4 ms·
Nothing in the article nor the parts that you extracted establishes exactly why a municipality would have standing to sue a product manufacturer for damages, or
by sithadmin 3y ago
Nothing in the article nor the parts that you extracted establishes exactly why a municipality would have standing to sue a product manufacturer for damages, or why a manufacturer is somehow obligated to include features that a municipality deems to be 'standard'.
The fact that there are consumer products whose absence of features creates a negative externality for local law enforcement doesn't seem like sufficient grounds for standing, and this sort of thing is hardly limited to auto antitheft features. Awarding a municipality damages or other relief here would set precedent opening the door to all sorts of whacky things. Should spraypaint manufacturers be held liable for graffiti? Should speaker manufacturers that sell devices without decibel-output-limiters be held liable for noise complaints? The sane answer here to all of this seems like 'no'.
The appropriate venue for dealing with this is federal auto safety regulations, not municipalities trolling manufacturers in civil court.
- explorer83 3y agoThe city should run a public campaign to publicly advertise the consequences of stealing a vehicle (e.g./ jail, heavy fines, reduced job prospects, etc.). Make it clear criminals will be punished hard for stealing cars. Maybe they can ask the manufacturers and dealers to sponsor or donate to it.
- krisoft 3y agoOr the city can run a public campaign advertising these car models as prone to being stolen. That hurts the companies image, which puts pressure on them to get better. Of course it is cheaper if they don't have to buy ad-space for such an advertisement. Maybe they could use publicity around a lawsuit? Maybe that is what we are reading right now?
- harimau777 3y agoHow far does that line of reasoning go? Suppose that every car they sold used the same key. "We just said that the car has locks. We didn't say that those locks have unique keys." Clearly there has to be some degree to which a customer can assume that a product they buy meets the standard functionality associated with that product.
- alexb_ 3y agoThen they still wouldn't be at fault. It's not their fault that the society Baltimore has crafted is so low trust that you can't leave your car outside for a second without it getting stolen.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoIt's their fault they made a defective product though. When people buy a car the expectation is that you can't steal it in under 10 seconds with no tools.
- prottog 3y agoLike others said, in that case the customer who bought the product has standing to sue, not the city of Baltimore.
- Ekaros 3y agoThese cars are in full compliance of regulations. It is not manufactures fault that the country they sell cars in is so massively incompetent that they do not set proper standards.
- sithadmin 3y agoWhile that would definitely be a problem, that's the end-user's/customer's problem. It would be appropriate for a Hyundai/Kia buyer to sue Hyundai/Kia for damages experienced because of such a thing. It doesn't make sense for a municipality to sue here - they're not a party with a stake in the ostensibly defective product.
- alistairSH 3y agoBut the city is expending resources (police, mostly) so there is damage.
- erichocean 3y ago
- idontpost 3y ago[dead]