Parents Sue BMW After Child Dies In Locked Car

[OTHstrong]

Keep it in your pants hotshot. 

Just trying to be a getbigger 

[ESFitness]

$20 says the parents are liberals.

[Bevo]

$20 says the parents are liberals.

Most likely , those dip shits!

[Parker]

every big shot company has a million lawyers to make sure there is no liability and guess what? they lose all the time, especially in the automobile industry.

Design flaw or not, who cares what you want to call it, they never did it again after that hence the reason I called it a flaw but who cares that is irrelevant, ok I agree with you it was not a ''design flaw'' ... but the point is ''if she wanted to get out'' she couldn't and that is all that matters, i will bet anything that BMW will not win this, at the very lease they will offer him something out of court.

But, the if she wanted to get out, but couldn't hedges on "did she try?"
If one makes an effort to do something and cannot it is different than one not making an effort at all. Because you make the assumption that if she did make an effort.
Effort is banging on doors and windows, kicking at doors and windows. And being found with a "death grip" on a handle.

Then again, as I said, if one really wants to get out. You kick out the windows.

[ESFitness]

liberals always wanting somebody else to pay for their mistakes.

double locking doors?

I can park my car in any parking lot anywhere in CA and if my child is locked in the car in 100 deg heat, it'll take me all of about 30 seconds to find something to break a fucking window.

obviously the parents aren't fit to survive, let alone raise a child.

[Skorp1o]

liberals always wanting somebody else to pay for their mistakes.

double locking doors?

I can park my car in any parking lot anywhere in CA and if my child is locked in the car in 100 deg heat, it'll take me all of about 30 seconds to find something to break a fucking window.

obviously the parents aren't fit to survive, let alone raise a child.

They left the bitch in there for 7 hours....and then act shocked when she dead

[Radical Plato]

Think about that later, due to him locking the door...Besides, it's already his fault and he knows it. His folks sueing BMW is not going to change that fact. He knows deep down inside that he is responsible.

What a load of horseshit.  It isn't an unreasonable expectation to believe a locked car can be opened from the inside.  No reasonable person would assume otherwise. BMW is 100% responsible for any injury or death their products cause due to irresponsible design. Same deal a few years ago when Toyota produced cars with accelerators that became jammed, killing several people.  These deaths occurred because the product didn't perform the way any reasonable person would anticipate.

[Parker]

What a load of horseshit.  It isn't an unreasonable expectation to believe a locked car can be opened from the inside.  No reasonable person would assume otherwise. BMW is 100% responsible for any injury or death their products cause due to irresponsible design. Same deal a few years ago when Toyota produced cars with accelerators that became jammed, killing several people.  These deaths occurred because the product didn't perform the way any reasonable person would anticipate.

Of course it can opened from the inside, if you have the key in the ignition.
They also have it in their manual. And chances are, this same feature was in the 5 series, 7 series, and their Z3 coupe. They already warned the driver not to lock a person in the vehicle and take the key, as the person cannot get out of the vehicle.
I really wouldn't call it a design flaw. If someone can open the doors inside via the electric lock, then what is the security point of locking the door in the first place? Also, then a person maybe able to operate the car without the key.
Also, there was no problem with the acelerators per se, people put mats over production mats and the acelerator would get stuck. NASA found nothing wrong with the acelerator. The problem was the operators. The operators (drivers) were pressing the wrong pedal and thinking that they were pressing the brake. Just like Audi's "unintended aceleration" problem years ago. It was found to be "operator error".
Toyota paid out because it was easier to do than say American drivers don't know which pedal to push.

[Archer77]

What a load of horseshit.  It isn't an unreasonable expectation to believe a locked car can be opened from the inside.  No reasonable person would assume otherwise. BMW is 100% responsible for any injury or death their products cause due to irresponsible design. Same deal a few years ago when Toyota produced cars with accelerators that became jammed, killing several people.  These deaths occurred because the product didn't perform the way any reasonable person would anticipate.

Anyone with a lick of sense wouldnt leave someone in a car for hours. The car wasn't defective, the driver was negligent.  Cars aren't day care centers and arent designed for how the father used it.

[Radical Plato]

Of course it can opened from the inside, if you have the key in the ignition.
They also have it in their manual. And chances are, this same feature was in the 5 series, 7 series, and their Z3 coupe. They already warned the driver not to lock a person in the vehicle and take the key, as the person cannot get out of the vehicle.
I really wouldn't call it a design flaw. If someone can open the doors inside via the electric lock, then what is the security point of locking the door in the first place? Also, then a person maybe able to operate the car without the key.
Also, there was no problem with the acelerators per se, people put mats over production mats and the acelerator would get stuck. NASA found nothing wrong with the acelerator. The problem was the operators. The operators (drivers) were pressing the wrong pedal and thinking that they were pressing the brake. Just like Audi's "unintended aceleration" problem years ago. It was found to be "operator error".
Toyota paid out because it was easier to do than say American drivers don't know which pedal to push.

The irony of all this is that it is expected that a reasonable person should have foresaw the potential for death by locking a car with an occupant inside, yet you are arguing that such a standard shouldn't be applied to a corporation or it's designers and engineers.  BMW should have absolutely foresaw the potential for death and serious injury by implementing such a design.

[Shockwave]

The irony of all this is that it is expected that a reasonable person should have foresaw the potential for death by locking a car with an occupant inside, yet you are arguing that such a standard shouldn't be applied to a corporation or it's designers and engineers.  BMW should have absolutely foresaw the potential for death and serious injury by implementing such a design.

Clearly they did, by markong in the manual to nevwr lock an occipant in the car without the keys.

I know you always base all your decisions on emotion, but anu logical person knows thwyre responsible for the machinery theu operate, to know its quirks in and out. Machinery doesnt function the way you think it should, or I, or anyone else.. it functions the way the design engineers decided it will.

Thats my biggest irritant at work... so many people like you call griping about why the machinery doesnt operate in a way that makes logical sense to them.... and every single one has a different idea of that constitutes logical sense.

We have disclaimers in the manual about safety and want not to do, including opening the doors and being inside while operating the machine. People have gotten injured doing that, but since we put a disclaimer on the manual, and since they didn't read it, it was their fault, not ours. If there is no safety regulation regarding it, guess what, they dont have to design it according to a standard or 'reasonable expectation', as you put it. The toyota deal was completely different.

anyway, BMW didnt kill the girl, and unless it can be proven that she struggled and couldnt get out due to the door, they have next to zero liability since it was clearly explained in the manual.

FyI, windows are designed to be kicked out from the inside as safety precautions. She could have gotten out if she really tried. I think she died in her sleep. The family isnjust trying to cast blame to find someone to point the finger at and be mad at

[Radical Plato]

Clearly they did, by markong in the manual to nevwr lock an occipant in the car without the keys.

I know you always base all your decisions on emotion, but anu logical person knows thwyre responsible for the machinery theu operate, to know its quirks in and out. Machinery doesnt function the way you think it should, or I, or anyone else.. it functions the way the design engineers decided it will.

Thats my biggest irritant at work... so many people like you call griping about why the machinery doesnt operate in a way that makes logical sense to them.... and every single one has a different idea of that constitutes logical sense.

We have disclaimers in the manual about safety and want not to do, including opening the doors and being inside while operating the machine. People have gotten injured doing that, but since we put a disclaimer on the manual, and since they didn't read it, it was their fault, not ours. If there is no safety regulation regarding it, guess what, they dont have to design it according to a standard or 'reasonable expectation', as you put it. The toyota deal was completely different.

anyway, BMW didnt kill the girl, and unless it can be proven that she struggled and couldnt get out due to the door, they have next to zero liability since it was clearly explained in the manual.

FyI, windows are designed to be kicked out from the inside as safety precautions. She could have gotten out if she really tried. I think she died in her sleep. The family is just trying to cast blame to find someone to point the finger at and be mad at

It doesn't matter that the manufacturer made a small reference remarking the operator shouldn't lock the door with an occupant inside.  I could inform you that if you take one step closer to me I will strike you down with a baseball bat, doesn't mean I am not liable for any damage caused to you, I don't get the luxury of using "Well, I informed you defense".   

And of course manufacturers have to design a car to a standard, like restrictions on noise and pollution emissions for example.  ANd it is just being obtuse to suggest they don't have to design to a standard.  Imagine a manufacturer designed a car with the accelerator in the middle, the brake on the left and the clutch on the right.  It is reasonable to expect certain universal design implementations when it comes to cars, engineering depends on universality, like the Unified Thread Standard.  There is a good reason why BMW seem to be the only manufacturer to make a capsule that imprisons an occupant against their will, other manufacturers obviously realise the potential harm such a design could cause.  Obviously BMW realised this at some point also and dropped the ridiculous design.

[Shockwave]

It doesn't matter that the manufacturer made a small reference remarking the operator shouldn't lock the door with an occupant inside.  I could inform you that if you take one step closer to me I will strike you down with a baseball bat, doesn't mean I am not liable for any damage caused to you, I don't get the luxury of using "Well, I informed you defense".   

And of course manufacturers have to design a car to a standard, like restrictions on noise and pollution emissions for example.  ANd it is just being obtuse to suggest they don't have to design to a standard.  Imagine a manufacturer designed a car with the accelerator in the middle, the brake on the left and the clutch on the right.  It is reasonable to expect certain universal design implementations when it comes to cars, engineering depends on universality, like the Unified Thread Standard.  There is a good reason why BMW seem to be the only manufacturer to make a capsule that imprisons an occupant against their will, other manufacturers obviously realise the potential harm such a design could cause.  Obviously BMW realised this at some point also and dropped the ridiculous design.

Clearly you didnt understand what I wrote. If there is no safety standard in place (I.e. a rule that says you have to be able to unlock the vehicle from the inside), then theyre not responsible for making it that way.

Look im not going to.keep arguing with you, you clearly have no idea how the system works, youre arguing on emotion and 'how things should be', like you always do.

Proper use of the machinery was spelled put in the manual. The manufacturer is not responsible for harm or injury caused bu misuses of their product, as defined in their instructions. Thats how it works. Thats how they keep from being responsible every time someone does something utterly stupid when told not to.

Dont like it? Tough. Thats the way it is here.

[Radical Plato]

Clearly you didnt understand what I wrote. If there is no safety standard in place (I.e. a rule that says you have to be able to unlock the vehicle from the inside), then theyre not responsible for making it that way.

Look im not going to.keep arguing with you, you clearly have no idea how the system works, youre arguing on emotion and 'how things should be', like you always do.

Proper use of the machinery was spelled put in the manual. The manufacturer is not responsible for harm or injury caused bu misuses of their product, as defined in their instructions. Thats how it works. Thats how they keep from being responsible every time someone does something utterly stupid when told not to.

Dont like it? Tough. Thats the way it is here.

It's not the way it is there, and BMW will lose this case.  Proper use was not spelled out in the manual, it mentions nothing of the potential for serious injury or death by locking the vehicle while there is an occupant inside.  There manual was wholly inadequate, and for such a dangerous feature not clearly highlighted in such a way to suggest the seriousness of performing such an action.  BMW will lose. I know you get emotional when you perceive what you believe to be other people's emotion, but just so you know, Juries ALWAYS operate on emotion.  That's just how it is there.

[Archer77]

It's not the way it is there, and BMW will lose this case.  Proper use was not spelled out in the manual, it mentions nothing of the potential for serious injury or death by locking the vehicle while there is an occupant inside.  There manual was wholly inadequate, and for such a dangerous feature not clearly highlighted in such a way to suggest the seriousness of performing such an action.  BMW will lose. I know you get emotional when you perceive what you believe to be other people's emotion, but just so you know, Juries ALWAYS operate on emotion.  That's just how it is there.

The owner was using the vehicle beyond it's intended use. 

[Radical Plato]

Found this article interesting.

Man Sues BMW for Long-Lasting Erection

A California  man blames his motorcycle seat for a painful erection he said lasted nearly two years.
Henry Wolf, 52, is now suing BMW of North America,  the motorcycle’s manufacturer, and Corbin-Pacific, the maker of the seat, for lost wages, medical expenses and emotional distress.

According to his attorney, Vernon Bradley, Wolf took a four-hour ride – two hours each way – on his 1993 motorcycle on May 1, 2010.  After the trip, he developed priapism, a prolonged, unwanted, persistent and painful erection of the penis that for Wolf has  lasted 24 hours a day since the ride.

“It’s very embarrassing, and all kind of problems developed,” Bradley told ABC News.  “He had to reconfigure his clothing, and going to the bathroom was  a problem.”

And recently things have gotten worse, Bradley said.  Wolf is now unable to have an erection.

Wolf consulted a number of physicians, who told him the condition was the result of both the configuration of the seat and the long motorcycle ride.
Dr. Ramgopal Satyanarayana, associate professor of urology at the University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine, said that while he isn’t involved in Wolf’s case, he has never heard of a case of priapism caused by a motorcycle seat.

Priapism, he said, can be a side effect of certain medications, such as Viagra, Cialis and antipsychotics.  It can also develop as a complication of sickle cell anemia, a disease that causes red blood cells to take on an abnormal shape.  In rare cases, Satyanarayana said, priapism could be the result of trauma.

If not treated early, Satyanarayana said, priapism could lead to permanent erectile dysfunction.

“For treatment, we tell them to take pseudoephedrine, and if that doesn’t bring it down, we actually inject medications that can arrest the amount of blood coming in.  If that doesn’t work, we have to operatively reduce it.”

Wolf’s doctors tried the more conservative treatments, his attorney said, and told him the only other option was surgery.
“If that surgery is not successful, he will never be able to get an erection with a pump or anything else,” Bradley said.

Bradley plans to serve the lawsuits this week, and the companies have 30 days to respond.  He is seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/05/01/man-blames-bmw-for-long-lasting-erection/

[BigCyp]

I bet Vince Basile could get into the car with no keys, if there was a 14 year old girl sleeping inside.

[Shockwave]

It's not the way it is there, and BMW will lose this case.  Proper use was not spelled out in the manual, it mentions nothing of the potential for serious injury or death by locking the vehicle while there is an occupant inside.  There manual was wholly inadequate, and for such a dangerous feature not clearly highlighted in such a way to suggest the seriousness of performing such an action.  BMW will lose. I know you get emotional when you perceive what you believe to be other people's emotion, but just so you know, Juries ALWAYS operate on emotion.  That's just how it is there.

Right.... tell that to George zimmerman. I seem to remember you saying the same thing then.

 And fyi, when the manual says 'dont do this or you cant get out', that kind of explains it all, doesnt it? Thats not even getting into the fact that they have to prove she died because she couldnt get out. Just because something has the POSSIBILITY of causing death does not mean it ACTUALLY CAUSED THE DEATH. They have to prove she didnt die in her sleep, that she couldnt escaoe, and then convince the jury that they had no responsibility to read the manual and use the equipment as instructed.

Wait, heres your counter argument 'but someone died! !! It should work like this cause thats what I think should happen!!! People died theyre at fault!!!"

Good luck with that. Kid left his sister in a locked vehicle in the sweltering heat, and the manual very clearly states that you cannot lock someone inside and still have them be able to get out.

Sorry buddy, thats not BMWs fault.

[BigCyp]

To be fair, she was safer in the BMW then outside it where Vince is

[Shockwave]

Found this article interesting.

Man Sues BMW for Long-Lasting Erection

A California  man blames his motorcycle seat for a painful erection he said lasted nearly two years.
Henry Wolf, 52, is now suing BMW of North America,  the motorcycle’s manufacturer, and Corbin-Pacific, the maker of the seat, for lost wages, medical expenses and emotional distress.

According to his attorney, Vernon Bradley, Wolf took a four-hour ride – two hours each way – on his 1993 motorcycle on May 1, 2010.  After the trip, he developed priapism, a prolonged, unwanted, persistent and painful erection of the penis that for Wolf has  lasted 24 hours a day since the ride.

“It’s very embarrassing, and all kind of problems developed,” Bradley told ABC News.  “He had to reconfigure his clothing, and going to the bathroom was  a problem.”

And recently things have gotten worse, Bradley said.  Wolf is now unable to have an erection.

Wolf consulted a number of physicians, who told him the condition was the result of both the configuration of the seat and the long motorcycle ride.
Dr. Ramgopal Satyanarayana, associate professor of urology at the University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine, said that while he isn’t involved in Wolf’s case, he has never heard of a case of priapism caused by a motorcycle seat.

Priapism, he said, can be a side effect of certain medications, such as Viagra, Cialis and antipsychotics.  It can also develop as a complication of sickle cell anemia, a disease that causes red blood cells to take on an abnormal shape.  In rare cases, Satyanarayana said, priapism could be the result of trauma.

If not treated early, Satyanarayana said, priapism could lead to permanent erectile dysfunction.

“For treatment, we tell them to take pseudoephedrine, and if that doesn’t bring it down, we actually inject medications that can arrest the amount of blood coming in.  If that doesn’t work, we have to operatively reduce it.”

Wolf’s doctors tried the more conservative treatments, his attorney said, and told him the only other option was surgery.
“If that surgery is not successful, he will never be able to get an erection with a pump or anything else,” Bradley said.

Bradley plans to serve the lawsuits this week, and the companies have 30 days to respond.  He is seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/05/01/man-blames-bmw-for-long-lasting-erection/

Irrelevant
A.Im quite sure there is no section of the manual covering the motorcycle seat causing Priapism
B.Until he actually wins something, it's a mute point. you can sue anyone for anything, doesn't mean you're going to win.

[Radical Plato]

The owner was using the vehicle beyond it's intended use. 

No he wasn't, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.  Everyday people leave an occupant in a car while they exit the vehicle and later return.  Such an action is an everyday occurrence and well within a car's intended use.  The way the driver used the car is in legal terms what would be defined as "reasonably foreseeable".  BMW admit to this fact when they published a small warning in their operators manual, they admit they know about the danger such an action could cause, it is this admission that will bring them undone.  Such a poor design implementation is cause for a recall. The lawsuit also mention how BMW had numerous complaints as well as knowledge of deaths caused by there design and still failed to act or recall the vehicle.  BMW will lose.

[Shockwave]

No he wasn't, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.  Everyday people leave an occupant in a car while they exit the vehicle and later return.  Such an action is an everyday occurrence and well within a car's intended use.  The way the driver used the car is in legal terms what would be defined as "reasonably foreseeable".  BMW admit to this fact when they published a small warning in their operators manual, they admit they know about the danger such an action could cause, it is this admission that will bring them undone.  Such a poor design implementation is cause for a recall. The lawsuit also mention how BMW had numerous complaints as well as knowledge of deaths caused by there design and still failed to act or recall the vehicle.  BMW will lose.

So, wait... the car is from 97... there is "numerous complaints AS WELL AS knowledge of deaths", yet they haven't been sued or recalled the car?

Hmm... sounds like they might have their asses covered if they're not concerned and haven't been taken to court over it yet.

Generally, when the manual says "DONT DO THIS", and then you DO THAT, its YOUR fault, not theirs.

Also, as said previously, they have to prove that actually tried to escape and couldn't. That has to be the cause of death, not just that she died and the door wouldn't open, correlation =/= causation.

[RRKore]

RTFM

Hmm.  Maybe it'd have been wise for BMW to point out in the same section of the manual that the horn would also be inoperable if someone were locked inside with no key.  

(Seriously, who designed this mobile kiddie jail-cell?)

BTW, BMW stopped using the double locking "feature" in its cars in 1997.  Wonder why?

[Radical Plato]

Irrelevant
A.Im quite sure there is no section of the manual covering the motorcycle seat causing Priapism
B.Until he actually wins something, it's a mute point. you can sue anyone for anything, doesn't mean you're going to win.

Of course!  He lost, frivolous lawsuit, too hard to prove, I was posting it for a laugh.  I imagine a few getbiggers will be purchasing BMW motorcycles soon.

[Archer77]

No he wasn't, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.  Everyday people leave an occupant in a car while they exit the vehicle and later return.  Such an action is an everyday occurrence and well within a car's intended use.  The way the driver used the car is in legal terms what would be defined as "reasonably foreseeable".  BMW admit to this fact when they published a small warning in their operators manual, they admit they know about the danger such an action could cause, it is this admission that will bring them undone.  Such a poor design implementation is cause for a recall. The lawsuit also mention how BMW had numerous complaints as well as knowledge of deaths caused by there design and still failed to act or recall the vehicle.  BMW will lose.

Using the car to house a child for multiple hours is an acceptable form of use?