3 ms·

Well the VW drivers got to drive a car, so they did get some benefit out of owning it even if it wasn't exactly as advertised. Meanwhile the rest of us got to b

Well the VW drivers got to drive a car, so they did get some benefit out of owning it even if it wasn't exactly as advertised. Meanwhile the rest of us got to breathe their pollution and die sooner. It's not "they're lower emissions than other vehicles", it's that they aren't as low emissions as they said they were. If people were in the market for a LEV and they bought a VW over a car that actually produced the emissions that the VW claimed to, that's an insane amount more pollution than the alternative car. It's not just VW owners who were lied to. It's everyone who had to breathe the air around them.

lostlogin 10y ago
Given that VW owners now know, and are getting a payout, maybe you can sue them for harming you and profiting from it?
- bmelton 10y ago
  The first hurdle is standing. Since most of the other cars on the road are more harmful to you than the VW LEVs, you'd have to show that 'but for that purchase', you'd have been in better shape, which is unlikely. That said, the parent makes a decent point - if they were looking specifically for LEVs, they might well have bought an electric or hybrid vs. a diesel. In that case, you might be able to show standing. Of course, then you have to prove that the amount of emissions involved in producing the electricity for a Tesla are less than the emissions produced by the VW. I have no idea what the math on that looks like, so it could be impossible, or very easy, but you've got to prove it to win the suit. Because civil cases have a lower bar, you might be able to get to this point without too much effort. What really kills you though, is in establishing mens rea, because it's absolutely impossible. Since consumers could not have known that emissions were falsified, they could not have had the intent to harm you for profit. Again here you slightly benefit from the lower burden of intent on civil cases, as negligence or recklessness can count, but that's out the window on the facts, as the owner was specifically choosing a lower emissions vehicle in the first place, presumably so that they would be killing their brethren less, or less quickly.
jsz0 10y ago
> Meanwhile the rest of us got to breathe their pollution and die sooner. The people who own the cars breathed in the pollution too. Almost certainly more than people who did not own one.
- freehunter 10y ago
  I'm not sure about that. Pollution comes out of the back of the car, and the drivers sit well in front of the tail pipe. As long as they're not standing behind their running car for long periods of time, the person inhaling most of the exhaust will be the car behind them in traffic or more likely, the pedestrian standing beside them on the sidewalk at a red light.

lostlogin 10y ago

Given that VW owners now know, and are getting a payout, maybe you can sue them for harming you and profiting from it?

bmelton 10y ago
The first hurdle is standing. Since most of the other cars on the road are more harmful to you than the VW LEVs, you'd have to show that 'but for that purchase', you'd have been in better shape, which is unlikely. That said, the parent makes a decent point - if they were looking specifically for LEVs, they might well have bought an electric or hybrid vs. a diesel. In that case, you might be able to show standing. Of course, then you have to prove that the amount of emissions involved in producing the electricity for a Tesla are less than the emissions produced by the VW. I have no idea what the math on that looks like, so it could be impossible, or very easy, but you've got to prove it to win the suit. Because civil cases have a lower bar, you might be able to get to this point without too much effort. What really kills you though, is in establishing mens rea, because it's absolutely impossible. Since consumers could not have known that emissions were falsified, they could not have had the intent to harm you for profit. Again here you slightly benefit from the lower burden of intent on civil cases, as negligence or recklessness can count, but that's out the window on the facts, as the owner was specifically choosing a lower emissions vehicle in the first place, presumably so that they would be killing their brethren less, or less quickly.

jsz0 10y ago

> Meanwhile the rest of us got to breathe their pollution and die sooner. The people who own the cars breathed in the pollution too. Almost certainly more than people who did not own one.

freehunter 10y ago
I'm not sure about that. Pollution comes out of the back of the car, and the drivers sit well in front of the tail pipe. As long as they're not standing behind their running car for long periods of time, the person inhaling most of the exhaust will be the car behind them in traffic or more likely, the pedestrian standing beside them on the sidewalk at a red light.