KnifeMissile

There is an old but famous case (perhaps an urban legend but interesting nonetheless) where a woman sues an automobile company because her car was designed to not start without the seatbelt properly fastened and she was raped as a result of her not being able to drive away in a timely manner.

Who favours the rape victim?
Who favours the automobile company?

I think this is a bit tricky but I think I side with the automobile company. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to not start the car without the seatbelt on and this feature was not hidden from the user.
The one at fault is the rapist, not the automobile manufacturer.

Does anyone actually know what the verdict was? Thanks...

HarmlessRabbit

Some googling didn't turn up anything interesting, so it seems a bit silly to discuss a case that may or may not have happened.

What may look silly at first might not look so silly when you look at the details of the case. For example, the widely ridiculed "mcdonald's coffee spill" case was actually a very valid lawsuit and mcdonalds was well aware that their coffee was served at dangerous temperatures.

http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

The_Dude

she should've locked the damn door.

if she wanted her car to start w/o seatbelts, she should've bought a diff car. either way , it's her fault.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

sillygirl

It's not her fault she got raped. Maybe I read you wrong, but she shouldn't have had to get away from a rapist. It shouldnt' have happened at all.

__________________

Anyone can be passionate, but it takes real lovers to be silly-Rose Franken
....absence makes me miss him more...

The_Dude

no, that's not what i meant.

she should have either locked the doors or gotten a different car (one that would start w/o seatbelts).

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

KnifeMissile

It's tempting to say this but the reality (if we may call it that) is that it was part of an experiment (like hybrid cars) to determine the viability of cars that require the use of seat belts. If this was successful then, like airbags, it may become standard in all cars. So, if they could ever be liable, someone would eventually be so...

sillygirl

K.... thanks for clarifying... It's past my bedtime.... *yawn*

__________________

Anyone can be passionate, but it takes real lovers to be silly-Rose Franken
....absence makes me miss him more...

The_Dude

maybe i'm taking an extreme position on this.

i'm just tired of people suing companies for stupid stuff (like the dudes that sued mcdonalds for getting fat)

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Xell101

She bought the car knowing of the feature, she has no case.

Killconey

Yeah, the fault definitely lies on the rapist and not on the car company. Trying to blame the rapist would be just capitalizing off of a tragedy rather than seeking justice for it. This case would, however, be something that the car company should keep in mind when making new models for cars.

__________________
Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

pocon1

If you compare the amount of people who are hurt or kiled by not wearing seatbelts in accidents versus people who are attacked or raped because they could not drive their car away without latching their seatbelt, you probably should require people to wear their seatbelts. Danger from nonseatbelt use is much more likely.

james t kirk

Ummm, i have been laying under cars for 30 years.

I know of no model designed not to start if the seat belt is not fastened.

They buzz, the blink, they make annoying sounds, but they always start.

JBX

In any of these cases the CRIMINAL is at fault.

__________________
"Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

Dibbler

I doubt the story is true.. But if it was true, it would be another example of how our legal system is so screwed up. Manufacturers seem to be always in a catch 22 situation. If the person would start the car without the seatbelt and run into a wall or another car, the driver would be able to sue the car company for not making the wearing of the seatbelt a requirement for starting the car. They always seem to be in a "damned if you don't, damned if you do" situation.

lurkette

Yeah, I couldn't find anything on this at google or snopes, so I kind of question the utility of arguing about a hypothetical (and, frankly, unlikely) case.

Nonetheless, DUH the car company is not responsible. It's like suing a shoe manufacturer because your high heel broke and kept you from running away fast enough, or suing General Mills because their Cheerios did not in fact give you the energy to stay awake through your morning exams. It's such a "duh" case that I can't imagine it's the least bit true.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

prb

I promise you, there was no such case as this. It would be thrown out on a motion for summary judgement (where the Judge would rule on application from the car manufacturer that there was no valid case to bring under law ). This story would qualify as an urban legend, like the reported case of the guy who used his power lawn mower to trim his hedges, dropped the mower on his foot , lopped off his toes and won a big jury verdict in a "products liability case". Insurance companies used the lawn mower case to argue for tort reform. Problem is, there was no such case. Insurance companies just made it up.

mb99usa

This sounds also too stupid not to be true.

I'm beginning to feel like I live in a land of idiots. From some of the "real" (real being a relative term) law suits I've seen the individual is never at fault. It is always the manufacturer or distributor who is liable. Not the idiot who either misused or should not have been near the product.

The manufacturers/distributors can't sue the individuals for slander because then they look like the "big mean company". They usually get stuck settling to avoid court costs and further publicity.

__________________
So, what's your point?

It's not an attitude, it's a way of life.

bonbonbox

She should have had a gun, "All the better to blow your nuts off with my dear." True or not it's all about personal responsibility. Take care of yourself. Don't cry to the courts when you put hot coffee between your legs and drive. Don't cry to the courts when you smoke and get sick. Don't cry to the courts when you stuff your face with cheeseburgers everyday and get fat. Jack Daniels is not responsible when you get soused and beat your wife, wreck your car, or start shooting up the neighborhood. Sometimes, for what ever reason, cars don't start. No manufacturer sets them to, "When your about to need it most, fail." Life happens. Live it. Experience it. Deal with it.

KnifeMissile

What about those cars with automatic seatbelts? You know, the one where you only fasten the lower belt and the other half slides along the side of the roof to where it's supposed to be? I've seen those so I know they exist! Anyway, they don't start til the the seat belt in the proper position, don't they?

Yes, I did mention that it was possibly an urban legend because I couldn't find it on a google search. However, I still think the idea is interesting. Proposterous lawsuits happen all the time and some of them turn out not to be as bad as one thought. The McDonalds coffee lawsuit actually won 'cause it was valid! The whole SCO case should be thrown out but only time will tell. The coke machine death was thrown out, I believe...

irseg

Geez, nobody here knows about older cars!

For a few years in the mid-70s, the GOVERNMENT mandated a starter interlock which would prevent a car from starting if the seat belt wasn't fastened. Car companies and their customers protested it so strongly that it only lasted a year or two.

I doubt this case exists, especially since her case would be against the government for creating that law, not the auto manufacturers for following it.

irseg

Now if you want to hear a frivolous car-related lawsuit, read about the one where the family of someone who died in a car accident sued Ford because her late-80s Escort did not have airbags, and they guessed that an airbag would have saved her life. They claimed that, despite the fact that the car met all safety standards, Ford was negligent since they had the capability to install airbags and did not do so.

I believe the family won (which is insane), but was thankfully turned down by a higher court. It's totally ridiculous to think a manufacturer should be legally held to standards that do not exist. And think of how much a Hyundai would cost if it had to have all the safety equipment of a $150k Mercedes.

pocon1

My wife had a mid eighties volkswagen Jetta that would not start without the seatbelt in position. Not to be rude, but that feature is not found under cars, but inside. It was funny, her sister borrowed the car and went for a ride. She had to call back later and say the car would not start. Her parents went out to help, figured out what was the problem, and got to ask her why she was trying to drive around without a seatbelt.

Dibbler

I was going to mention something about that. I remember that if you put groceries in the passenger seat you would have to buckle the seatbelt or the buzzer would run forever. They had little switches in the seats and if a certain weight was on the seat it would have to be buckled up. I don't remember them not starting I guess cuz I wasn't old enough to drive.