Court: Jeep can be sued for not making auto-braking standard

[John VonJeep]

Welp, get ready for the price of Wranglers to increase even more when this becomes standard equipment.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/arizona-supreme-court-jeep-sued-girls-death-83188731

The family of a little girl who was killed when her mother's car was rear-ended by a Jeep on a Phoenix freeway can sue the SUV's manufacturer for wrongful death because it did not install automatic emergency braking devices that were available as optional equipment, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.​

​

The court rejected arguments from lawyers for Jeep parent company Fiat Chrysler Automobiles US that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's decision not to require the devices pre-empted the state lawsuit.​

Sponsored

 

[Monster1926]

Its terrible the little girl passed away, but I’m not sure how it’s jeeps fault they didn’t include an optional safety feature in a 2014 Grand Cherokee. The woman that was driving the jeep failed to stop causing the accident, 100% of the blame falls on her. Now say it was equipped with it and it failed then I can see an argument but that’s not the case.

 

[TimmH]

So the accident happened in 2015, between a undisclosed year Lexus Sedan and a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee.

According to what I could find on Lexus' Saftey System + , "The first version of the technology debuted on the redesigned 2016 Lexus RX crossover SUV"

So they could sue, but I doubt they win, their OWN vehicle may not have even had this feature.

 

[rcadden]

Its terrible the little girl passed away, but I’m not sure how it’s jeeps fault they didn’t include an optional safety feature in a 2014 Grand Cherokee. The woman that was driving the jeep failed to stop causing the accident, 100% of the blame falls on her. Now say it was equipped with it and it failed then I can see an argument but that’s not the case.

Yeah but the woman driving doesn't have massively deep pockets like FCA does, so why would they bother suing her?

/s

 

[VKSheridan]

Interesting read. One could argue for both sides, especially if the technology is only $100 at cost. Sad their daughter died.

 

[AFD]

Aren't most auto-braking and other collision avoidance systems able to be defeated by the owner anyway?

Personally, I have a (possibly irrational) fear of auto-braking causing me to loose control while trying to avoid a deer on snow/ice, instead sending me into an oncoming semi or off the road and into a tree. Think I'd rather rear-end someone versus hit oncoming traffic.

 

[Deleted member 59498]

Sounds like they should sue HTSA, but then they would get no where.

 

[JABCAT]

There's a bunch of information lacking in that article. Was the little girl buckeled in, was she in an approved car seat; how fast was the Jeep traveling when it struck the Lexus stopped or did the Lexus brake late as well, what design componentents or lack of components in the Lexus could've contributed to the death of the little girl, etc.

This also opens up the issue of the vehicle being equipped with this feature as many are now, but that can be turned off by the driver. We turn all that stuff off on my wife's GC. So then it will be mandated that the function cannot be turned off by the driver, and then we're stuck with autonomous vehicles driving us around.

The more you take personal responsibility away from people, the worse they get.

 

[JABCAT]

Personally, I have a (possibly irrational) fear of auto-braking causing me to loose control while trying to avoid a deer on snow/ice, instead sending me into an oncoming semi or off the road and into a tree. Think I'd rather rear-end someone versus hit oncoming traffic.

There are plenty of situations where emergency braking would not be the preferred method of accident avoidance, and if the car starts jamming on the brakes without driver input, that could inhibit the driver from actually being able to avoid the accident by swerving in a different direction.

When I was in driver's ed way back. We were taught to always have an out, always be looking well ahead, and to be checking our mirrors every 5 seconds. The problem with all these "safety" features is now I don't have to check my mirrors because I have a blind spot alert, I don't have to be looking far ahead because I have emergency braking, and/or adaptive cruise control.

Separate rant - seriously how hard is it to use regular cruise control? Most can be adjusted right on the steering wheel with the little +/- buttons, and tapping the brake disengages cruise. If you're in tight traffic, you shouldn't be using cruise control anyway.

Back on topic, our driver licensing criteria is an absolute joke, and then we blame the auto manufacturers for not programming the car to do everything for us.

 

[No IFS]

It’s about control. Doesn’t matter if there’s information missing from the article, it doesn’t even matter if it’s true. What matters is they get their agenda forced on everyone.

 

[azwjowner]

Having actually read the court opinion, this wasn't a ruling on the merits of the lawsuit. Jeep simply argued that federal regulations (or lack thereof) on auto-braking should prevent the plaintiff from even making the argument in state court. The court said that the federal laws & rules on auto-braking weren't intended to prevent someone from making this argument. Now the plaintiff can try to argue that the Jeep was unreasonably dangerous. On one hand, it's a bit ridiculous that a car complying with existing safety rules is unreasonably dangerous. On the other hand, Jeep is also a bit ridiculous for not including a $100 proven safety option on such an expensive vehicle unless you pay $$$ for a higher trim.

 

[Traveller128]

Having actually read the court opinion, this wasn't a ruling on the merits of the lawsuit. Jeep simply argued that federal regulations (or lack thereof) on auto-braking should prevent the plaintiff from even making the argument in state court. The court said that the federal laws & rules on auto-braking weren't intended to prevent someone from making this argument. Now the plaintiff can try to argue that the Jeep was unreasonably dangerous. On one hand, it's a bit ridiculous that a car complying with existing safety rules is unreasonably dangerous. On the other hand, Jeep is also a bit ridiculous for not including a $100 proven safety option on such an expensive vehicle unless you pay $$$ for a higher trim.

Was it even available on the vehicle? 2014 model? And is it provable that it WOULD have saved anyone?

There is no way that anyone can argue that a safety system, intended to make a vehicle less likely to hurt THE OPERATOR, should protect the general public from an operator that is being inattentive.
A vehicle operator's first and foremost duty, is to pay attention, not be distracted, and operate their vehicle in a safe manner. Equal to that duty, is the duty to maintain their vehicle and it's systems to the OEM level of quality and safety.

Guess what, a lot of us are screwed on that one. Larger tires affecting stopping distances and ability to make high speed maneuvers, lift kits changing the C.G., lighting that exceeds permisible levels of output (height, aim, lumens), uncertified bumpers (aftermarket bridge support levels of steel, etc.) you name it, the Jeep aftermarket is squarely in the right lawyers sights if they get picky.

Was the driver negligent in hitting the other vehicle? Abolutely, either through failed maintenance of the brakes, following too closely or being inattentive. Is Jeep at fault? Not sure how they could have been driving the car. I think the judge is legislating from the bench on this one.

 

[AFD]

When I was in driver's ed way back. We were taught to always have an out, always be looking well ahead, and to be checking our mirrors every 5 seconds. The problem with all these "safety" features is now I don't have to check my mirrors because I have a blind spot alert, I don't have to be looking far ahead because I have emergency braking, and/or adaptive cruise control.

+100! And sure, as a whole, such systems will make driver's lazy and less attentive to their basic responsibilities for operating a vehicle, but my biggest concern (at least with my own driving) is that I find these collision avoidance systems to be equivalent to driving a motor vehicle with 2 active drivers and one's impaired to an extent. Similar to Top Gear's double-decker races (if anyone's ever seen those), where one person is in charge of steering while the other is blindfolded and in charge of gas and brake. Sure, it's safe enough most of the time, but when one driver (computer or human) doesn't anticipate what the other is doing or planning, then shit can go wrong in a dangerous way. /rant

 

[jaymz]

The accident victim has no chance of winning a court case, but FCA will likely write a fat check to make her go away instead of going to trial.

 

[Jeepmarkjl]

Its terrible the little girl passed away, but I’m not sure how it’s jeeps fault they didn’t include an optional safety feature in a 2014 Grand Cherokee. The woman that was driving the jeep failed to stop causing the accident, 100% of the blame falls on her. Now say it was equipped with it and it failed then I can see an argument but that’s not the case.

Makes no sense right? Look up sawstop table saw. Inventor tried selling his tech to all the mfrs. everyone agreed it was amazing. Lawyers from the big mfrs got together and blocked the sale because if the tech was live in the wild with just one mfr they all could be sued any time someone cut off a finger bc they could have installed the tech. The inventor was crushed. A VC company funded him and he started making super safe table saws. Guess what happened? Guy cuts finger off on other saw, his lawyer literally pulls up meeting video where attorneys blocked sale for this reason to not get sued. Guy wins in court big time. Even though he cut off his finger by not paying attention.

Sponsored