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

[Firemadz]

@Apoznan, what's your opinion of this picture from the official Jeep website of a wrangler driving down the road with the sunrider open, the windows in and no reference to the owners manual.

ronnie boy has an opinion that one, too. (Shocking, I know!)

Sponsored

 

[Apoznan]

@Apoznan, what's your opinion of this picture from the official Jeep website of a wrangler driving down the road with the sunrider open, the windows in and no reference to the owners manual.

Again, this is only my opinion, but yes, I feel that would strengthen my argument.

To clarify, as I think my points are getting lost in the back and forth...

I doubt the catch all language will relieve anyone of all liability. I am not aware of any universal case law that states differently. That is not to say it doesn't exist, simply that I haven't seen it.

I drive with the windows in, and have no problems, but that doesn't prove anything.

But if someone were to ask me for a legal opinion, I would do exactly what FCA does and refer them to the manual.

Please don't consider my opinion to be fact or law. None of my arguments should be considered legal advice or current law.

 

[Rahneld]

ronnie boy has an opinion that one, too. (Shocking, I know!)

Joe, no pun intended to your namesake or line of work but you got flamed the last time this topic came up and Jerry, I really hoped as an attorney that @Apoznan would have said/realized that this photo, FCA produced though I'm told it is, was taken on the same closed road for which, unless you have special insurance, your regular policy won't likely cover the damages you affect there: be it to yourself or your rig, somebody else and/or their rig.

Therefore, playing by the owner's manual's rules in the first place, so the Insurance Company CYAs you is moot, as the mere location where such action occurs (off road) will itself likely preempt your standard paved road coverage, windows in or out.

As to use of this photo as a means to leverage a case of FCA endorsing use of windows in on Sunrider, 1) It's a closed course, where 2) people can't go fast, featuring a JL 3) that is parked.

I would agree that if this was on a moving JL on public roads that @Apoznan's assessment of it offering FCA liabilty arguments could hold true.

 

[Apoznan]

Joe, no pun intended to your namesake or line of work but you got flamed the last time this topic came up and Jerry, I really hoped as an attorney that @Apoznan would have said/realized that this photo, FCA produced though I'm told it is, was taken on the same closed road for which, unless you have special insurance, your regular policy won't likely cover the damages you affect there: be it to yourself or your rig, somebody else and/or their rig.

Therefore, playing by the owner's manual's rules in the first place, so the Insurance Company CYAs you is moot, as the mere location where such action occurs (off road) will itself likely preempt your standard paved road coverage, windows in or out.

As to use of this photo as a means to leverage a case of FCA endorsing use of windows in on Sunrider, 1) It's a closed course, where 2) people can't go fast, featuring a JL 3) that is parked.

I would agree that if this was on a moving JL on public roads that @Apoznan's assessment of it offering FCA liabilty arguments could hold true.

Ok. Again with the not so subtle attack. "as an attorney" what I realize is that the bottom of the photo says "wherever your adventures may take you. ". My adventures take me on highways. As such, again, the argument exists and isn't frivolous.

I will ask you for the last time before I am done with this topic and stop responding.

You mentioned settled case law numerous times. Get your friends to give you a cite. Even one cite that stands for your proposition being valid across these United States and I'll publicly state you were right. Show your work. Up until now I have made it clear that everything I wrote was opinion. You speak as if everything you say is fact.

So either Show... Your... Work, or admit that this is all your opinion.

Or else I'll mark this down as you repeating something you think you may have once overheard, and award it no attention.

Have a good night all. Thanks for showing me how to unfollow a post.

 

[digitalbliss]

I hope you know I wasn't referring to you, Rahneld. You're one of the more informed and logical forum members I've seen post. I completely understand the legal implications and ramifications, I just posted the video link because it's the first time I've seen it actually pointed out that way from a somewhat official source.

The supplemental insert was also quite clear and was provided with many peoples soft tops. It was argued that this was probably supplied by bestop and therefore not official. The video posted above is from MOPAR which is FCA. So... It's official. It's quite clear, when using logic, that FCA/Jeep/MOPAR was lazy when writing the original manual and just incorporated the sunrider instructions and fully lowering the soft top instructions together. Since fully lowering the soft top obviously required removing the windows, the sunrider operation gets obfuscated and thereby some here assert that FCA says you MUST remove the windows in sunrider position despite the many other documents and publications saying otherwise.

 

[GreyFox]

There was a mass site update and user profile settings were inadvertently defaulted.

SOLVE:

Uncheck the first two checkboxes in your preferences menu and the click SAVE:
https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/forum/account/preferences

The off topic part of this thread has been way more gratifying than the topic.

Sorry, just had to say it.

Indeed

 

[digitalbliss]

Indeed

Interestingly enough, I've been a part of these forums since mid 2017 (before the JL and Gladiator forum split) and I have always been subscribed to watch a thread once I made a post in that thread. Seems like business as usual for me.

 

[Rahneld]

Ok. Again with the not so subtle attack. "as an attorney" what I realize is that the bottom of the photo says "wherever your adventures may take you. ". My adventures take me on highways. As such, again, the argument exists and isn't frivolous.

I will ask you for the last time before I am done with this topic and stop responding.

You mentioned settled case law numerous times. Get your friends to give you a cite. Even one cite that stands for your proposition being valid across these United States and I'll publicly state you were right. Show your work. Up until now I have made it clear that everything I wrote was opinion. You speak as if everything you say is fact.

So either Show... Your... Work, or admit that this is all your opinion.

Or else I'll mark this down as you repeating something you think you may have once overheard, and award it no attention.

Have a good night all. Thanks for showing me how to unfollow a post.

I will certainly, as mentioned by me prior, seek to acquire cases upon which those I know and trust make their arguments. Ironically you too have said nothing in regards to the points I made about that picture, instead pointing to some copywriter's language at the bottom. I've simply sought to show what FCA will claim, independent of whether I agree with it or even follow it: routinely stating that I ride often with windows in. My point has always been to arm board members with info, not be right or wrong.

@Apoznan: I don't mean this as an attack; I never have. That you choose to take it that way when people assess things differently from you is not my fight. I can only assume that if you were to hypothetically take on a case like this--much as I think the soft windows properly installed flying out (when the rig is moving) and doing harm to others a remotely likely scenario--and always have--that you would research similar cases before charging a client much for your time, or take the matter on contingency and risk it not being profitable for you.

As to the copywriter's language, which I won't ignore like you did my points (albeit your right to do so) you can take your JL wherever your adventures may take you and park it, as this rig is, (barring that indoor parachuting place with the huge electric fans) with the top in Sunrider position and the windows installed.

Just don't get mad because someone made a valid point you couldn't address, okay? I didn't.

I'll leave you with two images to consider. The first is your client (who in this hypothetical caused the damage, and for which jury sympathy may not exist) on the witness stand being asked by one of FCA's attornies, "yes or no" did they follow the supplement in question here. Either response is doomed. If they answer "yes" the issue of referring to the owner's manual for complete details is raised, where a "yes or no" answer is again doomed. If they followed the owner's manual they clearly should have taken the windows out. If they didn't--well--FCA will rightfully claim that they can't be held liable for when owner's don't follow their clearly published operational guidance.

On the other hand if the first question is "no" to following the supplement the follow up question is, "So you followed the owner's manual natural, correct?"

And the answer to that question is doomed for the reasons discussed above.

Represent the person injured by such acts, and I'll certainly concede sir, and have never said otherwise, that that's a good case to represent in terms of litigating both the owner/operator, and FCA: the big fish here with deep pockets.

That case might earn jury sympathy money when its realized that the owner/operator is forced to declare financial bankruptcy.--much again as FCA will claim that they made themselves clear and can't be held liable for the actions of an owner operator, initially petition the court to be dropped from the case by judges who act upon law, not emotions.

A better example than this photograph (wait for it) is the video where Bestop, the makers of the top, offers no such soft window removal guidance. To which (as we hash this out the 11th time) FCA and Bestop will reply that FCA simply outsourced the production of this top to Bestop, and that its purchase and parts are purchased exclusively (by legal design) through FCA, who holds different opinions on its use than Bestop.

An entire different case arises if Bestop were to have sold the top directly to the consumer, as they do many products, and offered different usage guidance.

 

[Rahneld]

The supplemental insert was also quite clear and was provided with many peoples soft tops. It was argued that this was probably supplied by bestop and therefore not official. The video posted above is from MOPAR which is FCA. So... It's official. It's quite clear, when using logic, that FCA/Jeep/MOPAR was lazy when writing the original manual and just incorporated the sunrider instructions and fully lowering the soft top instructions together. Since fully lowering the soft top obviously required removing the windows, the sunrider operation gets obfuscated and thereby some here assert that FCA says you MUST remove the windows in sunrider position despite the many other documents and publications saying otherwise.

Ah, @digitalbliss , another board member who hates me from this discussion.

I never recall the argument that Bestop supplied the supplement. Is it fair to say that this link has a picture of the the supplement you refer to?:

https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/forum/threads/sunrider-position-pointless.30957/page-3#post-715423

It is fair to say that FCA's Jeep brand logo is at the bottom? Is it fair to say that nothing on the supplement would imply that Bestop authored it? Even if they actually did, it's to the eyes of the court a Jeep brand product.

Let's play mock court. You said the supplement's quite clear. You're called to the witness stand to read the part of the clear supplement (your words) that says to refer to the owner's manual for complete details. You're asked if you did. You're asked if in language that says complete details, that by placing this advise on the supplement, it would imply the supplement less than comprehensive.

Don't worry. You might not have to answer that question. Good opposing council will object saying the answer calls for a conclusion. If overruled your answer has no good "play." If sustained, the idea was already (by design, anticipating the judeges sustaining opinion) planted reasonably in the jury's mind that the supplement must have been incomplete by design in its express "clear" recommended that you refer to the owner's manual for complete details.

It's official. It's quite clear, when using logic, that FCA/Jeep/MOPAR was lazy when writing the original manual

No. Just no. It's the opposite of laziness. Laziness is the process of leaving information out because putting it in requires more work. Here the owner's manual and its writers/reviews took the effort, the time, to expressly include these instructions about taking the windows out--and why--they don't want to be named in legal cases where flying windows caused property or bodily damage. The brevity in language you see is not laziness, it's terseness of words likely designed to minimize liablity, probably as a result of editing changes that came at the hands of corporate council who reviewed the work product prior to publication.

But let me give you the benefit of the doubt. The judge replies, "let's look at the manual."

We turn to page 114 where the steps on lowering the Soft top into Sunrider position begin--agreed? ...hich BTW follow the steps for lowering the soft top completely, and what's our first step in this section @digitalbliss ?

"1. After removing the rear and quarter panel windows, move to the front of the vehicle."

And we of course know how to remove those windows because the prior explanation of complete soft top lowering outlined those steps. That's why it came in the manual prior, so the window removal explanation wouldn't have to be repeated, risking legal exposure if it conflicted with the instructions on removing those windows for complete soft top lowering.

At best you conflate "deliberate brevity of explanation for purposes of reducing legal liablity," with laziness.

@digitalbliss, good, no merely competent opposing council makes this point. What happens next is the judge says "approach!" When you do, this is said to you. "Mr. @digitalbliss, the court is once again informing you that it strongly recommends, in your best interest, that you be represented by competent council."

Since fully lowering the soft top obviously required removing the windows, the sunrider operation gets obfuscated

Step 1 above is the opposite of obfuscation, i.e. confusion, by design or not, that you cite. It expressly and clearly says what an owner must do before lowering the top to Sunrider position. Maybe, just maybe you might have a point if the prior section on lowering the top completely and detailing how (and that) removing the windows is done came subsequent in the manual.

And thereby some here assert that FCA says you MUST remove the windows in sunrider position

If "assert" is factually state, then yes, that's me, quoting FCA's owner's manual, the de facto standard for vehicile operation in its absence of reference to other guides for vehicle operation, and other guides reference to it. Again, this is by design. You might have a point if either the owner's manual referred you elsewhere for vehicle operation guidance and/or the supplements failed to refer to the owner's manual for complete details.

despite the many other documents and publications saying otherwise.

First, the don't say otherwise. They don't say, "leave those windows in!"

What they say is nothing, at best implying that leaving the windows in is okay. But they are incomplete guides whose instructions (your words) are clear....containing invariably, by legal design, the guidance to refer to the owner's manual for complete details (which refers to nothing else for vehicle operation guidance.) This language implies that FCA not only thinks the supplements incomplete, but the owner's manual complete.

The video posted above is from MOPAR which is FCA.

I don't see a video. I see a picture and am willing to take your word and that of others that the advertisement is FCA product. See my point above about the rig being a) parked, and a b) closed course, where most vehicle Insurance Policies don't cover property and bodily damage, and where c) speeds that might blow windows off (again as unlikely as I think this is in any scenario) aren't likely to be achieved.

If there's a video, and it takes the rig on to roads this way, better yet, shows the rig at relatively high speeds, then "yes" that might be useful evidence in court to point fingers at FCA.

(People think I'm attached to my conclusions. I'm not. I'm just conveying what courts are apt to do given the evidence which people have come up with so far. Show me the copy/video, incomplete supplement with absence of reference to the owner's manual for complete details and I'll firmly agree that to be useful evidence against FCA. I don't work for FCA. I have nothing for or against them in this matter.)

I'm waiting for the, "yeah but everyone leaves the windows in," defense. People don't follow rules on the time, but they're responsible for their actions when the deviate from manufacturer guidance.

 

[digitalbliss]

Ah, @digitalbliss

I don't see a video. I see a picture and am willing to take your word and that of others that the advertisement is FCA product. See my point above about the rig being a) parked, and a b) closed course, where most vehicle Insurance Policies don't cover property and bodily damage, and where c) speeds that might blow windows off (again as unlikely as I think this is in any scenario) aren't likely to be achieved.

If there's a video, and it takes the rig on to roads this way, better yet, shows the rig at relatively high speeds, then "yes" that might be useful evidence in court to point fingers at FCA.

(People think I'm attached to my conclusions. I'm not. I'm just conveying what courts are apt to do given the evidence which people have come up with so far. Show me the copy/video, incomplete supplement with absence of reference to the owner's manual for complete details and I'll firmly agree that to be useful evidence against FCA. I don't work for FCA. I have nothing for or against them in this matter.)

I'm waiting for the, "yeah but everyone leaves the windows in," defense. People don't follow rules on the time, but they're responsible for their actions when the deviate from manufacturer guidance.

You really are a moron...
The "video posted above" is in reference to the very first post in this thread.

 

[Rahneld]

Right back at you @digitalbliss.

You're absolutely right, I missed your reference to the video at the post's beginning; the same video I saw when this now 5 page thread was first created. It's irrelevant and here's why.

I seemed to recall that it contained the disclaimer to refer to the owner's manual so I watched it again, and indeed it did at the end, or do we disagree on that? Here it is.

That language says in legal speak, for the 100th time,

* We at FCA do not intend this video to be all encompassing.

* Should conflict arise refer to the owner's manual.

* The owner's manual is the de factor standard for vehicle operation.

* Configure your top any way you like, as we did in the video, when the rig is motionless, as was ours.

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

Now, that said, lets get back to my prior post.

* How again was FCA lazy in writing the manual?
* Would you please not post on this topic again until you've found something from FCA/MOPAR that shows them driving the rig on public roads with the soft windows in that doesn't say to refer to the owner's manual for complete details? I promise you that if you do then I'll be the first to say, "now THAT could be an asset to such a case."
* If you need to refer to the manual for complete details, and this sentence was expressly written in supplemental literature, doesn't it assert that the supplemental literature may be incomplete? (Hint: it does.)
* How again is it 'quite clear, when using logic that FCA/Jeep/MOPAR was lazy when writing the original manual and just incorporated the sunrider instructions and fully lowering the soft top instructions together" when they expressly say, as step one of Sunrider use in the owner's manual to remove the soft windows?

Again, this isn't lazyness to not include window removal twice. It's done by design. It keeps the manual shorter and more importantly, by not offering the same advise twice, it reduces the risk of conflicting instructions, which WOULD create the potential for each nullifying the other, resulting in ambiguous/unclear instructions on FCA's part that might open them up to the very liability issues you think you've uncovered, but haven't.

Wait, don't answer: because there is no good answer to these questions. Just stop. This academic debate about something so unlikely to happen, i.e. the windows flying out and causing expensive damage to another, getting sued, and trying to subrogate damages on to FCA, let's just say, if a case is to be made, that it's highly unlikely that it will be on any argument you've offered to date.

 

[digitalbliss]

Please provide your case law examples if you want to prove your argument. Until then, I'm going to believe that since the supplemental guide and the video posted here (literally the first thing they say about the soft top). If it wasn't the case, they wouldn't be saying it.

And since you like to harp on opinions vs facts, the fact is the MOPAR produced video says you can run the sunrider with or without windows (as does the softop operational manual and tips insert provided by Jeep).

My opinion is, that no court is going to side with you when they see that Jeep is continually producing publications that says keeping windows in when using the sunrider is ok.

 

[InvictusManeo]

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.

 

[JeepDave]

Wouldn't it be funny if all this applied to tires too...nah, no way...

 

[Rahneld]

Please provide your case law examples if you want to prove your argument. Until then, I'm going to believe that

I think you mean 'I'm not going to answer your points,' much that I've answered yours.

since the supplemental guide and the video posted here (literally the first thing they say about the soft top). If it wasn't the case, they wouldn't be saying it.

..wait! you forgot the picture!....

Let me try to explain this to you. Having to remove those windows to be in Sunrider position, from a marketing perspective is a, no pun intended, drag. FCA is incentivized to put in the reader's head the ide, if not legal fact, that they, FCA, think it's optional, but cover themselves legally with the "check the owner's manual for complete details," tagline. This legally expresses that these documents you refer to are by definition not the tell all be all of JL operation by FCA's standards, and that to FCA's view of things they are, or might be incomplete.

Just as you want case law, which I'm trying to get, and if I provide you'll likely claim is

* too long to read, and/or

* too hard for a non-attorney to draw conclusions from, or worse, that you'll draw your own wrong conclusions ("legal opinions") from that differed from the court's intention, of course believe whatever you want, but stop this fight until you produce any of the following:

All you need to provide here is this:

* An FCA/MOPAR guide, of any sort, that fails to refer you to the owner's manual for complete details, and has the no window removal needed guiadance, or

* An owner's manual that has you refer to another document for complete details on vehicle operation that...wait for it..circularly refers you back to the owner's manual, and the instructions conflict with one another in each document. Then, you'll have ambiguous instructions, and at least a legal foothold, if not an outright case....you know the very ambiguous instructions that might arise if you put the same guidance in a manual more than once and the versions of that guidance in any way conflict....the same likely reason FCA merely tells you to remove the windows in the Sunrider section of the manual, but doesn't tell you how---leaving you to read the prior section on how to do so. You know the stuff you equate to laziness that's in fact done for legal reasons.

@digitalbliss have you stopped to think, Wwhy does FCA put this disclaimer in all materials about referring to the owner's manual for complete details.....?'

Do you think the fast talking announcer at the end of an audio/video commercial that announces all the restrictions of some sales offer less passes legal muster because it's said fast or comes at the end of the commercial? If course not, or else such offers wouldn't be formatted that way. So the fact that the video you discuss, at its inception, offers information (for a parked rig) that might conflict with the manual is negated by the disclaimer---or have you heard commercials recently where the disclaimer comes first, and the best part of the deal follows after the observer has potentially switched to other content?

Let me assure you, while FCA is by no means flawless, they know what they're doing here and you are believing what you want to believe, which is fine, except your understanding of your legal foothold is in reality precarious at best. This is exactly why its best to retain council when the rubber hits the road: someone not emotionally attached to right or wrong but the law. FCA would fight any serious monetary damages to their last operating day risking the precedent it would set, at best throwing you a stipend and NDA (non-disclosure agreement) to make you go away given their cost of legal council. Such cases might even be funded by a lobby of the automotive industry because the decision could affect all manufacturers.

And since you like to harp on opinions vs facts,

It's not my opinion that all this stuff has the same basic legal waiver attached to it. Why do you think that's the case @digitalbliss, because FCA wants to devote precious "spot time" that they could be selling you with to legaleze?

the fact is the MOPAR produced video says you can run the sunrider with or without windows (as does the softop operational manual and tips insert provided by Jeep).

sigh, both of which FCA/MOPAR acknowledge runs the potential for being incomplete or even wrong, and wants you to cross check with the owner's manual for complete details on the subject matter.

@digitalbliss, in the absence of the disclaimer I'd see your point, but you want to ignore the disclaimer.

My opinion is, that no court is going to side with you when they see that Jeep is continually producing publications that says keeping windows in when using the sunrider is ok.

Me? I'm not FCA. Here's the difference between us @digitalbliss. You can't stand being wrong. You keep on throwing the same basic type of things here in every thread on this stupid subject, as your so called proof, all of which have you refer to the owner's manual for complete details. You're so hooked on being right, rather than the less selfish intent on simply letting readers have informed opinions upon which to make their own decisions that you make up fiction like "the Owner's manual fails to state to remove the windows when in Sunrider position."

And that informed advise is that running in Sunrider with the soft windows installed presents minimal, but almost certainly solely owner/operator risk.

As for me, produce the things I state above and I'll be the first to tell you that my opinion that nothing yet has been produced that has much legal teeth has changed.

You seem to think that these examples you provide are clear. Was the disclaimer at the end to refer to the owner's manual for complete details less clear? Forget me. Do you think you know more about these things than FCA and their attorneys, who review these items prior to publishing?

Legal standards may surprise you and not make sense to you. They've arisen from scholarly people, with, unlike you, no stake in an outcome--other than fairness--seeking to balance the needs of consumer's being protected from gross malice on a company's part on one hand, to protecting basically, if not perfect, compliant companies from being buried in the "quagmire" of law suits that prevent them from contributing to commerce and the economy, in competition and better items in the marketplace at better prices.

Dig up that one item without the disclaimer that advocates window retention. Until then, good counsel wouldn't take your hypothetical case so as to not waste your money. But don't worry, there's plenty of incompetent and/or money hungry ones who will, who will leave you in a worse financial situation than you started in and that motivated you to hypothetically pursue such matters in the first place, playing vulture to a client's desperation. It happens all the time and is part of why many people think of attorney's in disparaging ways.

And maybe they're right.

Sponsored