3 ms·
> Its a fundamentally flawed design, and it never should have made it past review. It is a flawed design, but there’s just one problem for a lawsuit: Immobiliz
by gjsman-1000 4y ago
> Its a fundamentally flawed design, and it never should have made it past review.
It is a flawed design, but there’s just one problem for a lawsuit: Immobilizers are not legally required in the US. A flawed immobilizer is fine, considering there doesn’t even need to be an immobilizer.
Baltimore is suing because, yes, they are easy to steal and that makes things inconvenient for Baltimore. But no law was broken - there is no law requiring cars to be hard to steal. Thus they are trying to claim “public nuisance” instead of “negligence.”
This, in my mind, is a super slippery slope. You know parts pairing on iPhones, where you can’t swap the camera without Apple’s approval? One day there could be a carmaker or two that pairs everything from mirrors to catalytic converter to “prevent theft and fraud.” If Baltimore wins, anyone who doesn’t do that could be found liable. Just an extreme example of how this could go sideways fast.
Or let’s say two or three bike manufacturers start putting GPS systems into their bikes, to prevent theft. Can any bike manufacturer that doesn’t do that be sued in the future? I would argue, they should absolutely not be in absence of a law.
- taylodl 4y agoThe product sold doesn't comply with the stated fit of purpose. A consumer has the reasonable expectation that an ignition switch will hamper the efforts of someone to steal their car. There are lots of consumer protection laws that can be applied here - up to fraud. I suspect Baltimore isn't as interested in the the money to be gained as they are in generating negative PR for KIA and thus forcing them to address the issue.
- bombcar 4y agoWouldn't' that be the customers suing, or something? Baltimore didn't buy these cars, it might get dismissed from standing.
- linksnapzz 4y agoThat's not criminal, that's a tort. Baltimore, not being the customer, probably lacks standing.
- plagiarist 4y agoAnd Baltimore is asserting they have standing regarding financial damages incurred from policing the thefts. If only there was some way to resolve whether the defendant or plaintiff is the correct party!
- linksnapzz 4y agoHyundai should countersue the city, for having such a reprobrate populace that necessitates that manufacturers of durable goods implement increasingly elaborate and expensive antitheft schemes. "Maintaining a Nuisance", I think the term is. Or perhaps they should have owners sign a release, promising not to operate or store the vehicle in any zip code that insurance companies deem high risk.
- plagiarist 4y agoI kinda agree! Forcing the customer to sign a car theft waiver that other car companies do not would solve the problem somewhat. It informs them so that they can use their money on a different vehicle.
- xkcd-sucks 4y agoBut it's established through case law that police aren't obligated to do anything about theft. So the costs of policing thefts would seem to be voluntary, not damages. Interesting to see how it turns out.
- ApolloFortyNine 4y agoYou have a good point here, would the judge rule that only the time taken to help file a report can be sued for? Any more than that and it sounds like you could theoretically sue the police for not finding your car.
- emodendroket 4y agoYeah presumably that's why they're suing and not charging them with a crime. Think about that one for a second.