those ugly stickers on the visors

[Bryan330i]

BMWROCKS, that is not exactly the same thing, you are talking duty to warn which is a legal requirement to warn of personal harm and the fabric content of a product and if it is new. BIG difference!

A duty to warn exists to anyone in a supply chain. A segment of our business sells concrete equipment. If a used piece of equipment is ever sold, it better have ALL warnings in place, if not, we can be held liable for negligence as part of the supply chain. A breach of duty may include improper inspection of a product for defects, a failure to warn consumers of what may be a foreseeable risk, and design defects that lack conscious foresight into foreseeable harm.

It just appears like protection from liability should be a greater concern for everyone and remember it is just conversation, but the way things are going I am sure many have already tried to make the legal connection to individuals.

 

[PuShAkOv]

So do you guys think that the gun industry should be responsible for a person picking up a gun and shooting their co-workers in a murder-suicide scene?

Legal body now think so.... how is that different from people getting killed from driving too fast in a car? ... should BMW be criminally responsible?

 

[Bryan330i]

It is the reasonable person theory Push. The situations are very different. The idea is that the warnings provide information to parents regarding the safety of child placement in the car. The danger is less obvious.

 

[bmwrocks]

Anyone know where I can get a good lawyer? I am gonna need one after the kid gets crushed in the car I just sold to the negligent mother who doesn't use child safety seats.

Yes now that tobacco companies are liable for cancer caused by their cigarettes (the smoker is not resposible for his own actions) then it logically follows that gun manufacturers are responsible for murders with their guns and car manufacturers are responsible for every accident involving their cars where something is provided that he would not normally have (like capability for excess speed). .

So now we are talking about degrees of obviousness. Care to provide that list to me sorted by most obvious to least obvious when it comes to auto safety? Or do you have to get the list approved by a court before you can post it?

 

[PuShAkOv]

This is auto future:

Cars would have speed-restricting wireless chip that would not permit a car to go above a set speed limit on a certain street. Those modding the chip for faster speed would be arrested. However, the speed limiter would not be activated on non-paved roads or on provate property.

 

[Bryan330i]

Hey guys it is not that serious nor difficult to understand. It is basic common sense for any business leader and is readily available from a Google search.

A person is negligent if he fails to exercise ordinary care to avoid injury to other persons or their property. In other words, he failed to do something a reasonably careful person would do or he did something a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances. For example, if a person causes an auto accident because he was driving faster than was safe for the existing conditions, the resulting lawsuit will likely include a negligence claim.

For a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish four elements:

· Duty of Care
· Breach of Duty
· Causal Connection; and
· Actual Loss or Harm

Duty of Care
A duty of care is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs, which means that a reasonable person would have foreseen a risk of injury to the plaintiff under the circumstances. If such a duty exists, the standard of care is that of a reasonably careful or prudent person. In other words, a person's act or omission is measured against that of a reasonably careful person in similar circumstances. (findlaw.com)

So yes, the differences involve the degree of obviousness to the reasonable person. It is so easy guys, it is basic stuff and not that serious.

 

[bmwrocks]

OK Bryan please give me the bottom line. I am asking you this genuinely, no sarcasm intended.

Am I negligent if I removed the warning stickers and the next owner kills his kid because he did not read the warning label because I removed it before I sold it to him?

 

[Bryan330i]

I am not sure and was curious myself. I don't think it would ever happen and I sure would not be concerned about it. I was just curious from my own perspective where at work we often replace safety stickers for company protection. I would think that if a car is traded in that does not have the warnings in place that the dealer would put them on prior to selling the car. As far as anything against an individual I would tend to think there is no way it would ever stick buy was curious myself.

 

[PuShAkOv]

Am I negligent if I removed the warning stickers and the next owner kills his kid because he did not read the warning label because I removed it before I sold it to him?

Yes You Are since common sense and law tend to contridict in this country. If her child dies her family would be in search of a scape goat.... and you would be the one.

What I would do is send the person you sold the car to a letter that includes all the text from the airbag warnings and have her sign and return it... or better yet.. have yer notarize it. This was she has no legal way of blaming you for the death or not having the warning.

 

[mikev]

or you could just move to a proper country where the toothless, moonshine runners were disposed of when the mayflower left dock and they don't put the stickers on[joke]

 

[Wadula]

hihihi. come home, heh???

that is a really interesting topic, i admit. and not at all that senseless in this country where a squirrel can sue you for eating too many peanuts.
brahtw8 would be of help i think. though he does not give legal advice, his "ideas" have a good foundation.

 

[Bryan330i]

Sue anyone for anything it would seem. I have been through a couple you would not even believe. The company I work just finished one for a brake part made by Ford. The accident involved a bus full of tourists and the whole supply chain was named by a fleet of attorneys representing everyone on the bus. No serious injuries but I still can’t imagine what Ford must have paid in damages. We did get out of the case after a year or so of trying but our insurance rates went up like $35,000.00 year because of defense costs.

 

[Wadula]

and the worst is, that i am already looking out for occasions to try my luck in court. the tiles on the pool are rough. i did cut my foot, couldn't go to work etc. there was no sign telling me to wear sandals or so, so i can sue the appartement complex. or the hot tub is so hot that i had problems to breath. i can sue them for not telling me that the tub is that hot....there are so many crazy ideas ... but then you always think that the judge will start laughing so badly and and you throw that idea away.

 

[Bryan330i]

no sign about the pool tiles and HOT tub heat??? You've got 'em for sure, you should get the tile supplier and manufacturer also, gas company if the heater is gas, the company that make the heater, your neighbor for not telling you about all of it, and the mail man because he also delivers the gas bill to the neighbor that did not tell you about the tile and the heat. [fake]

 

[Bryan330i]

Here is a good one.

OCTOBER 28, 2003

A COUPLE BOUGHT A NEW DODGE TRUCK FROM A LOCAL DEALERSHIP. HOWEVER, THEY SOON FOUND THAT THE TRUCK COULDN’T WITHSTAND TOWING THE TRAILERS THAT THE COUPLE TRANSPORTED AND SOLD. THE COUPLE CLAIMED THAT THE TRUCK MADE JERKY MOTIONS AND WAS UNSUCCESSFUL IN TOWING TRAILERS THAT FELL WITHIN THE TOWING AND WIGHT LIMITS SPECIFIED FOR IT.

THE COUPLE SAID THEY HAD TO HIRE OUTSIDE TOWERS, AND EVENTUALLY THEIR BUSINESS WAS SHUT DOWN BECAUSE THE TRUCK WOULDN’T PERFORM, AND, ULTIMATELY, THEY LOST THEIR HOUSE AND HAD TO LIVE IN A HORSE TRAILER.

THE DEALER SAID THAT THEY OFFERED THE COUPLE A NEW, STRONGER FLATBED TRUCK, BUT THE OFFER WAS REJECTED. THE COUPLE CLAIMED THE NEW TRUCK WOULD HAVE COST AN ADDITIONAL $5,000 THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE.

A JUDGE SAID:

A JURY DECIDED THAT THE COUPLE’S AUTOMOTIVE NIGHTMARES WERE QUITE SEVERE. THEY AWARDED THEM ROUGHLY $380,000 IN COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, $600,000 IN EMOTIONAL DAMAGES AND A WHOPPING $83.5 MILLION IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES!!

 

[Bryan330i]

Another

SEPTEMBER 30, 2003

IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, A TEENAGE BOY ATTEMPTED TO SLAM-DUNK A BASKETBALL DURING HIS GAME. HIS TEETH SOMEHOW GOT CAUGHT IN THE NET; HE LOST TWO TEETH, SO NOW HE IS SUING THE MANUFACTURER OF THE NET!

HE SAYS THE NET FAILS THE "CONSUMER EXPECTATION TEST". THIS REQUIRES THE PRODUCT TO PERFORM AS SAFETLY AS AN ORDINARY CONSUMER WOULD EXPECT WHEN USED REASONABLY.

A JUDGE SAID:

BEFORE THIS GOT IN FRONT OF A JUDGE, THE MANUFACTURER OF THE NET OFFERED TO SETTLE OUT OF COURT RATHER THAN RISK AN EXPENSIVE TRIAL. THE YOUTH WAS AWARDED $50,000!!

 

[PuShAkOv]

DAMN. THIS IS PATHETIC

I AM SUING TOM FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE THIS BOARD CAUSED ME. AND I WANT HIM TO SETTLE OUT OF COURT FOR MEERE $50,000.

 

[JamieD22]

...
Am I negligent if I removed the warning stickers and the next owner kills his kid because he did not read the warning label because I removed it before I sold it to him?

No, I couldn't imagine that you would be at fault. Remember there are probably dozens of stickers & warnings that are removed from a vehicle prior to display. There are also educational videos, CD-ROM's, and pamplets that come with your BMW, and losing these would not mean that you were responsible for someone elses' fate.

Warning tags or stickers are just one more way for a manufacturer to waive liability - this doesn't mean that it's placed on you (as a seller), you don't have to relay OEM specs to the next buyer...