Further legal protection for defective automobile manufacturers
"It felt like we had hit by a basketball". That's what Bob McGee predicated on the impact and the subsequent fuel fed fire, which claimed the life of his son and almost killed his wife.
The jury General Motors to sell a car with a dangerous and defective fuel system held responsible. This ruling helped change car manufacturers design cars.
But now, once again try "tort reform" activists "the basketball responsible to make."
Big business from the State to take the crash theory. You want the driver responsible for all injuries in the crash, including those caused by a defect. This means increased protection for manufacturers to sell the dangerous and defective vehicles. And if large companies for the catastrophic medical bills, they cause that pay, taxpayers generally end with the invoice.
We should do it not to. They must be forced to make sure their products.
Do not let "the basketball guilt."
House Bill 201 increases for vote in the House of representatives soon. We ask you to e-Mail-your representative and you ask to vote 'No' in House Bill 201. Let's continue to blame us automakers for the provision of safe cars.
Should a vehicle manufacturer, that a defective product made that caused can move fault to the driver of the vehicle injuries in an accident?
Position: NR. The crash doctrine is rooted in the case of a long-held principle from the 1968 law requiring car manufacturers to have their products in a crash. Attempts to change this doctrine and allow automakers shift the blame for their defective products to someone else, as the driver who caused the accident is wrong and unfair to consumers. If in a frontal collision airbags don't provide a manufacturer could say that it is the driver's fault.
Car manufacturers, which bad products to avoid legal and financial penalties for their shifts the financial burden of caring for injured by faulty products on the taxpayers of the State of Florida, instead of the manufacturer. It provides no incentive for vehicle manufacturers of safer cars and the automotive industry, which already is the cost of liability claims in the price of the car will not harm.
History: 1968 The crash doctrine was invoked in a case Larsen vs. General Motors founded. The opinion said in this case, that car crashes are inevitable and car manufacturers are responsible for the production of their cars as safe as possible in a collision.
In the year 2001 in Florida, in d ' Amario vs. Ford Motor Company, a case of a motor-vehicle accident and subsequent vehicle detected fire, Florida Supreme Court, a clear distinction between obligation caused a car accident and liability of the producer of a defective product, which has caused injuries advanced beyond the first accident.
In d ' Amario, the Court has held that a manufacturer only for improved injury is responsible. Thus a jury may not divide error with the driver of the vehicle. The Supreme Court, said the jury focus should be on a fault if existed and whether the behavior of the driver caused or the first collision causing it injury, not what improves.
In the past, automakers have deep resistance to improvement of security, such as such as seat belts in the 1960s and airbags in the 1990's because of concerns about cost or marketing shown. It was only 10 years ago, that tire manufacturer Firestone had to remember which had caused at least 200 dead and 700 injured millions of defective tires. Since then, it has a national movement and accountability manufacturer, with Florida leading the way with its decision d ' Amario to make vehicles safer.
Car security
Vehicle manufacturers are not expected to design cars that are accident-proof. More than 30 years ago founded this vehicle, the manufacturer for the vehicles which will be subject to a "unreasonable risk of injury." occupant are not expected automakers know case law Florida receive vehicles in collisions and their responsibility to prevent injuries. Ford Motor Company, which says in the instructions for his 2005 Tour: "36,700 crashes come every day."
It is also the reason vehicle manufacturers behavior full crash, a key indicator of organisations such as consumer reports, whether a vehicle is used. This is an important factor to use the consumer when you buy a car. Consumers assume that services the vehicles such as the Honda Civic, developed thanks to published reports on crash test high for example in place to protect against injury.
Escaping debt
The Florida Supreme Court said in 2001 that juries, not in the position error between the automaker and the driver should share. But legislative proposals had undermined crash automakers blame for faulty products and the purpose of teaching to escape. Juries would have said, to consider, which led to the accident to determine the fault for an extended injury, such as such as a drunk driver. Supporters of this legislation claim without him will be negligent driver way off the hook. This is not true--negligent driver are still responsible for all injuries caused by their reckless behavior, but not the risk of injuries due to deficiencies of a car manufacturer.
Taxpayers foot the Bill
Another problem with reversal of the doctrine of the crash is the huge consequences for the citizens of Florida, because rehabilitation costs to the taxpayer. Just because the manufacturer to avoid responsibility for injuries that they cause, are given a free pass, this does not mean that the injuries go away. Instead victims refer to social assistance and the taxpayer at the end of the Bill for medical care. In addition the cost of the product have built liability suits in the price for cars product manufacturers for decades.
Completed: The Florida legislature should not have the safety of Floridians took over after Alabama's vehicle manufacturers prefer. Legislative proposals that allow vehicle manufacturers to avoid liability for defective products, and there is no incentive to make products safer, are bad for Floridians. A big step backwards would this legislation in the search for safer products and an injustice for consumers and taxpayers.
0 comentarios:
Publicar un comentario