Jeep Can Be Sued for Unpurchased Optional Safety Equipment

[MechAg94]

Arizona Supreme Court: Jeep can be sued over girl's death
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/arizona-supreme-court-jeep-sued-girls-death-83188731

The title is from the Lehto's Law video on the subject. 
There was an accident where a Jeep crashed into another vehicle killing a child and injuring the mother.  The family is suing Jeep because the they didn't install optional automatic braking system on the Jeep.  That equipment is not required.   

The company noted that the Jeep Grand Cherokee involved complied with all applicable federal safety standards and said that while automatic emergency braking, known as AEB, is a promising new technology, it can't prevent all crashes.

“Lawsuits attempting to impose an autonomous feature on all vehicles can inadvertently stymie the development of better versions as technology matures,” the company said.

I am assuming Jeep will take this to federal court before or after this continues in state court.  If it were to stand and cost Jeep a court loss, there will then be zero further development of safety features on automobiles. 

This also might carry over to recent attempts to sue gun manufacturers. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO-gJkvenL4&t=1s

[WLJ]

So hold the company responsible for what the customer didn't buy.
The extra cost issue aside I could see where an auto braking system would not play nice on a vehicle meant to go off road
Unless they're leaving something out this strikes me as a purely emotional decision

[HankB]

I remember a couple of decades ago, there was a very similar concern with safety improvements in light aircraft - some new gizmos came out, and lawyers figured out there was money to be made since the light aircraft manufacturers didn't recall all the older aircraft they'd ever made for a free retrofit.

Another issue was that light aircraft manufacturers would STOP innovating, since finding a better way to do things meant they KNEW their older models weren't all they could be.

IIRC, Cessna in particular was mentioned, and there was some talk that they'd be put out of business by lawsuits. They're still around and selling aircraft (including jets) so I guess ultimately things worked out. But even their cheapest new propeller planes aren't really cheap any more.

[Boomhauer]

I remember a couple of decades ago, there was a very similar concern with safety improvements in light aircraft - some new gizmos came out, and lawyers figured out there was money to be made since the light aircraft manufacturers didn't recall all the older aircraft they'd ever made for a free retrofit.

Another issue was that light aircraft manufacturers would STOP innovating, since finding a better way to do things meant they KNEW their older models weren't all they could be.

IIRC, Cessna in particular was mentioned, and there was some talk that they'd be put out of business by lawsuits. They're still around and selling aircraft (including jets) so I guess ultimately things worked out. But even their cheapest new propeller planes aren't really cheap any more.

Cessna did almost go out of business because of lawsuits. Them, Piper and I think Beechcraft had to put a hiatus on light aircraft production for 10-15 years. During that time Cessna produced just business jets. When they resumed production the price of a new 172 had basically doubled to absorb the lawsuit costs and is now even much more expensive these days. It also put a lot of the smaller aircraft producers out of business.

Just think if the cost of a new car doubled or tripled solely due to lawsuits like this. When the Cessna production resumed the basic aircraft was improved somewhat but not double to triple the price improved. 

[MechAg94]

Maybe Congress should pass a "Protection of Lawful Commerce Act" or something like that. 

I agree this is a purely emotional decision and I hope it gets slapped down.

[230RN]

WLJ:
"
Unless they're leaving something out this strikes me as a purely emotional decision.
"

Everything today seems to be emotional.  I suspect logic and reason are being bred out of the species.

Survival of the screechiest.

(Once in a while the strategic part of my brain generates the crazy thought that judges are flavoring their thinking into helping their fellow law practicioners make livings.  But of course I suppress that thought instantly --like a bad dream.)

I'm not signing this one so nobody will know who posted it.

[WLJ]

So if I buy a used car without auto brakes and then have an accident can I be sued because cars with auto brakes are available?

[Perd Hapley]

It seems the response by Jeep should be to sue the buyer for cheaping out, wrecking, and costing Jeep a substantial amount of money, plus damage to its reputation.

[Bogie]

If you guy a new Cessena 182 like what a buddy had, you are basically buying a 1960s airplane.

[Boomhauer]

If you guy a new Cessena 182 like what a buddy had, you are basically buying a 1960s airplane.

For several times the cost of the 1960s version I should add. The main improvements of the new version is a nicer interior, full glass cockpit, a fuel injected engine, and some other updates. Many of the improvements can be (and often are) added to the 1960s version for a nominal cost.

[griz]

Despite what the lawsuit, and some TV commercials, imply, the automatic braking is not good enough to stop every rear end accident.  I suspect this would have been one of the unsavable ones since it was fatal.  I for one do not want cars to be required to be so foolproof that I can't be injured.  It would be a very expensive car and I suspect it would be limited to about 15 MPH.

[AZRedhawk44]

This will also drive vehicle prices upwards.

Good luck finding a vehicle WITHOUT backup cameras.  Or without automated emergency braking.  Or whatever the quasi-auto-pilot feature is called that maintains following distance on highway and can sort of self-drive.

Any new feature invented, will become mandatory as a byproduct.  One might make an argument that automatic transmission is safety equipment over manual, making manual transmission impossible to get.

[MillCreek]

Maybe Congress should pass a "Protection of Lawful Commerce Act" or something like that. 

I agree this is a purely emotional decision and I hope it gets slapped down.

I remember when GARA was passed for the general aviation industry:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalization_Act

[Ben]

This will also drive vehicle prices upwards.

Good luck finding a vehicle WITHOUT backup cameras.  Or without automated emergency braking.  Or whatever the quasi-auto-pilot feature is called that maintains following distance on highway and can sort of self-drive.

Any new feature invented, will become mandatory as a byproduct.  One might make an argument that automatic transmission is safety equipment over manual, making manual transmission impossible to get.

I'm thinking that with economies of scale, a lot of those new features won't drive up prices that much more if they become ubiquitous. My greater concern is that all the new doodads can be remotely controlled by the manufacturer, and by extension, the government. I don't want any random cop on the road being able to shut my vehicle off from his smartphone. Nor do I want to have to blow into a mandatory internet connected breathalyzer every time I get into my car.

[AZRedhawk44]

Onstar and similar dedicated internet connections for cars is a "safety feature."  Now you Onstar subscription will be bundled into the cost of your auto loan for the duration of the loan.  That's another $50 a month for 5 years. 

[fifth_column]

I'm thinking that with economies of scale, a lot of those new features won't drive up prices that much more if they become ubiquitous. My greater concern is that all the new doodads can be remotely controlled by the manufacturer, and by extension, the government. I don't want any random cop on the road being able to shut my vehicle off from his smartphone. Nor do I want to have to blow into a mandatory internet connected breathalyzer every time I get into my car.

I recall an article in 2015 about someone that demonstrated the ability to hack the Jeep control systems, including the brakes and engine. Presumably they're more secure now, but guaranteed someone, somewhere will be able to hack it. I would expect the NSA has already surreptitiously included back doors into the tech.

[Northwoods]

I remember a couple of decades ago, there was a very similar concern with safety improvements in light aircraft - some new gizmos came out, and lawyers figured out there was money to be made since the light aircraft manufacturers didn't recall all the older aircraft they'd ever made for a free retrofit.

Another issue was that light aircraft manufacturers would STOP innovating, since finding a better way to do things meant they KNEW their older models weren't all they could be.

IIRC, Cessna in particular was mentioned, and there was some talk that they'd be put out of business by lawsuits. They're still around and selling aircraft (including jets) so I guess ultimately things worked out. But even their cheapest new propeller planes aren't really cheap any more.

Cessna did almost go out of business because of lawsuits. Them, Piper and I think Beechcraft had to put a hiatus on light aircraft production for 10-15 years. During that time Cessna produced just business jets. When they resumed production the price of a new 172 had basically doubled to absorb the lawsuit costs and is now even much more expensive these days. It also put a lot of the smaller aircraft producers out of business.

Just think if the cost of a new car doubled or tripled solely due to lawsuits like this. When the Cessna production resumed the basic aircraft was improved somewhat but not double to triple the price improved. 

Beech never stopped producing the Bonanza and Baron.  I worked there as an intern in the late 90’s.