5 ms·

How 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

How 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 ago
Then 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 ago
  It'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 ago
    Like others said, in that case the customer who bought the product has standing to sue, not the city of Baltimore.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    These 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 ago
While 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 ago
  But the city is expending resources (police, mostly) so there is damage.
  - erichocean 3y ago
    Yes, and the city taxes its residents to pay for the police—the same residents who bought the cars requiring more police involvement. It's a self-correcting problem, no lawsuit required. The city could even have a special tax on "cars without immobilizers" that Kia owners paid, to cover their costs. Again: no lawsuit required.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - turkeysandwich 3y ago
    The city is expected to police all crime regardless. The car manufacturer might (or might not) have some duty to the customer in this area, but certainly not the city for contributing to a crime increase. You might as well say that a company that produces an exceptionally desirable product, one that perhaps entices thieves, would be responsible for a crime increase.
singron 3y ago
The customer has clear cause. Fitness for purpose, warranty, etc. The municipality probably doesn't. If anything, they should try to coordinate a class action lawsuit among consumers.

alexb_ 3y ago

Then 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 ago
It'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 ago
  Like others said, in that case the customer who bought the product has standing to sue, not the city of Baltimore.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  These 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 ago

While 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 ago
But the city is expending resources (police, mostly) so there is damage.
- erichocean 3y ago
  Yes, and the city taxes its residents to pay for the police—the same residents who bought the cars requiring more police involvement. It's a self-correcting problem, no lawsuit required. The city could even have a special tax on "cars without immobilizers" that Kia owners paid, to cover their costs. Again: no lawsuit required.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- turkeysandwich 3y ago
  The city is expected to police all crime regardless. The car manufacturer might (or might not) have some duty to the customer in this area, but certainly not the city for contributing to a crime increase. You might as well say that a company that produces an exceptionally desirable product, one that perhaps entices thieves, would be responsible for a crime increase.

singron 3y ago

The customer has clear cause. Fitness for purpose, warranty, etc. The municipality probably doesn't. If anything, they should try to coordinate a class action lawsuit among consumers.