliers or programmers. Again, a difference without a distinction when considering the source of an anomolously functioning device.
Thank you in advance.
Whether or not the under-rated tires would make the car into a design defective product is, of course, central to the entire case. But that is an issue of fact to be determined by the jury, it would not be decided by summary judgment.
Your opinion is that a jury would not find such a car defective in design.
My opinion is that it would be found defective in design.
Here's why:
The Restatement (Third) of Torts, section 2, provides:
"A product: (b) is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or even avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe."
A jury instruction reflecting that test would no doubt be given to guide in the determination of whether the car was defective.
And here, an easy fix was available: The risk was unreasonable because for just a little more expense on the part of that manufacturer, it could have eliminated that risk by choosing an adequately rated tire for speeds the vehicle was capable of attaining, or by having installed a speed governor on the car to keep it within the safety speed range of the selected tires.
What you fail to realize is that whether the product is defective in design does not hinge on how an eventual consumer uses it.
It hinges on whether that foreseeable risk of harm could have easily and inexpensively been reduced or eliminated by an alternative design. (Surely you would not argue that the car manufacturer should not have anticipated that their cars would sometime be driven at top speed, right? For instance, during a road test conducted on a race track by a car magazine? Manufacturers test their own cars and they know their cars will be tested by others too. Or, hahaha, maybe you think the car manufacturer had decided to set a deadly trap for their own and other car testers or anyone else exceeding the speed rating of the tires on their cars? Would that be reasonably safe? Seems ridiculous to me that a manufacturer would do that.)
And here, that foreseeable risk could have been reduced easily and inexpensively. So, the car would be found defective in design.
Granted, in some states, if a degree of injury causing fault was found on the part of the plaintiff, it might be considered in apportioning damages and might reduce the dollar amount received by a plaintiff. But damages apportionment is an entirely different issue having nothing to do with whether the product had a design defect.
Bottom line: Any comparative fault on the part of the plaintiff would not be considered in the determination of whether the product had a design defect. And, that being the case, I see that you do (maybe reluctantly) agree with me after all.
That's probably about as clear as I can make it.
Send me the cites for those cases if you ever find them. (and how old are those cases anyway? The Restatement, Third, was promulgated in 1998.)
Thanks.
-Loren
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
And I bet you have already answered your own question after reading my previous posts. But, just in case you are still wondering, here goes:
If you drive your car at 70 mph into a turn, that because of physics, can only reasonably be entered at speeds of 30 mph or less, then you are probably wasting your time talking to a lawyer since he's not going to present your case in a lawsuit against your car's manufacturer for making a defective car.
But, for example, if you could point to other cars with similar ESC systems that would have kept you safe at 70 mph in that 30 mph curve, then maybe you could make the case that your car's ESC was defective, and/or if you can show that the average consumer was lead by the manufacturer to believe that the car would definitely protect him during that type of driving behavior then maybe you'd have a chance.
In tort law there is an idea called the but for test. In short, if your injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligence, or act or failure to act, then that defendant is a good target for a lawsuit.
In your example's set of facts, the only but for test I can imagine you presenting to the court would be something like this: "Your Honor, and distinguished jury members, I should win my case because but for my car's manufacturer not having installed an inexpensive and effective ESC system which temporarily suspends the laws of physics, notwithstanding that one has not yet been invented and which no other production car on earth now possesses, my injury would never have occurred. That being the case, you must find that the manufacturer owes me a boat-load of money, ok? Pretty please?"
Hahaha! Yeah. Go ahead and sue. Get rich. Send me 25% of the judgment, ok?
Can you discern how your case is different from under-rated tires?
Take a look what time, patience and $$$ can do :shades: The more you look the more you see.
Here is a question for owners. Do they like the ESP or ESC or whatever it is for electronic nanny? I imagine the OFF only works per ignition switch cycle. If it is not overly aggressive, I would likely leave the nanny on. In the back of my mind though, I still have visions of strange computer driven commands sending me and my new car into a death spin. Never had a car sideways, as in really out of control, after 37 years of driving. But then again, never hit a car due to brakes locking up. Never been in a wreck on the road. I have to take it on recommendation of professional testers that this stuff all works. BTW, what happens to your eye glasses in a wreck with an air bag equipped car?
-Loren
I was driving a rental Maxima when we were rear ended by an Explorer and pushed into an Toyota SUV, setting off the air bags and then spun into the median just south of Queen Creek Rd in Chandler, AZ on I-10. My glasses and golf cap wound up on the floor behind the passenger seat. My friend's golf hat went out the rear window and was found in the middle lane of the 3lane highway (the lane we were in when hit). His sunglasses could not be found.
And while we are on the subject of coupes, I am really looking forward to the next-gen Hyundai Tiburon when it switches to RWD (supposedly) + 3.3 or 3.8, and I am sold
I digress...back to your regular programing
Ah the Azera has a pretty good roof line, which is kinda sporty, and I guess fair enough handling. Perhaps all the creature comforts, power and seating position is worth the difference between sports car and luxury fun car. If it was just a fun for the weekend, couple hour blast on the back roads, sport car is fine -- maybe a second car. The Tiburon is pretty good. I found though the door sills are high, the view out is not too bad. Feels better than other higher door cars. I may also consider the Cad. CTS used vs. Azera new. Give them a test on the same day.
-Loren
I know its off topic but any word on the convertible?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
P.S. I'm having the special ordered gulp valve replaced today, and I hope that's the last I see of my dealer (and that check engine light) for quite some time.
I was driving alone when my '96 Accord's airbags deployed in a head-on that totaled the car. My spectacles ended up on the floorboard in front of my seat. Like me, they were unbroken and still in adjustment. (Probably a fluke in both cases...)
Hyundai had plans to build the convertible after the CCS concept came out, but now it is likely the 'vert would be built as the next-gen is released ('09 or '10 is my best estimate, one model year after the next gen coupe version is released).
Maybe we'll finally get the full report promised for June next month? :confuse:
"From the newsroom of Automotive News
Sources: Porsche, Hyundai make big gains in quality study
Porsche and Hyundai will emerge as the biggest winners Wednesday when J.D. Power and Associates releases its 2006 Initial Quality Study, industry sources say.
Porsche will vault to second overall in the study, improving from No. 32 in last year's ranking, making Porsche the top European nameplate.
Hyundai will place third, up from No. 11 in 2005. That makes the Korean automaker the top mass-market nameplate.
For the sixth year in a row, Lexus will retain the No. 1 spot.
Toyota will round out the top four, moving up three spots from No. 7last year.
The study, which measures quality after 90 days of ownership, asks owners to rate vehicle quality on 135 attributes."
"According to J.D. Power's survey of new vehicle owners, Porsche had 91 problems per 100 vehicles. Lexus, Toyota's luxury brand, came in a close second with 93 problems per 100 vehicles. Korea-based Hyundai ranked third with 102. The industry average was 124."
Well done Hyundai
I've got an appointment on Monday to have it looked at, but I was just wondering if anyone else had any issues with theirs.
Thanks.