Quirks not addressed in User Guide

[viper88]

This is not true, on my wifes Subaru Outback, the garage door opener works fine when the vehicle is off. I can't say what is "normal" but the Jeeps configuration does make sense considering it is a convertible that allows the doors to be taken off

Good to know. Subaru must have only done that with certain model years. Or maybe the key fob on models with proximity locks somehow powers the Homelink up? I have owned several Suabaru and other cars with keyless entry and without. All of the Homelink garage door openers in my cars did not work unless the ignition or accessory was switched to ON.

Sponsored

 

[Pilotjeep]

I will thank you now ViperJon but got this error message when I tried the form - There are no manuals available for this vehicle. When I try to do it on the owner site I get "We are unable to process your request. We apologize for the inconvenience. Please try again later." Seems they just dont want me to have that manual! JK - I will get ahold of customer service on chat and order.

And, I just tried the page, and it does not get an error for me -- what it does get me is first a name/address/VIN page, then a page with six possible products to pick from -- and all six are the same, "2020 JEEP WARRANTY (GAS) ALL VEHICLES"

 

[Snayte]

Good to know. Subaru must have only done that with certain model years. Or maybe the key fob on models with proximity locks somehow powers the Homelink up? I have owned several Suabaru and other cars with keyless entry and without. All of the Homelink garage door openers in my cars did not work unless the ignition or accessory was switched to ON.

My 17 RAM works without the accessory or engine on. But I do understand why the jeep would be different since the top and doors are removable.

 

[apb]

https://www.jeep.com/webselfservice/jeep/printManual.html

Go here. Fill out. Get full hard copy of manual delivered free within a week. Thank me later.

I will thank you now, just submitted the info.

 

[ralphgb]

https://www.jeep.com/webselfservice/jeep/printManual.html

Go here. Fill out. Get full hard copy of manual delivered free within a week. Thank me later.

Only works if you are the first owner. Tried to get one for my '19 JL that I got used, and it would not go through. I may try the chat.

 

[NavyJeeper]

Hey Rick.

First, thanks for your first sentence. It reminds people that FCA's contract with you on owner operation is solely the owner's manual.

As I read above, people have well covered the fact that the the garage door button's lack of being energized with the rig off is by design so that, particularly with attached garages, whose door to the home is notoriously flimsy, poorly configured with locks, and often unlocked, doesn't find your rig's garage buttons as the weak link in a home burglary when that rig is parked outside the garage.

Several people have posted workarounds to this. Here's one I found.

https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...r-opener-with-ignition-off.31501/#post-747766

Essentially it involves energizing this rig's garage door buttons with a wire that is *less* dependent on whether the rig is on or off than the factory wire, which is purely an "accessory" lead: accessory being defined here as wire only energized when the rig's start button is pressed twice (with or without depressing the brake.)

(Perhaps one push of the start button works too.)

Edit: and FOB within range.

I say "less dependent" because my own testing of this a while back for another project found my vanity lights to unpredictably (at least as I could see) shut off after the rig was off a period of time.

Another option, although probably too much effort here, is accessing the cargo area 12V plug, if equipped. It is designed from the factory to always be on, independent of the rig being on. (This can be changed per the owner's manual to accessory like behavior with the moving of a fuse.)

When I installed a dash camera its technology needed power not simply when the rig was on or off, but to know when such a state occurs, as it uses less power, and shuts off if it uses too much, when the rig is off. I taped the wire than energizes the garage door remote and this cargo plug to effect a situation where the camera would always have power, independent of the rig's on or off state, and know when the rig is shut down.

Cheers.

@Rahneld not accurate. nothing like an internet lawyer.
Auto manufactures are responsible for "Normal use" of a vehicle and courts have stated that normal use "encompasses all reasonably foreseeable uses and misuses of the product." If it is a foreseeable misuse then the adequacy of the warning depends on all relevant considerations including the severity of the danger, the likelihood of successful communication of the warning to foreseeable consumers, the intensity and form of the warning, and the cost of improving the strength or mode of the warning.

My point is courts have decided that your use encompasses more than just the owners manual.

 

[Rahneld]

@Rahneld not accurate. nothing like an internet lawyer.
Auto manufactures are responsible for "Normal use" of a vehicle and courts have stated that normal use "encompasses all reasonably foreseeable uses and misuses of the product." If it is a foreseeable misuse then the adequacy of the warning depends on all relevant considerations including the severity of the danger, the likelihood of successful communication of the warning to foreseeable consumers, the intensity and form of the warning, and the cost of improving the strength or mode of the warning.

My point is courts have decided that your use encompasses more than just the owners manual.

I think you refer to my first thought as the rest is just installation trivia.

Thank goodness that winning such cases is more difficult than you make it sound or our Wrangler would cost "$172,000, 70%" of which would go to pay for FCA's litigation expenses when another brand owner did something stupid and won a legal action against FCA.

As long as manual supplements, right or wrong, refer you to the owner's manual and the owner's manual defers to no other for vehicle operation, making a tort liablity claim against FCA for doing something that runs contra to the owner's manual, while not impossible, is a steep uphill battle. Such manuals don't have to say, "don't do it this way, even if it's a reasonable way an owner/lessor might misuse some aspect of their rig." Manufacturers need stipulate the right way and have owner's know the importance of following the manual, and when manufacturers do, they usually remain on the winning side of claims.

People have been asking for case law on this. I'd like, in converse, to see people's examples of successful litigation. The are things about a vehicle's operation that courts expect people to know, stipulated in a manual or not, one of which is that if you don't follow manufacturer guidance you greatly increase chances that blame can't be assigned to others.

(Yeah I know, Liebeck v McDonalds--Liebeck knew coffee was hot, but she wasn't expected to know that McDonalds brewed theirs atypically hot, plus burning your privates after hundreds of others complained prior and McDonalds did nothing goes a long way with sympathetic jurors and defendants with big pockets.)

Disclaimers and the law: by no means are they air tight, but by no means are they not worth the paper they're printed on either or providers of good and services wouldn't use them. FCA's disclaimer to "do things like we tell you in the owner's manual" (not different from the owner's manual even if they don't say what your doing is wrong) goes a long way in indemnifying FCA and it should. This is not to play the side of corporate over the individual but rather fairness and what's good for commerce. We the individuals share a manufacturer's litigation expense with them in higher prices. And by no means does anything I say prevent reasonable litigation when manufacturers introduce defective product to the consumer, nor should it.

Foreseeable misuse? Taken to its extreme it's foreseeable you may forget to lock your rig's door even if FCA doesn't tell you to. If a thief is then able to open it and take some of its contents good luck litigating FCA for that despite any lack of warning FCA fails to provide that burglary is commonplace, and may come your way if you don't lock your rig up when left unattended.

If something about operating the rig ( let alone maintaining it) that could be confusing and inherently dangerous (not as a result of product defect) is reasonably (not perfectly) explained in supporting product literature it doesn't mean the manufacturer is on the hook when owners/lessees hurt themselves operating gear outside of manufacturer operational guidelines.

And do any of us want to pay for the owner who accidentally sticks flesh near some rig fan otherwise reasonable guarded from such things and not factory defective?

Your above thread has legaleze verbiage that makes it sound like it could be true and fully encompassing: easily to collect from the man.

Neither is the case. Many other factors also emerge like "would reasonable people be expected to know this" even if the manufacturer's explanation was limited or absent, and did the manufacturer explain the right way, even if not also covering every reasonably foreseeable wrong way of effecting a rig operational task.

In reality it should be (and is) possible when manufacturers screw up to collect from them in court, but not so easy as make products unaffordable for you and me when people don't follow guidance and as a result hurt themselves.

 

[NavyJeeper]

I think you refer to my first thought as the rest is just installation trivia.

Thank goodness that winning such cases is more difficult than you make it sound or our Wrangler would cost "$172,000, 70%" of which would go to pay for FCA's litigation expenses when another brand owner did something stupid and won a legal action against FCA.

As long as manual supplements, right or wrong, refer you to the owner's manual and the owner's manual defers to no other for vehicle operation, making a tort liablity claim against FCA for doing something that runs contra to the owner's manual, while not impossible, is a steep uphill battle. Such manuals don't have to say, "don't do it this way, even if it's a reasonable way an owner/lessor might misuse some aspect of their rig." Manufacturers need stipulate the right way and have owner's know the importance of following the manual, and when manufacturers do, they usually remain on the winning side of claims.

People have been asking for case law on this. I'd like, in converse, to see people's examples of successful litigation. The are things about a vehicle's operation that courts expect people to know, stipulated in a manual or not, one of which is that if you don't follow manufacturer guidance you greatly increase chances that blame can't be assigned to others.

(Yeah I know, Liebeck v McDonalds--Liebeck knew coffee was hot, but she wasn't expected to know that McDonalds brewed theirs atypically hot, plus burning your privates after hundreds of others complained prior and McDonalds did nothing goes a long way with sympathetic jurors and defendants with big pockets.)

Foreseeable misuse? Taken to its extreme it's foreseeable you may forget to lock your rig's door even if FCA doesn't tell you to. If a thief is then able to open it and take some of its contents good luck litigating FCA for that despite any lack of warning FCA fails to provide that burglary is commonplace, and may come your way if you don't lock your rig up when left unattended.

If something about operating the rig ( let alone maintaining it) that could be confusing and inherently dangerous (not as a result of product defect) is reasonably (not perfectly) explained in supporting product literature it doesn't mean the manufacturer is on the hook when owners/lessees hurt themselves operating gear outside of manufacturer operational guidelines.

And do any of us want to pay for the owner who accidentally sticks flesh near some rig fan otherwise reasonable guarded from such things and not factory defective?

Your above thread has legaleze verbiage that makes it sound like it could be true and fully encompassing: easily to collect from the man.

Neither is the case. Many other factors also emerge like "would reasonable people be expected to know this" even if the manufacturer's explanation was limited or absent, and did the manufacturer explain the right way, even if not also covering every reasonably foreseeable wrong way of effecting a rig operational task.

In reality it should be (and is) possible when manufacturers screw up to collect from them in court, but not so easy as make products unaffordable for you and me when people don't follow guidance and as a result hurt themselves.

Once again you actually don't discuss any law just your thoughts. Also in the Liebeck case McDonalds had to pay so much because they were warned about how hot their coffee was previously and even paid out settlements to the plaintiffs got punitive damages.

Locking your doors is actually ridiculous because courts have already ruled that liability for intervening misconduct or criminal acts.
My point is you spend a great deal of time on this forum telling people the law; and many of your assertions are conclusory and counter to what actual case law states. You further forget that product liability does differ from state to state.

 

[rockadile]

Wow...the purpose of this thread changed quickly.

 

[ViperJon]

My point is you spend a great deal of time on this forum telling people the law; and many of your assertions are conclusory and counter to what actual case law states. You further forget that product liability does differ from state to state.

I'd just be happy if every post wasn't a foot long rambling thesis.

 

[Rahneld]

Once again you actually don't discuss any law just your thoughts.

Ok, so my reference to Liebeck, which you site below wasn't law?

Also in the Liebeck case McDonalds had to pay so much because they were warned about how hot their coffee was previously and even paid out settlements to the plaintiffs got punitive damages.

And once again, your thoughts are woefully incomplete if not fiction.

https://injury.findlaw.com/product-...p-case-separating-mcfacts-from-mcfiction.html

Other factors included Liebeck's willing to settle the matter initially for purely medical, not punitive costs. The case, also appealed, was settled privately after the judge first reduced the award from $2.7 million to $640,000. The types of clothing Liebeck chose to wear, much that I of course I feel sorry for her, exacerbated her burns and was a factor as the fact that hot coffee of any temperature best not be opened where it can easily spill on you, more so if age, like Liebeck's, can compromise fine motor skills.

...and I'm only scratching the surface...

And what does this have to do with vehicles or even Wranglers? Don't think FCA or any auto manufacturer will have to pay owners that quickly because those owners act off manual just because, as you claim, the manufacturer didn't expressly tell them to not act off label in the manner by which injury was sustained.

Locking your doors is actually ridiculous because courts have already ruled that liability for intervening misconduct or criminal acts.

You missed my point; maybe I should have been clearer. It was meant to be a ridiculous example of trying to point blame at a legal entity other than the owner and thief, that as you concur, has no merit because (and this is the point), many actions an operator takes, when they go South leave legal blame only with the operator, even if the manufacturer hasn't said, as you wrongly say so, "do it our way, not method x" in so many words, when the owner got injured doing it via method "x," or "y," or in a way not owner's manual stipulated.

My point

....I thought your point was to educate me on the true limits of tort liability, and how it places far greater power in the consumer's hands than reality allows. Now that I've blown that out of the water and you have no retort we find that your real intention was to come pick a fight, accuse my knowledge of the law to not exceed what I've read solely on the internet, and rebuttable it with your legal sounding stuff that lacks most of the teeth you've assigned to it?

is you spend a great deal of time on this forum telling people the law; and many of your assertions are conclusory and counter to what actual case law states.

As I've stated previously, my guidance comes from several attorneys experienced not simply in tort law, but automotive tort, whose employers and clients include manufacturers in the auto industry whose names you likely know. As also stated above, I am very interested in the cases you sight where "someone stepped in front of their own moving driverless rig, got run over by it, and collected damages because the manufacturer didn't expressly tell them not to do this--or something even close. As it is most people think vehicles have too many controls, like auto park, which legal experts concur most likely happened because a foolish but famous person died in absence of such controls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Yelchin#Death

Even this case was settled privately and confidentially, and most legal experts agree, only taken as seriously as it was in terms of both award and product changes given the celebrity status Yelchin possessed, that you and I likely lack. It's also why I said that its unlikely you'll collect awards from a manufacturer, not impossible.

You further forget that product liability does differ from state to state.

No I don't. Where did I say or even imply that? In fact I supported this idea, which I'm fully aware of, when I stated that disclaimers aren't bulletproof, just worth their communication from manufacturer to consumer.

I put one sentence in a reply to someone who actually does read the owner's manual and you went off on that? Please find another way to spend your time for both our sakes.

I didn't include this prior because I thought it would be rude.

"In the United States, disclaimers on the sale of goods are covered by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, but details vary by state."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclaimer#Tort law

Pardon the internet reference from your self proclaimed internet lawyer.

It's for you not me.

Perhaps we can get back to the OP's initial post. Even if garage opening when the rig is off didn't work because of product defect, (not design) and the OP as a result lost expedience in gaining entry to his home to God forbid not be able save a life, FCA's not responsible even if they failed to stipulate under what circumstances it works, and especially because its design was safety directed.

 

[IronScott]

Wow

 

[JO DYRT]

Owners manual is 600 plus pages. Will only fit in glove box by itself. It’s available online, in print, or with the highest infotainment system. I have an 18, and had to order it twice because they sent an 18 Jk manual.

LOL, they sent me the JK as well but same day I got the correct one, So they caught themselves.

 

[JO DYRT]

You bought a lemon! But seriously....worked for me and others. Dunno what story is now.

Just contact Jeep Cares that is what I did, they did all the work for me.

 

[Durango]

And, I just tried the page, and it does not get an error for me -- what it does get me is first a name/address/VIN page, then a page with six possible products to pick from -- and all six are the same, "2020 JEEP WARRANTY (GAS) ALL VEHICLES"

Just went to order one, and got the same thing - six line items all the same. I will see what I get when it arrives.

Sponsored