Soft Top Sunrider Position - can now leave in rear and side windows?

[Rahneld]

Geez. Some people “win” arguments by force of volume over content.

If you are that worried about being legally exposed while riding in sun rider with side/back windows in, like I do, then I recommend purchasing an umbrella insurance policy, like I have. This will give you added protection against this and many other legal grey areas.

I don't know if you're referring to me but I prefer to see myself, to use your words, as presenting a volume of content. Feel free to disagree.

In short, disclaimers matter or else sellers wouldn't bother with them, as they detract from the selling content.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

But either way, lets talk umbrella insurance. I too strongly suggest that anyone with assets to lose have it. Basic homeowners and vehicle policies rarely cover the amounts people litigate for in bodily damage, either as a result of vehicular incidents or the mere slip and fall injury of a guest in one's home. Additionally, some cover things like slander (and other things) that neither basic policy is underwritten for.

That said, here's the rub. Lets talk about the things for a second that Umbrella insurance supplements (i.e. auto/homeowner) rather than addresses that which neither of these basic policies even cover (e.g. the slander example,) like a law suit related to vehicular operation.

In this case umbrella policies will almost invariably kick in only when amounts paid by basic insurance first, are exceeded by, say, a law suit's dollar claim.

Umbrella policies don't normally kick in because a loss normally covered under a vehicle policy is not paid out by the insurance company due to owner/operator failure to operate the vehicle consistent with owner's manual guidance.

In short, in a big money case, (i.e. not replacing a car body quarter panel) the insurer's attorney can be expected to closely examine the insured's vehicle's owner's manual and look for ways to NOT have to pay if the circumstances of the injury arose from owner/operator failure to abide by the owner's manual.

In such cases, don't expect umbrella policies, which supplement WHEN basic insurance agrees to cover a loss, to kick in.

Sponsored

 

[digitalbliss]

I'm sorry @Rahneld but the video in the very first post on this thread is very clear. I know, I know, the statement "this video is not intended to replace the owners manual"... Makes the entire video null and void.

 

[Rahneld]

I'm sorry @Rahneld but the video in the very first post on this thread is very clear. I know, I know, the statement "this video is not intended to replace the owners manual"... Makes the entire video null and void.

I don't know where, if at all, sarcasm exactly begins above. Let me treat these as serious.

The entire video isn't null and void, just those parts that contain guidance that conflicts with the owner's manual, should following it (the video that is) lead to damages that someone seeks to hold FCA liable for. That battle will be a tough one to win or even secure any ground with. Yes, there are circumstances where disclaimers aren't seen by the court as legally binding as you hope the case here.

But this isn't even remotely likely to be one of them. Your sympathetic jury will be charged by the judge with instructions that say:

* 'You must find a clear disclaimer somewhere in the content in question, neither party to this case disputes that, even if that content suggested or even expressly gave guidance that differed from the owner's manual,

* and this disclaimer advised the user to refer to the owner's manual for complete details, and

* that owner's manual's details conflicted with the plaintiffs operation of the vehicle, and possibly the content, then you must find for the defendant, FCA.'

In shorter terms and to rephrase

* 'Did the content refer you clearly to the owner's manual for complete details, regardless of where in the presentation that disclaimer existed or whether or not the presentation (the video, the supplement, etc.) agreed with the owner's manual, and
* Did the owner's manual have instructions that conflicted with the plaintiff's actions, and that those conflicting actions on the part of the plantiff were a proximate cause of the damages the plaintiff faced--in other words if the plaintiff had followed the owner's manual's guidance they would most likely be reasonably seen to not have faced the damage claim brought to the court in this action today,

then you must find the defendent, FCA, absent of any wrong doing, and you cannot, regardless of any sympathy you have for the defendant's situation, find otherwise.'

~~~~~~~~~~~~

You can disagree that a jury would be charged with similar instructions, but you cannot disagree that such instructions would leave the jury with little wiggle room but to find for FCA. And this is considered legally fair (whether you or I like it or not) because FCA made it clear that the guidance in the supplement was not intended to replace the manual, and that the manual is the last word for any differences in guidance it may have with the supplemental material that refer you to the manual for complete details, and consumers can't hold companies liable when they don't follow clear instructions, even, perhaps especially when those instructions clearly indicate the possibility of the materials being wrong or incomplete and referring you to where complete details can be found.

It's as if, to the eyes of the law, FCA said in these supplements, 'whatever I say here, cross check with the manual. It may be wrong compared to the owner's manual, and if it is, go with the guidance in the owner's manual.'

Maybe you want to discuss if FCA should do this? I think not. But they can, and feel they must to remain competitive, as other manufacturers are doing it too, not only putting their best foot forward, but putting it up to the line to legally (which may be different than morally, maximizing company owner wealth, as is their obligation.

Although an entirely different business with different rules, you might appreciate movies like Absence of Malice and how the media can say all sorts of things that are not exactly true. An example: let's say you make a true statement and I wrongly disagree with you. Then you convince me and I change my mind. After this happens the newspaper can still say that @digitalbliss says "X" and @Rahneld says "not true," without reporting that we reached a meeting of the minds since then, all in an effort to inflate a story to sell newspapers, because technically what they report did happen, even if it's no longer the case.

Why such seemingly crazy rules: they serve higher purpose like the importance of media to the public and the importance of each side holding to an agreement in the case of FCA. And the wrongdoers are the first to leverage these well intentioned rules for immoral gain.

What can I say but the law is imperfect and a balance.

And so why did the women with genital burns from opening McDonald's coffee, reasonably known to be hot, reasonably known to possibly spill when opened in a moving car win her award....?

Because McDonalds did not need to make the coffee as hot as it did, and that fact was used, IMHO to back door in, without expressly saying so, jury sympathy.

And what did McDonalds do after, cool their coffee and add a warning/disclaimer that coffee is hot--all while lawyers take the rap for, in their client company's best interests, advising them to add warnings to products to safeguard against stupid people's litigation, all while reasonable people roll their eyes at the obviousness of the statement.

I'm curious, if FCA had said at the beginning of the content, "warning, this content may differ from the owner's manual and if so, go with the owner's manual's guidance" would that have been good enough for you---

--because to the eyes of the law that's what they basically said.

 

[Gellie]

The long and short of umbrella policy’s. If you have over 1mm in assets, a umbrella policy is a must.

 

[BillG]

I don't know where, if at all, sarcasm exactly begins above. Let me treat these as serious.

The entire video isn't null and void, just those parts that contain guidance that conflicts with the owner's manual, should following it (the video that is) lead to damages that someone seeks to hold FCA liable for. That battle will be a tough one to win or even secure any ground with. Yes, there are circumstances where disclaimers aren't seen by the court as legally binding as you hope the case here.

But this isn't even remotely likely to be one of them. Your sympathetic jury will be charged by the judge with instructions that say:

* 'You must find a clear disclaimer somewhere in the content in question, neither party to this case disputes that, even if that content suggested or even expressly gave guidance that differed from the owner's manual,

* and this disclaimer advised the user to refer to the owner's manual for complete details, and

* that owner's manual's details conflicted with the plaintiffs operation of the vehicle, and possibly the content, then you must find for the defendant, FCA.'

In shorter terms and to rephrase

* 'Did the content refer you clearly to the owner's manual for complete details, regardless of where in the presentation that disclaimer existed or whether or not the presentation (the video, the supplement, etc.) agreed with the owner's manual, and
* Did the owner's manual have instructions that conflicted with the plaintiff's actions, and that those conflicting actions on the part of the plantiff were a proximate cause of the damages the plaintiff faced--in other words if the plaintiff had followed the owner's manual's guidance they would most likely be reasonably seen to not have faced the damage claim brought to the court in this action today,

then you must find the defendent, FCA, absent of any wrong doing, and you cannot, regardless of any sympathy you have for the defendant's situation, find otherwise.'

~~~~~~~~~~~~

You can disagree that a jury would be charged with similar instructions, but you cannot disagree that such instructions would leave the jury with little wiggle room but to find for FCA. And this is considered legally fair (whether you or I like it or not) because FCA made it clear that the guidance in the supplement was not intended to replace the manual, and that the manual is the last word for any differences in guidance it may have with the supplemental material that refer you to the manual for complete details, and consumers can't hold companies liable when they don't follow clear instructions, even, perhaps especially when those instructions clearly indicate the possibility of the materials being wrong or incomplete and referring you to where complete details can be found.

It's as if, to the eyes of the law, FCA said in these supplements, 'whatever I say here, cross check with the manual. It may be wrong compared to the owner's manual, and if it is, go with the guidance in the owner's manual.'

Maybe you want to discuss if FCA should do this? I think not. But they can, and feel they must to remain competitive, as other manufacturers are doing it too, not only putting their best foot forward, but putting it up to the line to legally (which may be different than morally, maximizing company owner wealth, as is their obligation.

Although an entirely different business with different rules, you might appreciate movies like Absence of Malice and how the media can say all sorts of things that are not exactly true. An example: let's say you make a true statement and I wrongly disagree with you. Then you convince me and I change my mind. After this happens the newspaper can still say that @digitalbliss says "X" and @Rahneld says "not true," without reporting that we reached a meeting of the minds since then, all in an effort to inflate a story to sell newspapers, because technically what they report did happen, even if it's no longer the case.

Why such seemingly crazy rules: they serve higher purpose like the importance of media to the public and the importance of each side holding to an agreement in the case of FCA. And the wrongdoers are the first to leverage these well intentioned rules for immoral gain.

What can I say but the law is imperfect and a balance.

And so why did the women with genital burns from opening McDonald's coffee, reasonably known to be hot, reasonably known to possibly spill when opened in a moving car win her award....?

Because McDonalds did not need to make the coffee as hot as it did, and that fact was used, IMHO to back door in, without expressly saying so, jury sympathy.

And what did McDonalds do after, cool their coffee and add a warning/disclaimer that coffee is hot--all while lawyers take the rap for, in their client company's best interests, advising them to add warnings to products to safeguard against stupid people's litigation, all while reasonable people roll their eyes at the obviousness of the statement.

I'm curious, if FCA had said at the beginning of the content, "warning, this content may differ from the owner's manual and if so, go with the owner's manual's guidance" would that have been good enough for you---

--because to the eyes of the law that's what they basically said.

Actually I have read that at the time, McDonald’s was advertising the hottest coffee around, and that the cup manufacturer had told them that they needed to upgrade because the heat would cause the cups to collapse, and they didn’t until exiting supply was exhausted. That part gets ignored nowadays.

 

[Rahneld]

Actually I have read that at the time, McDonald’s was advertising the hottest coffee around, and that the cup manufacturer had told them that they needed to upgrade because the heat would cause the cups to collapse, and they didn’t until exiting supply was exhausted. That part gets ignored nowadays.

Fair point, much as the coffee spillage in Liebeck v McDonalds Restaurants was not a result of the cup being compromised due to heat or any other factor--let alone a factor that McDonalds could fairly be responsible for, but at Liebeck's own hand.

Where your point though fairly comes into play is McDonalds being well aware of the temperature they served their coffee at (not that they'd be harmless (but maybe less harmful) if they didn't know, as it's their job to know). And equally important, in McDonald's advertising the same it was not merely a selling point, (i.e. that by the time you get to drink your coffee it will still be hot) but an ipso facto disclaimer/warning, at least in small part, to consumers like Liebeck.

I feel absolutely terrible about what happen to Ms. Liebeck, but more along the lines of how I'd feel if she slipped on dry pavement, and broke her hip, not if some thugs pushed her. The analogy, I admit, is not perfect.

Clearly--I've strayed far from the topic intentions of this forum. Sorry.

 

[Dollypop59]

Been doing it for a year, including at highway speeds, no problems yet.

Been doing this this since the dealer showed me when I picked it up. Lol

 

[brycal01]

This whole debate seems over the top and the participants seem too tightly wound to be Wrangler owners.

 

[Swissswiss]

Anywho, can I run it in sunrider with windows removed? I worry it could potentially turn into a parachute on the freeway if it catches wind at a weird angle

Sponsored