Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Is this something you can sue over?

J

JumpBallWinner

New member
I was in a wreck last night, totaled my truck. Was on a road I'd never been on before and was unaware of a sharp curve coming up, so I went straight into a yard with trees and proceded to hit one head on. I mean it really destroyed the front of my tahoe, and I had one of those heavy dute brushguards on the front. But my airbags didn't deploy. So far the few people who have looked at the type of damage said that they can't belive that they did't and that I shoud contact GM and possibly file a lawsuit.

Is there a case here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bw1
I think your car's computer has data that recorded your crash and can give history on exactly how fast you where going when you hit.. I dunno how old your whip is, alot of new cars do that so you can't sue when the evidence is brought up in court.
 
Stefka said:
No, he's just a sexual deviant.

Were you injured?
Click to expand...

lolololololol so true. Plus I wouldn't trust any internet "lawyer". Especially one who misspells "meet" :chomp: But I do hope you find the info you need bro. :)
 
Stefka said:
No, he's just a sexual deviant.

Were you injured?
Click to expand...

No. But I will post pictures of the truck when I get some. We had it towed to my friend's house. You will have a hard time believing I wasn't injured when you see it. I don't understand how the airbags didn't come out. When I tried to recrank it, it said "service airbags" on the little reading screen. What the hell is that? Aren't the airbags supposed to be servicing me in that situation instead of the other way around? :confused:
 
Shut up...You want to sue GM, because you're a retard that drives off the road and the airbags didn't go off:rolleyes:. Luckily you're not hurt, thank God for that.
 
borris said:
I think your car's computer has data that recorded your crash and can give history on exactly how fast you where going when you hit.. I dunno how old your whip is, alot of new cars do that so you can't sue when the evidence is brought up in court.
Click to expand...

I'm kinda confused on which way would work in my favor here? Are you saying that if I wasn't going fast enough, then it will be ok that the airbags didn't come out and they won't be responsible? Or is it the other way around? I was doing about 40 mph. It is a 03 z71 tahoe. Wish my damn RX7 would hurry up and get here, for now I have no means to get around.
 
In torts claims you need actual damages.
The air bags not deploying didnt increase the damage to your truck.
If you had smashed up your face you might have had a strict liability claim.
Maybe you can sue the govt. for not putting up a sign on a dangerous curve.
 
Stefka said:
In torts claims you need actual damages.
The air bags not deploying didnt increase the damage to your truck.
If you had smashed up your face you might have had a strict liability claim.
Maybe you can sue the govt. for not putting up a sign on a dangerous curve.
Click to expand...

I say he breaks a bottle over his face & busts out his windshield...




lololol jk
 
bw1 said:
Shut up...You want to sue GM, because your a retard that drives off the road. Luckily your not hurt, thank God for that.
Click to expand...

I guess people who have accidents deserve to be hurt in your eyes because they made a mistake while driving? Hell, maybe the government should do away with requiring automobiles to have airbags that way we can teach all these accident having assholes a lessong by increasing the number of them killed. Makes sense.

And I didn't say I wanted to sue GM, it was something the people who have looked at the truck suggested might be something that should be done. I will probably never persue it, even if there is something to persue. Is it not possible that there was something faulty about those model's airbags and that me bringing it to there attention might cause a recall that saves someone else's life.
 
Stefka said:
In torts claims you need actual damages.
The air bags not deploying didnt increase the damage to your truck.
If you had smashed up your face you might have had a strict liability claim.
Maybe you can sue the govt. for not putting up a sign on a dangerous curve.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm not on a "who can I sue" mission here. Was just curious as to a car manufacturer's liability towards mandatory safety equipment that fails to work in the situations it was designed to in.
 
JumpBallWinner said:
I guess people who have accidents deserve to be hurt in your eyes because they made a mistake while driving? Hell, maybe the government should do away with requiring automobiles to have airbags that way we can teach all these accident having assholes a lessong by increasing the number of them killed. Makes sense.

And I didn't say I wanted to sue GM, it was something the people who have looked at the truck suggested might be something that should be done. I will probably never persue it, even if there is something to persue. Is it not possible that there was something faulty about those model's airbags and that me bringing it to there attention might cause a recall that saves someone else's life.
Click to expand...

I never said you deserve to be hurt because you made a mistake while driving. I even said Thank God you were not hurt. I just think it's fucking ridiculous to think that there's a law suit there.
 
JumpBallWinner said:
Nah, I'm not on a "who can I sue" mission here. Was just curious as to a car manufacturer's liability towards mandatory safety equipment that fails to work in the situations it was designed to in.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should just file a complaint with whatever agency deals with this type of stuff (I have no idea). They can take your info and maybe use it later.
 
bw1 said:
I never said you deserve to be hurt because you made a mistake while driving. I even said Thank God you were not hurt. I just think it's fucking ridiculous to think that there's a law suit there.
Click to expand...

I think it's ridiculous that someone sued McDonalds over their coffee being hot.

I also think it's ridiculous that a man sued an RV manufacturer becuse the manual didn't specifically state that the vehicle couldn't drive itself, and when he got up from behind the wheel to go take a nap while the thing was still moving, he had a wreck.

There are hundreds of examples that I would label as flat out mind blowingly retarded.

However, I don't find it ridiculous that someone could be bothered by the fact that there might be a line of vehicles out there that when hit head on at higher rates of speed, fail to deploy their airbags, thus possibly costing someone their life, or really screwing them up.

Yes, I was lucky, and I am thankfull to have lost nothing more than a truck. However, the next person who has this happen might not be so lucky.

Would you be ok with it if a loved one was hit head on by some drunk idiot and they were killed or badly hurt because the airbags didn't work? Would you be thankfull if that situation occured, however they weren't hurt because the problem had been brought up prior and had forced a recall to be done, hence preventing the injury or death?

Like I said, it's not something I really planned on persuing. But these are some thoughts that went through my head after thinking of the situation.
 
JumpBallWinner said:
I think it's ridiculous that someone sued McDonalds over their coffee being hot.


sorry, but mcD deserved to be sued--the served coffee that was just below the boiling point b/c people would put milk in it to cool and not notice that McDs use 50% less coffee than anyone else--and she sued b/c she got 3rd degree burns from it (whereas if it typical coffee only 1st degree burns).

oh, and the judgment was reversed on appeal anyway. :)

there is a complaint section on the gov't NTSB website--and searchable to see if others have the same problem.
Click to expand...
 
JumpBallWinner said:
I was in a wreck last night, totaled my truck. Was on a road I'd never been on before and was unaware of a sharp curve coming up, so I went straight into a yard with trees and proceded to hit one head on. I mean it really destroyed the front of my tahoe, and I had one of those heavy dute brushguards on the front. But my airbags didn't deploy. So far the few people who have looked at the type of damage said that they can't belive that they did't and that I shoud contact GM and possibly file a lawsuit.

Is there a case here?
Click to expand...
maybe this is way they didn't deploy...........not sure just saying!
 
JumpBallWinner said:
I think it's ridiculous that someone sued McDonalds over their coffee being hot.

I also think it's ridiculous that a man sued an RV manufacturer becuse the manual didn't specifically state that the vehicle couldn't drive itself, and when he got up from behind the wheel to go take a nap while the thing was still moving, he had a wreck.

There are hundreds of examples that I would label as flat out mind blowingly retarded.

However, I don't find it ridiculous that someone could be bothered by the fact that there might be a line of vehicles out there that when hit head on at higher rates of speed, fail to deploy their airbags, thus possibly costing someone their life, or really screwing them up.

Yes, I was lucky, and I am thankfull to have lost nothing more than a truck. However, the next person who has this happen might not be so lucky.

Would you be ok with it if a loved one was hit head on by some drunk idiot and they were killed or badly hurt because the airbags didn't work? Would you be thankfull if that situation occured, however they weren't hurt because the problem had been brought up prior and had forced a recall to be done, hence preventing the injury or death?

Like I said, it's not something I really planned on persuing. But these are some thoughts that went through my head after thinking of the situation.
Click to expand...


Yea, I'm sure all these "people" that seen your truck and said there may be a law suit here, were just concerened about other peoples safety. That's what you guys were thinking. :rolleyes:
 
Stefka said:
In torts claims you need actual damages.
The air bags not deploying didnt increase the damage to your truck.
If you had smashed up your face you might have had a strict liability claim.
Maybe you can sue the govt. for not putting up a sign on a dangerous curve.
Click to expand...

actual damages for compensatory

punitive because they fucked up
 
did you buy your truck new? because if not- you totally don't have a case.
and even if you did, do you have damages because your airbags didn't deploy? if not, what are you going to sue for, mental anquish?
 
stilleto said:
did you buy your truck new? because if not- you totally don't have a case.
and even if you did, do you have damages because your airbags didn't deploy? if not, what are you going to sue for, mental anquish?
Click to expand...

No, he's out to save your "loved ones".
 
bw1 said:
No, he's out to save your "loved ones".
Click to expand...

god how they have you brainwashed lol.

you're taking the corporate position over your own self-interest as a consumer. you'd change your tune if you or your family was injured and a legislated immunity bill pushed tru by lobbyists prevented your getting compensated for your medical bills etc.

those "evil lawyers" suck until its you getting fucked and you need one.
 
Mavafanculo said:
god how they have you brainwashed lol.

you're taking the corporate position over your own self-interest as a consumer. you'd change your tune if you or your family was injured and a legislated immunity bill pushed tru by lobbyists prevented your getting compensated for your medical bills etc.

those "evil lawyers" suck until its you getting fucked and you need one.
Click to expand...


Oh Dear God, that's not my point. I am talking about what happend in this particular case. Sure if there's a problem that is caused by a manufacture defect, then by all means they should be held accountable. Not in this case. Has nothing to do with taking a "corporate" position, just common sense. Jeezzzz. Every one wants to sue, what about having and taking some responsibility here? He wasn't hurt. What, now we want guarantees from auto makers and our government that you won't get hurt. Airbags are an added safety feature not a guarentee. Who's going to determine if they were faulty? Law suits are out of control. What about some responsibilty here. What was he doing that he didn't see the "sharp" curve?
 
bw1 said:
Oh Dear God, that's not my point. I am talking about what happend in this particular case. Sure if there's a problem that is caused by a manufacture defect, then by all means they should be held accountable. Not in this case. Has nothing to do with taking a "corporate" position, just common sense. Jeezzzz. Every one wants to sue, what about having and taking some responsibility here? He wasn't hurt. What, now we want guarantees from auto makers and our government that you won't get hurt. Airbags are an added safety feature not a guarentee. Who's going to determine if they were faulty? Law suits are out of control. What about some responsibilty here. What was he doing that he didn't see the "sharp" curve?
Click to expand...

he is irrelevent. ban him. give me his karma.

the air bags are required by law. if they didnt work the manufacturer should be made to pay punitive damages. everything is a cost-benefit analysis for the pencil pushers. when the cumulative cost of paying punitive damages gets high enuf, they'll invest in improving the effectiveness of the airbags and maybe your mug will be saved.

see.... once again the liberal position is right, and the right is wrong :wavey:
 
Mavafanculo said:
god how they have you brainwashed lol.

you're taking the corporate position over your own self-interest as a consumer. you'd change your tune if you or your family was injured and a legislated immunity bill pushed tru by lobbyists prevented your getting compensated for your medical bills etc.

those "evil lawyers" suck until its you getting fucked and you need one.
Click to expand...

Let me put it like this:

If "he's" driving down the freeway minding his own business and his air bags deploy out of no where, he looses control and get in an accident then by all means there could be a suit there. But if he wings himself of the road like Clark Griswald because he's not paying attention then no, no law suit. Especially because he WASN'T hurt. How about some individual responsibility?
 
Mavafanculo said:
he is irrelevent. ban him. give me his karma.

the air bags are required by law. if they didnt work the manufacturer should be made to pay punitive damages. everything is a cost-benefit analysis for the pencil pushers. when the cumulative cost of paying punitive damages gets high enuf, they'll invest in improving the effectiveness of the airbags and maybe your mug will be saved.

see.... once again the liberal position is right, and the right is wrong :wavey:
Click to expand...

NOOOOOOOOO.....He is relevent here, for the love of God, he is THE ONLY ONE RELEVANT HERE! Again I don't need Gov. to hold my fucking hand every step of my life, nor should any one else. See once again the liberal posistion is "I can't do anything on my own, I not responsible for my mistakes" gimme gimme gimme....For all we know he was rollin a joint and pulling on his pecker when it happened. Mav, can you drive without flying through the air, off the road?
 
you're missing the point. if he screwed up (irelevent) its unfortunate that he would get paid.

the important part is that the manufacturer pay a penalty (punitive damages) for making a defective airbag. the threat of lots of punitive damage suits forces them to improve the quality and effectiveness, and then one day if you or your buds gets into an accident you have a better chance of getting out of it safely.

the big picture.
 
Mavafanculo said:
you're missing the point. if he screwed up (irelevent) its unfortunate that he would get paid.

the important part is that the manufacturer pay a penalty (punitive damages) for making a defective airbag. the threat of lots of punitive damage suits forces them to improve the quality and effectiveness, and then one day if you or your buds gets into an accident you have a better chance of getting out of it safely.

the big picture.
Click to expand...

There you go again.......How do we know they were defective? Did he alter his truck or add anything to his truck that may off caused this? They might not of gone off because they didn't need to. He wasn't hurt. That is the picture. We should have safety for the fact of safety, not because their threatened with a law suit. Consumers can deterine this on their own. If something proves to be un-safe or defective they don't buy it. He's lucky he didn't t-bone another car while crossing lanes and kill everyone in that car.
 
bw1 said:
There you go again.......How do we know they were defective? ......They might not of gone off because they didn't need to......

What? You dont read good? bring me some motherfucking iced tea.
"....so I went straight into a yard with trees and proceded to hit one head on. I mean it really destroyed the front of my tahoe, and I had one of those heavy dute brushguards on the front. But my airbags didn't deploy....."


Did he alter his truck or add anything to his truck that may off caused this?
you're off on tangents - obviously if this or that the analysis would change. we can only deal with the facts presented



........He wasn't hurt. That is the picture.
We should have safety for the fact of safety, not because their threatened with a law suit. Consumers can deterine this on their own. If something proves to be un-safe or defective they don't buy it.

That didnt work, and the will of the people as expressed by legislation passed by congress and signed into law by the presdint mandated airbags and standards for those airbags. No enforcement mechanism (punitive damagaes), no compliance. no compliance, empty useless law.




He's lucky he didn't t-bone another car while crossing lanes and kill everyone in that car.
Click to expand...
.......
 
Well, the airbag (if it even was a defective airbag) didn't cause him any damages. The truck being totaled was not a result of the airbag not deploying. There are no damages as a result of the airbag not deploying.

With regard to their not being any warning signs in place, you usually can't sue the government because of sovereign immunity.

If you feel strongly about it, call a lawyer in your community, though.
 
hstern said:
i agree with the bryshguard theory preventing proper deploytion
Click to expand...

if he destroyed the front end of his truck, the energy got past the brush guard. if he had poontoons and the poontoons absorbed the energy with no damage to the truck, that would be something to consider. I didnt see the word pootoon in the post. its a funny looking word, I would have noticed it.
 
unless the brushguard dispersed a majority of the impact to the frame and prevented a direct hit on the airbag sensor. thus the front end damage, though severe, did not include a direct impact on the sensor, sounds good anyhow
 
"...... The [2nd Circuit] rejected the argument that punitive damages are inappropriate in the absence of compensatory damages. "There is some unseemliness for a defendant who engages in malicious or reckless violations of legal duty to escape either the punitive or deterrent goal of punitive damages merely because either good fortune or a plaintiff's unusual strength or resilience protected the plaintiff from suffering harm."
 
Punitive damages are warranted where conduct is “such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interest of others that his conduct may be called willful or wanton.”
 
Stefka said:
Punitive damages are warranted where conduct is “such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interest of others that his conduct may be called willful or wanton.”
Click to expand...

varies by state and circuit (see 2nd circuit liberalized view ^^). Dont mess with me, I took Business Law in Shoemaker School
 
Mavafanculo said:
varies by state and circuit (see 2nd circuit liberalized view ^^). Dont mess with me, I took Business Law in Shoemaker School
Click to expand...

The 2nd circuit is always wrong anyways. :)
 
JumpBallWinner said:
I guess people who have accidents deserve to be hurt in your eyes because they made a mistake while driving? Hell, maybe the government should do away with requiring automobiles to have airbags that way we can teach all these accident having assholes a lessong by increasing the number of them killed. Makes sense.

And I didn't say I wanted to sue GM, it was something the people who have looked at the truck suggested might be something that should be done. I will probably never persue it, even if there is something to persue. Is it not possible that there was something faulty about those model's airbags and that me bringing it to there attention might cause a recall that saves someone else's life.
Click to expand...



Wait. You said you weren't hurt.

You admited to the accident being due to your inability to keep the vehicle on the road.

LOL @ you trying to turn your appetite for a lawsuit into a nobel cause to 'saves others lifes'

Welcome to sue happy america. Congrats on being part of the problem.
 
jh1 said:
Wait. You said you weren't hurt.

You admited to the accident being due to your inability to keep the vehicle on the road.

LOL @ you trying to turn your appetite for a lawsuit into a nobel cause to 'saves others lifes'

Welcome to sue happy america. Congrats on being part of the problem.
Click to expand...


...............
 
Definitely put in a complaint to the manufacturer as their may be a design flaw so that there can be a recall if this is the case. <---- this will help others.

Suing someone because you had an accident that had nothing to do with this possible malfunction won't help anyone, but will most likely negatively affect consumers in regards to insurance.

Does anyone know anything about "catastrophic eventualities"?
 
Mavafanculo said:
"...... The [2nd Circuit] rejected the argument that punitive damages are inappropriate in the absence of compensatory damages. "There is some unseemliness for a defendant who engages in malicious or reckless violations of legal duty to escape either the punitive or deterrent goal of punitive damages merely because either good fortune or a plaintiff's unusual strength or resilience protected the plaintiff from suffering harm."
Click to expand...
Punitive damages would only be appropriate if you could prove that they made the airbags with some malicious intent or being very reckless. The only case on point that I know of that is even close is when the court awarded punitive damages because a car company KNOWINGLY put out vehicles on the market with a faulty gas tank after actuaries crunched the numbers and decided it was cheaper to pay off some wrongful death claims in the future than to launch a full out recall.

That is a pretty hard standard to meet. See how this case would not warrant punitives?
 
heatherrae said:
Punitive damages would only be appropriate if you could prove that they made the airbags with some malicious intent or being very reckless. The only case on point that I know of that is even close is when the court awarded punitive damages because a car company KNOWINGLY put out vehicles on the market with a faulty gas tank after actuaries crunched the numbers and decided it was cheaper to pay off some wrongful death claims in the future than to launch a full out recall.

That is a pretty hard standard to meet. See how this case would not warrant punitives?
Click to expand...

:wavey:
 
man, is anyone on this board not a lawyer?

anyway, here is the link the national highway traffic saftey adminisration--they don't have a ton of real power, but if there are enough complaints they open an investigation.

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ivoq/

btw, my guess is somewhere in the documentation from the manufac provides that installation of anything on the front of the vehicle could compromise the effectiveness of the airbag.

glad you are okay bro
 
heatherrae said:
Punitive damages would only be appropriate if you could prove that they made the airbags with some malicious intent or being very reckless. The only case on point that I know of that is even close is when the court awarded punitive damages because a car company KNOWINGLY put out vehicles on the market with a faulty gas tank after actuaries crunched the numbers and decided it was cheaper to pay off some wrongful death claims in the future than to launch a full out recall.

That is a pretty hard standard to meet. See how this case would not warrant punitives?
Click to expand...

Haha Mava, the real lawyer says I'm right.
 
jh1 said:
Wait. You said you weren't hurt.

You admited to the accident being due to your inability to keep the vehicle on the road.

LOL @ you trying to turn your appetite for a lawsuit into a nobel cause to 'saves others lifes'

Welcome to sue happy america. Congrats on being part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Bro, I like you. You are one of my favorite posters on here. But you and BW1 are completely off base on who I am and what is going through my mind. I get the feeling that you two are using what I'm asking about here as a reason to let out some political frustrations over lawsuits that are filled in this country.

And how am I part of any problem when I haven't even contacted a lawyer?
 
Mavafanculo said:
he is irrelevent. ban him. give me his karma.

the air bags are required by law. if they didnt work the manufacturer should be made to pay punitive damages. everything is a cost-benefit analysis for the pencil pushers. when the cumulative cost of paying punitive damages gets high enuf, they'll invest in improving the effectiveness of the airbags and maybe your mug will be saved.

see.... once again the liberal position is right, and the right is wrong :wavey:
Click to expand...

how do you know the airbags didn't work? airbags are only supposed to in situations where they would protect the passenger more than they would hurt them. Since he wasn't hurt, he obviously didn't need the airbag and they probably shouldn't have deployed anyway
 
Stefka said:
That would be fun if he were a regular poster and would actually answer our questions.
Click to expand...

that's why my wife married me--not for looks, personality, or prowess in the sack; rather for the free legal advice. :)
 
Did not read the entire thread, but I'll bet you were not going over 35 when you actually hit the tree.

They wont deploy under a certain speed.

You probably slowed down a lot after you hit the brakes, and hit the tree at a slower speed than you thought.
 
You'll be wasting your $$$ or your free consultation if you try for a lawsuit.
Several have pointed out a few things.
Cindylou- you were not going fast enough for the computer to meet the permissive that provides for deployment.
The "heavyduty" brush guard. Was this an after-market addition? If so the airbags not going off will be blamed on this modification.
You weren't hurt. If you had been injured and they didn't go off then maybe. Maybe.
If there are lots of incidents where people go off the road there then you may be able to help others by petitioning the Dept of trans to put up a sign.

Last... Your Tahoe did exactly as designed to do. It's a crumple zone theory that actually will gradually destroy the vehicle as it absorbs impact energy. The car gets destroyed but the cabin remains intact. Airbags deploying can cause injury. You didn't suffer any injuries at all.

Sorry about your ride. Glad your OK.
 
JumpBallWinner said:
I was in a wreck last night, totaled my truck. Was on a road I'd never been on before and was unaware of a sharp curve coming up, so I went straight into a yard with trees and proceded to hit one head on. I mean it really destroyed the front of my tahoe, and I had one of those heavy dute brushguards on the front. But my airbags didn't deploy. So far the few people who have looked at the type of damage said that they can't belive that they did't and that I shoud contact GM and possibly file a lawsuit.

Is there a case here?
Click to expand...

Whatever case you may have had, I would assume is void with the modifications you made to teh vehicle (grill guard) - no longer factory spec.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

javaguru
Soldier sues Army for 'unconstitutional' discrimination
Replies
11
Views
2K
shirlene29
shirlene29
chris302001
Best police calls of the year
Replies
3
Views
1K
roidpharm
R
S
Myspace ruins lives! [news item]
Replies
36
Views
4K
jackangel
jackangel
H
Heh,this article will be sure to stir some shizzle up in here...
Replies
7
Views
1K
nimbus
nimbus
chesty
Reporters note book on Tookie Williams Execution as a Witness
Replies
32
Views
3K
kethnaab
kethnaab
Top Bottom