3 ms·

None of the injuries sustained in the accident were due to the doors not opening. So unless you're arguing that it's ok to sue Tesla merely because they had an

by eridius 10y ago

None of the injuries sustained in the accident were due to the doors not opening. So unless you're arguing that it's ok to sue Tesla merely because they had an accident (even though Tesla certainly wasn't at fault for the accident), I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Mz 10y ago
You are calling it a money grab. The only point I am making is that this is a ridiculous assertion. You only know as much as the article states. From my experience paying claims, I don't believe that in any way qualifies you to make any meaningful judgments here. Smoke inhalation can cause serious and long lasting damage. Being trapped in the car because they can't open the door can be a means to worsen that damage. Such damage is not visible to the naked eye. It is a better predictor of death in case of fire injury than the more visible burns. But don't let logic or anything get in the way of your opinions.
- eridius 10y ago
  Sounds like you're not letting inconvenient facts get in the way of your opinions. Here's what the article says: > In the open letter, the owner says that she suffered a broken nose and a severe cut to her lower lip that needed a dozen stitches, but the driver got the worst of it. She wrote that “he was hospitalized for more than 40 days with internal injuries and fractures”. > Beyond the physical injuries, she added: “it brought us more serious mental harm, after the accident and still today, I often have nightmares about being burned to death inside the Tesla Model X. > It’s apparently what led her to ask Tesla for 8 million Chinese yuan (~$1 million) in compensation, which Tesla China is refusing to pay, but they are still investigating the accident and collaborating with the local authorities No mention of smoke inhalation, even though it documents the other injuries, and it explicitly mentions the mental harm angle, which is the only possible way to try and pin any of this on Tesla. Also, the car caught on fire after they got out. It wasn't on fire while they were still in the seat. So the whole "smoke inhalation" bit has no basis in reality.
  - Mz 10y ago
    They aren't suing Tesla for their injuries. They are suing Tesla because the door failed to open. The consequences of soft tissue injuries are often not immediately noticeable. Accidental injury lawyers generally want to get involved as soon as possible, in part to try to document things that might not be obvious. I am not arguing that these people should get a million dollars. I am only arguing that it is ridiculous to claim that their suit is merely a money grab and has no validity whatsoever. There is a difference. I am okay with this being sorted out in a court of law. Whether you think they are merely being selfish or not, lawsuits of faulty equipment are one of the ways that constructive change gets moved forward. It matters little whether they just wanted the money or thought about the big picture. It matters little whether or not they explicitly express that in the press. You think you can decide this case based on the contents of a single article on the internet. That in no way fits with my professional experience, where we needed substantial documentation to make a legally binding decision for certain benefits. So, no, I am not impressed with your armchair opinions here.

by eridius 10y ago

Mz 10y ago

You are calling it a money grab. The only point I am making is that this is a ridiculous assertion. You only know as much as the article states. From my experience paying claims, I don't believe that in any way qualifies you to make any meaningful judgments here. Smoke inhalation can cause serious and long lasting damage. Being trapped in the car because they can't open the door can be a means to worsen that damage. Such damage is not visible to the naked eye. It is a better predictor of death in case of fire injury than the more visible burns. But don't let logic or anything get in the way of your opinions.

eridius 10y ago
Sounds like you're not letting inconvenient facts get in the way of your opinions. Here's what the article says: > In the open letter, the owner says that she suffered a broken nose and a severe cut to her lower lip that needed a dozen stitches, but the driver got the worst of it. She wrote that “he was hospitalized for more than 40 days with internal injuries and fractures”. > Beyond the physical injuries, she added: “it brought us more serious mental harm, after the accident and still today, I often have nightmares about being burned to death inside the Tesla Model X. > It’s apparently what led her to ask Tesla for 8 million Chinese yuan (~$1 million) in compensation, which Tesla China is refusing to pay, but they are still investigating the accident and collaborating with the local authorities No mention of smoke inhalation, even though it documents the other injuries, and it explicitly mentions the mental harm angle, which is the only possible way to try and pin any of this on Tesla. Also, the car caught on fire after they got out. It wasn't on fire while they were still in the seat. So the whole "smoke inhalation" bit has no basis in reality.
- Mz 10y ago
  They aren't suing Tesla for their injuries. They are suing Tesla because the door failed to open. The consequences of soft tissue injuries are often not immediately noticeable. Accidental injury lawyers generally want to get involved as soon as possible, in part to try to document things that might not be obvious. I am not arguing that these people should get a million dollars. I am only arguing that it is ridiculous to claim that their suit is merely a money grab and has no validity whatsoever. There is a difference. I am okay with this being sorted out in a court of law. Whether you think they are merely being selfish or not, lawsuits of faulty equipment are one of the ways that constructive change gets moved forward. It matters little whether they just wanted the money or thought about the big picture. It matters little whether or not they explicitly express that in the press. You think you can decide this case based on the contents of a single article on the internet. That in no way fits with my professional experience, where we needed substantial documentation to make a legally binding decision for certain benefits. So, no, I am not impressed with your armchair opinions here.