Quirks not addressed in User Guide

[Rahneld]

@Rahneld that's not proof.

You're right. Nor is absence of such case law proof you seek from me evidence that your school of thought is in any way more or equally correct.

Where's your proof that following supplements with dissimilar guidance to the owner's manual, along with disclaimers to refer to that owner's manual as the end all be all of guidance, where the owner's manual has no such disclaimers, is going to grant you successful litigation if you folllow the supplements instructional guidance only, and not the disclaimer as well, should things go South?

@digitalbliss: carefully following FCA supplements, by definition, which invariable defer to the owner's manual means that when conflict exists between the supplement and the owner's manual's guidance, you go with the owner's manual, not the other way around.

The owner's manual, not the supplements with disclaimers claiming the owner's manual as effectively the superseding body of knowledge, is your contract with FCA regarding how you are expected to operate their products and the things on them. Deviate from the owner's manual by following a dissenting supplement that defers to the owner's manual, by definition has you doing things your way, not, technically FCA's way, even though FCA published the supplement (all because of the disclaimer in the supplement to the owner's manual and not the same disclaimer in the owner's manual referring you to other FCA guidance on the vehicle's operation.)

When supplements lack such disclaimers and/or when owner's manual have them as well get back to me. Until then, don't assume, in the absence of you providing cases to the contrary, that you've got it right. Doing so means you believe the disclaimers in the supplements to go with the owner's manual guidance have no legal standing. And that's wrong.

Can you possibly collect damages following a supplement with disclaimers to and different guidance from the owner's manual?....why not.

Are your chances increased exponentially by following the dissenting owner's manual and things going South---without doubt.

Now go do whatever makes you happy but don't try to sell it to forum members that supplements with disclaimers to the owner's manual have just as safe guidance to follow (ignoring the disclaimer) as the owner's manual itself.

Sponsored

 

[Rahneld]

started following this thread because it looked useful, but all this back and forth about legal arguments is tiring to put it nicely.

aren’t we all here to try to help each other out?

We are. To that end I am telling forum members what to do to better protect themselves should FCA products incur defect when forum members here (first) opposed that advise suggesting to other forum members what that opposition wishes were the case is the case.

This opposition wishes that following a supplement with dissenting guidance from an owner's manual, when that supplement has a disclaimer to refer to the owner's manual for complete details (and the owner's manual lacks such disclaimers) puts the supplements guidance on par with that of the owner's manual in terms of legal leverage, or maybe makes it superior.

While sure, laws differ from State to State and people might win cases following a supplement with the aforementioned disclaimer that differs from owner's manual guidance, their leverage in court is infinitely better having following the owner's manual when guidance differs from that supplement, and things go South.

 

[Rahneld]

Supplement lovers...short and sweet

FCA document A has guidance that differs from the owner's manual. Document A also says that for complete details refer to the owner's manual.

The owner's manual has no such references to other manuals on vehicile operation at least (if not, say, service. )

Do you honestly think following only the language an Document A, ignoring the reference (i.e. disclaimer) to the owner's manual, when the owner's manual has dissenting guidance on no such reference to other operational manuals puts you on equal or superior legal footing when things go South as following the owner's manual?

Really? I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

 

[CarbonSteel]

I get the message "There are no manuals available for this vehicle".

 

[digitalbliss]

@Rahneld here's the difference; I'm not spouting my opinion as if it's a fact. I'm not making the claims about specific items, and then writing dissertations of make believe legal scenarios. All I am asking is for you to prove your case with actual proof of the case law you so love to claim proves you right. Unfortunately I don't believe you can. You reference getting information from those who specialize in "tort law". From where I sit, reciting "facts" from a second hand source that does not have access to said documents looks a lot like here say. Tell me, how does an argument based on here say play out in a court of law?

 

[word302]

started following this thread because it looked useful, but all this back and forth about legal arguments is tiring to put it nicely.

aren’t we all here to try to help each other out?

If you just put Rahneld on ignore you're left with mostly useful information.

 

[Rahneld]

@Rahneld here's the difference; I'm not spouting my opinion as if it's a fact.

Sure you are.

I'm not making the claims about specific items, and then writing dissertations of make believe legal scenarios.

So let me try slow and stupid; much as if I do that and not talk intelligently I run the risk of you claiming I've offended your intelligence.

• We don't disagree that supplements here almost invariably have disclaimers on them to refer to the owner's manual for complete details.
  
  This says, "if we at FCA say something in this supplement that differs with the Owner's Manual, go with the Owner's Manual."
  
• We don't disagree that such dissenting guidance exists pertinant to soft top operation in Sunrider mode.
  
• If these disclaimers didn't have legal worth, FCA wouldn't put them in.
  
• And--sit down for this one...if you follow a supplement with dissenting guidance to the owner's manual, with such a disclaimer (the supplement that is) you are, to the eyes of the law, get this: technically not following the supplement. To the eyes of the law you are....marching to the beat of your own drummer; and that's fine, but companies like FCA, who manufacture inherently dangerous or potentially dangerous products will triumph saying, "we can't be held liable for people who don't follow our directions, which include going to the owner's manual for guidance, should such guidance exist and dissent from that of a supplement."

The history of supplements and disclaimers is routed in situations where plaintiffs gained (IMHO unfair) traction making claims of owner's manuals being too long, containing information the owner rarely uses, even as more complex products demanded more explanation. Enter the supplement, the "getting starting guide," the "user's guide." Even my chain saw has one. Smart companies invariable put disclaimers in them to refer to the owner's manual for full details. They do this to offset risk that the supplements they produced in response to cases, and make products safer (i.e. maybe people will at least read the supplement) don't end up biting them in the ass. They do this because maybe the supplement is wrong. They do it not only to protect themselves legally, but lets face hit, when the media covers a story of personal injury using tool "X," regardless of where fingers are ultimately pointed, it's not good for the manufacturer.

Read McDonalds versus Liebeck's true facts. http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=truth+about+mcdonald's+hot+coffee+lawsuit

Here is a case that ultimately got settled for near nothing when McDonalds knew, from repeated consumer complaints, that they coffee was excessively hot, and did nothing to change that.

No go complain the case isn't on point while providing none of your own.

Compare that to a soft top that many people are not complaining about soft windows flying off when they leave them in (and install them properly), according to a supplement on use, with a "get out of jail free" disclaimer to go with the owner's manual guidance (which says in dissent to remove the back windows in Sunrider mode) should the owner's manual guidance differ from that of the supplement--which is clearly the case here.

All I am asking is for you to prove your case with actual proof of the case law you so love to claim proves you right.

Case law love? ...I've stated repeatedly that case law proof comes from several lawyers I know who specialize in tort liability specific to vehicles.

And all I am asking is for you to do the same. Who did you even confer with on this: your wishful thinking?

Find the legal cases you wish were the case (no pun intended) where owners did just what's in a supplemental with disclaimers to refer to the owner's manual, which dissented in guidance, and which (the owner's manual) had no references to other manuals on vehicle operation. These are the legal requirements given to me by experts in auto tort liability (not to be confused with personal injury attorneys), that must exist for vehicle manufacturers to be on solid legal ground.

Unfortunately I don't believe you can.

Seed money me about $22K in attorney's fee and I'd be glad to.

You reference getting information from those who specialize in "tort law". From where I sit, reciting "facts" from a second hand source that does not have access to said documents looks a lot like here say.

No, vehicular tort law. From where you sit law resides with what you hope is the case. By the way a second hand source is me, not those I've conferred with who've argued cases for and against automobile manufacturers. They would be seen under the law as expert witnesses and allowed to testify for either side.

Tell me, how does an argument based on here say play out in a court of law?

Well, not that this is hearsay, as I'm not the one offering evidence to the court in such a case, but to answer your question in general, it depends upon whether one of the exception rules that allows hearsay testimony attaches.

@digitalbliss: From my angle you want law to work a certain way, and so therefore.........it must.

It doesn't work that way.

Often, people are surprised at how decisions are derived, often based on complex prior and similar cases where balances need to be struck that not only provide fairness in the case at hand, but future ones.

@digitalbliss If you or readers take away one thing please let it be this: you are on much much better legal ground following the owner's manual than a supplement that refers you to that owner's manual for complete details (with no reciprocal reference) when dissenting information to that owner's manual exists in the supplement, should things "go sideways."

Why don't we just agree to disagree and move on?

 

[ViperJon]

Simply unbelievable.

 

[Adventure.AS]

... To that end I am telling forum members what to do to better protect themselves should FCA products incur defect when forum members here (first) opposed that advise suggesting to other forum members what that opposition wishes were the case is the case. ...

Rahneld, are you a lawyer? If not, you need to be careful to not provide 'legal advice'.

 

[word302]

Someone needs to break this guys keyboard. Maybe a character limit? Wow.

 

[Firemadz]

Rahneld, are you a lawyer? If not, you need to be careful to not provide 'legal advice'.

I’ve stated this before in other threads: Ronnie boy is either a politician or a lawyer. No one else can write as much as he does without actually saying anything factual. But, if he’s a lawyer, he must be the worst one ever.

 

[Rahneld]

Rahneld, are you a lawyer? If not, you need to be careful to not provide 'legal advice'.

I could say--not that I am--that the law says the world if flat here. People, at least in the States, (not to in any way meant to disparage your Canada, just that laws can be different in the two countries) are expected to not rely on that they read on the internet. In fact, "whatcha read it on the internet," as you must know, are the stuff jokes are made of.

Would you like me to link you to the post where @JeepCares themselves says "go with what's in the owner's manual?

 

[Rahneld]

@digitalbliss, @Firemadz you and a couple of others fall into a category of people who love showing pictures of supplements with dissenting advice from the owner's manual, only to get shot down and pissed at me when I show you the disclaimer on the bottom that says "refer to the owner's manual for complete details," as if it's my fault that you skip over that. Most people stop at that point.

I can't help you. If I did produced the very case law to support this it would be too long, too complicated, citing cases itself you wouldn't likely know about, and risk you drawing wrong conclusions about what's being said.

You will stick to what you want to believe, that if you follow a supplement with the aforementioned conditions (dissenting guidance from the owner's manual and disclaimer) that FCA will plant you a money tree because... that's what you want.

Good luck. You're going to need it. In the meantime please reconcile how it is, in court, that you both followed the supplement when things went sideways, and if you were actually following the supplement you would have crossed checked the supplement with the owner's manual and found it to hold different guidance.

 

[Adventure.AS]

I could say--not that I am--that the law says the world if flat here. People, at least in the States, (not to in any way meant to disparage your Canada, just that laws can be different in the two countries) are expected to not rely on that they read on the internet. In fact, "whatcha read it on the internet," as you must know, are the stuff jokes are made of.

Would you like me to link you to the post where @JeepCares themselves says "go with what's in the owner's manual?

I gather from your answer that you are not a lawyer or you would have understood why I asked the question - I was trying to help you avoid legal troubles.

“... it is generally illegal for a non-lawyer or unlicensed attorney to offer legal advice ...” - findlaw.com

 

[apb]

I’ve stated this before in other threads: Ronnie boy is either a politician or a lawyer. No one else you write as much as he does without actually saying anything factual. But, if he’s a lawyer, he must be the worst one ever.

Being fairly new to the forum I read a few of his posts and thought he was helpful, and couldn't see why he got all the hate. Then I found posts and threads like this one and it has become crystal clear.

Sponsored