Parents Sue BMW After Child Dies In Locked Car

[Radical Plato]

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.

Of course they are concerned about it, but the way big corporations work is too weigh up the cost of a recall and other associated expenses against the potential lawsuits such a unfortunate design could generate.  I guess the bean counters figured a few lawsuits was the cheaper option.  Life means nothing in a capitalist society when compared to the mighty dollar.

[OTHstrong]

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.

if you have to resort to the extent that a window has to be kicked then BMW would still lose the law suit, you are arguing points that I agree with but are irrelevant to the case in a court a law.

No judge is going to say ''well BMW is not at fault cause she could have kicked the window open'' lmao.

[Simple Simon]

Why would you have a car that locked people in unless it was a police car?

[OTHstrong]

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.

exactly my point and this is the first time I have agreed with EKUL on anything.

We know he is trying to get money and she may have died anyway but the fact is that no sane person in their right mind would anticipate that the door would not open from the inside when locked, fucken easy money for this guy, the fact you guys are saying he has a chance to lose is fucken beyond me. HE WINS EASILY, I WILL BET MY HOUSE

[OTHstrong]

Why would you have a car that locked people in unless it was a police car?

EXACTLY

[Shockwave]

exactly my point and this is the first time I have agreed with EKUL on anything.

We know he is trying to get money and she may have died anyway but the fact is that no sane person in their right mind would anticipate that the door would not open from the inside when locked, fucken easy money for this guy, the fact you guys are saying he has a chance to lose is fucken beyond me. HE WINS EASILY, I WILL BET MY HOUSE

None of that matters if she didnt try to get out..m not only that, but they very clearly stated "do not do this, youll get locked in" in their manual.

Thats how liability works... if someone puts in the blowdryer manual 'dont operate in water or you could get electrocuted', and you operate it in water and die, its not their fault because they warned you about the possible outcome.

[Simple Simon]

exactly my point and this is the first time I have agreed with EKUL on anything.

We know he is trying to get money and she may have died anyway but the fact is that no sane person in their right mind would anticipate that the door would not open from the inside when locked, fucken easy money for this guy, the fact you guys are saying he has a chance to lose is fucken beyond me. HE WINS EASILY, I WILL BET MY HOUSE

Here are 10 examples why they are likely to win.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/8-outrageous-lawsuits.htm#page=1

[Archer77]

exactly my point and this is the first time I have agreed with EKUL on anything.

We know he is trying to get money and she may have died anyway but the fact is that no sane person in their right mind would anticipate that the door would not open from the inside when locked, fucken easy money for this guy, the fact you guys are saying he has a chance to lose is fucken beyond me. HE WINS EASILY, I WILL BET MY HOUSE

No sane person would leave someone in a car for hours either

[OTHstrong]

None of that matters if she didnt try to get out..m not only that, but they very clearly stated "do not do this, youll get locked in" in their manual.

Thats how liability works... if someone puts in the blowdryer manual 'dont operate in water or you could get electrocuted', and you operate it in water and die, its not their fault because they warned you about the possible outcome.

car companies lose all the time. If they worked like that the wouldn't lose all the time

[OTHstrong]

No sane person would leave someone in a car for hours either

well obviously the guy is a retard

[Archer77]

well obviously the guy is a retard

He needs to be charged with negligent homicide.

[Simple Simon]

He needs to be charged with negligent homicide.

His defence would be he locked the car to make sure no one molested his sister.

[Shockwave]

His defence would be he locked the car to make sure no one molested his sister.

They could use that manual against him; that he locked her in the car when it very clearly stated the outcome, and by not checking on her, he was responsible for her death.

Which, really, is what happened anyway.

Suing the car company is just diverting blame from the son, they don't even know if she TRIED to get out. They found a loophole and they're going for it even though BMW clearly stated what was up.

[OTHstrong]

His defence would be he locked the car to make sure no one molested his sister.

Yup

[OTHstrong]

They could use that manual against him; that he locked her in the car when it very clearly stated the outcome, and by not checking on her, he was responsible for her death.

Which, really, is what happened anyway.

Suing the car company is just diverting blame from the son, they don't even know if she TRIED to get out. They found a loophole and they're going for it even though BMW clearly stated what was up.

agree with you but he will still win

[Shockwave]

agree with you but he will still win

I don't think it'll ever see the courtroom; BMW will pay them some cash, they'll be able to point the finger, BMW can sweep it under the rug, etc.

But if you guys actually took a step back and looked at the evidence through the eyes of the law, they have no case. Zero. They can't prove she tried to get out, they can't prove the feature killed her, even if it did, it was clearly stated in the manual how the feature operated and that they shouldn't do what they did. BMW was covered all over the place.

[OTHstrong]

I don't think it'll ever see the courtroom; BMW will pay them some cash, they'll be able to point the finger, BMW can sweep it under the rug, etc.

But if you guys actually took a step back and looked at the evidence through the eyes of the law, they have no case. Zero. They can't prove she tried to get out, they can't prove the feature killed her, even if it did, it was clearly stated in the manual how the feature operated and that they shouldn't do what they did. BMW was covered all over the place.

It is not hard to prove she tried to get out. She is dead, what do dead people do before they die, they try to survive.

[Shockwave]

It is not hard to prove she tried to get out. She is dead, what do dead people do before they die, they try to survive.

Thats not evidence, thats assumption. What if she was asleep? Were there signs of stuggle? Scratches on the windows? claw marks on the doors? Cmon man, you're arguing purely on emotion and assumption and zero facts.

[OTHstrong]

Thats not evidence, thats assumption. What if she was asleep? Were there signs of stuggle? Cmon man, you're arguing purely on emotion and assumption and zero facts.

actually no I am not at all, keep it real, stick to the subject not this emotional shit, I am being straight here bro.

I believe she may have tried to get out and a lot of people would believe this. I mean if my car is a sauna, I will try to get out, it is more common sense that she tried to get out that if she didn't and gave up and fell asleep, people believe victims over car companies any day.

This is a mute point anyway since they will settle out of court but if they went to court I would bet enormous amounts on him winning without even a struggle

[Shockwave]

actually no I am not at all, keep it real, stick to the subject not this emotional shit, I am being straight here bro.

I believe she may have tried to get out and a lot of people would believe this. I mean if my car is a sauna, I will try to get out, it is more common sense that she tried to get out that if she didn't and gave up and fell asleep, people believe victims over car companies any day.

This is a mute point anyway since they will settle out of court but if they went to court I would bet enormous amounts on him winning without even a struggle

Yes, but "your belief" and "common sense" are not admissable forms of evidence in a court of law. You HAVE to be able to submit REAL evidence (not intangibles like "beliefs" and "common sense") that she died BECAUSE of the locked door, you have to prove that she actually woke up and struggled to get out.... then you have to convince the jury that they had no responsibility to understand how the vehicle operates and aren't responsible for reading the manual and knowing how the systems work.

[OTHstrong]

Yes, but "your belief" and "common sense" are not admissable forms of evidence in a court of law. You HAVE to be able to submit REAL evidence (not intangibles like "beliefs" and "common sense") that she died BECAUSE of the locked door, you have to prove that she actually woke up and struggled to get out.... then you have to convince the jury that they had no responsibility to understand how the vehicle operates and aren't responsible for reading the manual and knowing how the systems work.

I know that but in this case people will favor the victim, they will believe his end so ''beliefs'' do play a big role. This a no man territory. She tried to get or she didn't, some will believe she did and some won't, people are soft they will believe the victim

[Jack T. Cross]

Of course they are concerned about it, but the way big corporations work is too weigh up the cost of a recall and other associated expenses against the potential lawsuits such a unfortunate design could generate.  I guess the bean counters figured a few lawsuits was the cheaper option.  Life means nothing in a capitalist society when compared to the mighty dollar.

Yeah, that's how it happens. Cost of predicted risk against competing costs, with the winner being the lowest number. (And best of luck getting any individual to acknowledge prior realization of the threat. A person should look at the drop-in fuel tank on the old Mustang, for instance.)

[Jack T. Cross]

Some great posts in this thread, btw, E-Kul.

[Shockwave]

I know that but in this case people will favor the victim, they will believe his end so ''beliefs'' do play a big role. This a no man territory. She tried to get or she didn't, some will believe she did and some won't, people are soft they will believe the victim

I always side with whichever side has more of a case under purely legal terms, I dont go with the intagibles such as jury emotions.... same with the Zimmerman trial.... everybody KNEW he was going to hang because a kid was dead, except that there was no concrete evidence as the law defines it. Ive found throughout the years that whichever side has a stronger case with real supportive evidence usually wins, regardless of how the majority of people feel... because a good lawyer will manipulate the jury into going with the evidence, not on their 'gut'.

[240 is Back]

i still can't understand why they make a car so people in front seat cannot escape when locked.  baffling.

Any number of accidents/emergencies could happen, and someone could die in vehicle because it's locked. 

What is the advantage of this in a car?