Sunrider position pointless?

[Kraty1]

I’ve ran at highway speeds in the sunrider position with all the rear windows in without any issues. Yes there was pressure but that was helped by opening windows. Yes it was noisy but not as noisy (or windy) as riding with the freedom panels out on the hardtop. And even with the top all the way up I had pressure, wind and noise with the door windows down as well! I’m usually a stickler on owners manuals and actually read my 2018 from cover to cover and missed this. I was concerned I wasn’t using my Velcro straps at first and have used them since. However my windows are now out and the top is all the way down. I’m hoping not to put the windows back all summer and look forward to safari mode if it rains. I’ve got to say I agree with a few people on this thread that it seems pointless to remove the windows and not go fully down, isn’t that the big point of the sunrider is quick access to the sun?!

Also on a side note, I’ve never seen a thread go this sideways this fast, and I’ve enjoyed every minute of it.

Sponsored

 

[digitalbliss]

In my opinion, it's intended purpose is to aid the motorist in the proper removing of the JL Wrangler soft top, 2 or 4 door, basic or premium soft top, from a closed position to Sunrider, completely open, or removed position.

Put another way I believe FCA's heart was in the right place, they weren't trying to deceive the user, they just contradicted themselves.....

but...

and here's the important part,

for the 10th time,

it does so incorrectly and harmlessly to FCA as a defendant in a case, by both the eyes of the law's having the owner's manual overriding it, as evidenced by it having the reader refer to an owner's manual, that itself is the de facto standard because it itself has no reference to other manuals for owner operation, and because case law has not only supported this as a perfect defense for auto makers, but been the motivation in the past, where judgements were paid out, to include this language.

To the court, if not a disenfranchised owner, intent is irrelevant here unless you have evidence showing that FCA had deliberate attempt to confuse customers in guides with dissimilar information.

So, what you're saying, is that a court of law would rule that the owners manual (which is not even given to the owner in paper form) is the defacto end all be all. Even when accompanied with an actual paper document that is included with the other official documents? You have stated (I think many times) that the "supplement guide"/ "users guide"/ or whatever its called, is "legally irrelevant". But why? By what basis?

Put another way I believe FCA's heart was in the right place, they weren't trying to deceive the user, they just contradicted themselves.....

If the manual was already correct, why would they even need to add anything? What would be the purpose?

 

[Rahneld]

So, what you're saying, is that a court of law would rule that the owners manual (which is not even given to the owner in paper form) is the defacto end all be all. Even when accompanied with an actual paper document that is included with the other official documents? You have stated (I think many times) that the "supplement guide"/ "users guide"/ or whatever its called, is "legally irrelevant". But why? By what basis?

I could answer you "case law," and be done @digitalbliss, but since I've already said that and especially since you've said you've read everything here I'll try a detailed approach.

Be sure to complain about its length. Be sure to complain that I insulted your intelligence.

First off, what is case law? Heck what's statutory law? Well statutory law is what's written, but how it's been interpreted by the courts, which often differs from a law's statutory wording, that's case law, and that often matters more.

Once upon the time somebody followed some auto maker's manual and ended up with damage: maybe to their vehicle, maybe to themselves, maybe both, and maybe others. They litigated, (or got litigated and) the automaker was named in the suit and the lawyers for the automaker, despite offering other documents with the right procedure, had to pay out money. Maybe not the full sum, but enough.

The automaker cried, in so many words "your honor, companies make mistakes, we can't be on the hook for every single communication we publish being perfect, much though we try!"

The court weighed this argument. It realized the sums paid to plantiffs get past on in part to consumers and that these law suits both benefit and hurt consumers. It also had to write decisions that motivated auto makers to be responsible for proof reading.

A balance had to be struck. You know,,, the scales of justice and all...?

The court likely responded, in so many words "Perhaps if the auto manufacturer has one definitive guide they stand by, and then write language in all other content they publish, except this definitive guide, to refer to it for complete information on a particular subject matter, like "vehicle operation" (as opposed to service,) then perhaps the next time the courts face this type of situation it will result in more favorably results for you, auto maker." And thus the auto manual disclaimer was born.

And the automaker went back and did this. And sure enough the next law similar law suit came down the pipe and you know what, the courts sided with the automaker because they had made these changes.

Meanwhile attorneys who represent other auto makers, as good corporate attorneys do, watch the decisions relevant to the industries their clients work in, and they quickly told their executives to act in kind regarding such disclaimers.

And sure enough they did, because a precedent (that's a change in court ruling sometimes based on changing circumstances (in this case disclaimers) was set.)

Now you see @digitalbliss, the courts have an obligation to hand down consistent decisions or else nobody will know what the law is, and commerce will suffer.

I didn't say law has to be static. That would be terrible. It has to be flexible for the times: for things its authors never could have foreseen, but stable: resistant to change and haphazard rulings. Legal entities have a basic right to know how courts will decide things or else how will they know what is right or wrong. How will they gauge the legal risk of a particular executive decision?

And accordingly in future cases, as defense attorneys for automakers demonstrated to the court that they've adopted this disclaimer policy that prior courts have found sound, future courts were and are compelled to honor it barring being presented with admissible and relevant facts that make their case different, and/or demonstratively changing times, that demand new precedent to be set.

Feel free to like it or not. Feel free to ride with your soft windows in and your soft top in Sundrider position. I do from time to time. Know that if your actions cause damage, to yourself, your rig, others, or their rigs, as much as I see this remotely possible, you'll be on the hook for repairs and have limited ability to litigate FCA for warranty repairs or the costs of your decision's affects on other people's possible bodily or property harm.

All that's how it works. : - )

 

[Jebiruph]

Here are the soft top warnings from the 2018 Owners Manual. There are several, but none of them say " Do not drive with the Sunrider open and the soft top windows installed". The lack of that specific warning in the presence of other warnings implies the Jeep isn't concerned about the safety issues of leaving the windows in with the Sunrider open.

 

[Rahneld]

Here are the soft top warnings from the 2018 Owners Manual. There are several, but none of them say " Do not drive with the Sunrider open and the soft top windows installed". The lack of that specific warning in the presence of other warnings implies the Jeep isn't concerned about the safety issues of leaving the windows in with the Sunrider open.

Jerry, forum God I respect, I can't agree with this legally.

FCA would argue that they never had to warn people to not drive with the Sunrider open and the soft top windows installed because you don't have to warn somebody to do something they've already told them in the owner's manual, that if they follow, and they are duty bound to, or ignore at their own risk, they can't possibly be doing.

FCA would win.

 

[Rahneld]

Wait, I see it coming. "Case law isn't fair. It gives courts leeway to invent law."

True and good point. But it balances (and law is a balance) keeping law relevant, which in a democracy gets written far too slow, as politicians debate wording (in theory an important thing,) for the pace it which times change.

 

[ViperJon]

Know when to let it go.

 

[digitalbliss]

@Rahneld I would quote you but your posts are too effing long and ramble on about things that don't matter.

Your entire argument is precariously perched upon the thought that the owners manual is the end all, be all.That any other documentation, if at odds with the UM is forfit and not "valid". If the instructions in the 2018-2019 UM for softop operation and sunrider mode we're sufficient and correct in the UM, then MOPAR would not have included (physical copies!!!!) of enhanced/updated instructions with newly built Jeeps. I think its abundantly clear than new revisions, addendums, additions, and supplements supersede the previous instructions.

So I'll go ahead and say, what I've been trying to slowly lead you in to. YOU ARE WRONG.
Obviously, MOPAR changed the instructions. The picture of the new instructions are posted here. So have fun with your Jeep, wear your softop how you like.

 

[Rahneld]

@Rahneld I would quote you but your posts are too effing long and ramble on about things that don't matter.

Examples @digitalbliss--show me extraneous things. I'll tell you why I had to include them as you continue to press questions already asked and answered here. Words that simplify things for you take up space. Sorry.

To point: you asked me a question already explained as to why the owner's manual trumps others (case law.) I had to dumb it down for you. That takes time. You're welcome.

Your entire argument is precariously perched...

First, it wasn't an "argument" it was an explanation. This is how our system of law works. What's precarious is opinion that what you think, void of evidence, trumps these facts.

These aren't my opinions: they're facts based on the legal opinions of courts handed down for years, whose right to form such opinion is granted and explained in the below link.

Stop fighting with me. Go read. Learn. I'm not researching the actual cases for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

(Hint: rebuttal me with how "off in the weeds" as I am forced to take tangents to try to explain to you why, metaphorically, digging your heels in is wasted energy on your part.)

That any other documentation, if at odds with the UM is forfit and not "valid".

​

Close @digitalbliss, but not quite my sentiments. Let's rewrite the above, which I think is just a typo on your part, changing the UM or user's manual I think you meant, with owner's manual.

Sigh....one more try. @digitalbliss , you seem to be talking in generalities about things like more recent technical service bulletins superseding prior ones. That's an entire different thing where the disclaimers on them expressly say how "this bulletin supersedes all prior ones on this subject matter, etc., etc.."

In this case, that other documentation almost invariably refers you to the owner's manual.
The owner's manual doesn't not refer you back to these supplements or any other manual on vehicle operation, just maybe vehicle service: where things like the technical bulletins that you've confused with glove box inserts and supplemental manuals come to play.

Numerous cases of plaintiffs bringing suit because they followed wrong automaker instructions and incurred damages, where those instructions have them refer to the owner's manual for complete/further/more details (that in turn refers to no other manual for operation, if not service) have proven to pass the litmus test for auto manufacturers to be indemnified from paying damages.

Is this airtight? Of course not. Nobody is sure how a court will decide a case, there's only odds.

Hint @digitalbliss. Fight me on how you didn't even get a manual. I'll cite case law that has decided in this internet age, with said documents readily available on the internet, that your lack of physical receipt of same likely won't matter.

Can this fact be used along with others to sway a court? Maybe; but unlikely so all on its own.

If the instructions in the 2018-2019 UM for softop operation and sunrider mode we're sufficient and correct in the UM, then MOPAR would not have included (physical copies!!!!) of enhanced/updated instructions with newly built Jeeps.

No. Things aren't necessarily the way you say simply because you reason they should be that way @digitalbliss. And again, I refer to the owner's manual; you to the user's manual, which I consider a thinner and legally subordinate manual to the owner's manual.

Simple and stupid: no legal department would approve 1)not only the wrong instructions, that the supplemental card is but 2) even corrected wrong ones, like you seem to think is the case here because you think the owner's manual is wrong, to introduce instructions that run the risk of the owner/operator incurring more risk: (i.e. to keep the windows in) unless that risk was compensated by additional sales.

You could be entirely correct @digitalbliss. The point is that FCA will make the claim, and win cases claiming the owner's manual the overruling body for vehicle operation.

@Firemadz : see my double negative above? The point is it can be understood.

These supplements appear @digitalbliss because other auto makers are using them and FCA doesn't want to fall short, and because people don't read the owner's manual, as much as, if push comes to shove, courts have shown plaintiffs to be bound by it even in the presence of contravening or more currently published supplements with "owner's manual" disclaimers on them. FCA would prefer to reduce disenfranchised customers who screwed up an install, and incur damages because they didn't RTFM (read the manual) despite such owner's legal claims against FCA likely not worth their weight in salt.

I think its abundantly clear than new revisions, addendums, additions, and supplements supersede the previous instructions.

You think. Great. Let's see what courts (not what I) say and think. They've ruled that updates to procedures, such as technical service bulletins, not operator manuals like the owner's manual, user's guide or glove box inserts, especially with language akin to "this bulletin supersedes all others, etc.) do in fact adhere to your above assumptions.

The problem in short though is that user's guides and glove box inserts, etc. aren't deemed new revisions, addendums, additions and/or supplements that supersede the owner's manual.

So I'll go ahead and say, what I've been trying to slowly lead you in to. YOU ARE WRONG.

(Maybe this will get him to stop.)

Please don't quote this following sentence outside its surrounding content @digitalbliss.

Ready?

"You are right @digitalbliss. I am wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are right. Your opinions trump case law. They are more important. I should have realized that, and I am wrong, merely digging myself deeper and deeper into the quicksand thinking that fact and clear explanation could sway you. I am eternally sorry."
​

Obviously, MOPAR changed the instructions.

Champ, you might have a case if those instructions didn't reference the owner's manual for complete details or if the disclaimer said "these instructions supersede the manual."

That "refer to the owner's manual" language is there for case law reasons, and it legally says, in so manual evidentiary words: "the owner's manual is the de facto standard should anything said here contradict it."

The picture of the new instructions are posted here.

​

No kidding, really? The ones on the glove box card I linked for you about "17 posts ago" so you could read the disclaimer. Those?​

So have fun with your Jeep, wear your softop how you like.

You too.

 

[digitalbliss]

@Rahneld thank you for your opinion, because that is purely what it is.

For everyone else, the current MOPAR instructions included in your new Jeep specifically say to skip the window removal steps if using sunrider only.

 

[Jebiruph]

The supplemental instructions that do not require the removal of the windows for Sunrider down are provided with the soft top (per @Firemadz), so they are provided by Bestop, the manufacturer of the soft top, not Jeep. The person responsible for the instructions in the Owners Manual may have never even opened a Sunrider soft top. Bestop also sells their own soft tops with zipperless windows and I couldn't find any related Sunrider warnings on their site.

Based on my literary convenience theory, I compared the JK Owners Manual to the JL Owners Manual. The JK manual is 512 pages with 62 pages of soft top operation, including a separate section for Sunrider operation. The JL manual is 613 pages with 44 pages of soft top operation and no separate section for Sunrider operation. My point is, due to pressure to reduce the size of the manual, the separate Sunrider instructions were removed from the JL manual and incorporated into the lowering the soft top instructions. This resulted in the (unintended, I believe) Owners Manual instruction sequence to remove the windows before opening the Sunrider. A literary convenience to reduce the over size of the manual.

The JK does have the following warning about driving with the Sunrider open. (See the NOTE).

But also has this warning to not drive with the rear window open unless the side windows removed.

 

[digitalbliss]

^^^^ding ding ding... Some one is going to get a chicken dinner!

 

[Jebiruph]

Who needs @Rahneld when I can argue with myself. To @Rahnelds previously stated point, no speed warning is needed if the instructions state to remove the windows. Maybe this NOTE in the JK manual wasn't included in the JL manual because the windows are supposed to be already removed.

 

[Rahneld]

@Rahneld thank you for your opinion, because that is purely what it is.

For everyone else, the current MOPAR instructions included in your new Jeep specifically say to skip the window removal steps if using sunrider only.

You've circled the wrong thing @digitalbliss. Rest assured, I am well aware of this card and what it says. I have repeatedly acknowledged that @Firemadz claim that this card says that window removal is...I will go so far to say, "wrong," even if more accurately stated, "not indicated or required."

Here's what you need to do. Slide that yellow pen over a tad. You see where it says "Please see owner's manual for complete details" …?

That language allows FCA to claim the owners manual, which beyond a shadow of a doubt says to remove the windows before taking the top to Sunrider position or beyond, the governing standard in court.

I don't know exactly what you are trying to point out despite making it clear what I'm trying to: that is you leave the windows in, and they are damaged or cause damage to other things or people, that you don't stand a snowball in hells chance in winning a case against FCA for their repair, or the damages the windows caused other people or property.

@digitalbliss , what I didn't say is that FCA may be willing to give you $100 if you sign a non-disclosure agreement under such circumstances to simply get your relentless pursuit of this lost cause off their backs...

...that or a restraining order.

 

[Rahneld]

The supplemental instructions that do not require the removal of the windows for Sunrider down are provided with the soft top (per @Firemadz), so they are provided by Bestop,]

There's no proof that it's Bestop's Jerry, is there? Even so, for very good legal reason, as you probably know, ask Bestop anything about the OEM soft tops, be in parts, operation, etc., and their reps will kindly refer you to FCA for further details. The running line for Bestop, which passes legal muster here, and one I've personally heard is, "while we make the top for FCA, it is FCA's product to instruct you on using, repairing, or replacing."

And barring all that, we are still back to the legal disclaimer on the card that refers you to FCA's owner's manual for complete details.

The person responsible for the instructions in the Owners Manual may have never even opened a Sunrider soft top.

And then again, they may have. We'll never know and FCA will only be duty bound in this case to stand by their manual, not answer questions regarding who wrote it, and under whose advise, and with whose review before publishing. Usually, engineering, copy writing/publications, and legal get together to do such stuff, but at least in court it matters not.

In cases where documentation proves harmful, yes, evidence can be permitted at times that pierces the "corporate vale" to disclose internal procedures, and bring to the witness stand those involved in a product's creation. But here nobody's soft windows ever got damaged, fell off, or fell off and interfered with other motorists and possibly caused property or bodily harm when detached, left at home, or placed in the JL using FCA approved stowage methods.

Bestop also sells their own soft tops with zipperless windows and I couldn't find any related Sunrider warnings on their site.

Perhaps Jerry you are trying to make the case for what is the correct procedure apart from how a court would decide. That's fine. My focus is how the matter would get litigated. By design, FCA owns and has full control over the OEM soft tops. The fact that Bestop or some other company makes them is irrelevant to the court, as it's FCA's product.

Need I tell you Jerry, much of the Wrangler is made by others in the automotive industry for FCA with specialties in everything from glass (Corning) to stuff under the rig (Dana.)

Bestop would likely be able to get themselves out of any legal action where they're named in action against these OEM softtops.

Their own tops: sure. And might FCA litigate Bestop in turn if they had to pay out claims on the OEM tops they (FCA) stand by: you bet.

Based on my literary convenience theory, I compared the JK Owners Manual to the JL Owners Manual. The JK manual is 512 pages with 62 pages of soft top operation, including a separate section for Sunrider operation. The JL manual is 613 pages with 44 pages of soft top operation and no separate section for Sunrider operation.

​

Your color commentary, although appreciated, may be apart from legal decisions.

Perhaps you never intended otherwise.

As to no separate section for Sunrider operation, my 2018 manual has just such a section beginning on page 114 entitled, "Lowering the Soft Top Into Sunrider Position." I understand (I think from something you may have written above, but somebody) the 2019 manual is similar in format.

I'm willing to split hairs with you Jerry that in this section I refer it expressly reads, as its first step "After removing the rear window and quarter panel windows, move to the front of the vehicle," and this operation of window removal is covered in the immediately prior section, so you can't find the full instructions in the "Lowering the Soft Top Into Sunrider Position" section, but I highly doubt that this fact would amount to anything in court.

​

My point is, due to pressure to reduce the size of the manual, the separate Sunrider instructions were removed from the JL manual and incorporated into the lowering the soft top instructions.

Regardless of motivation (e.g. manual size) as stated above, the Sunrider instructions are very much in the owner's manual. Are we talking about some other manual, and if so, does it supersede the owner's manual?

​

This resulted in the (unintended, I believe) Owners Manual instruction sequence to remove the windows before opening the Sunrider. A literary convenience to reduce the over size of the manual.

FCA would argue, "if Mr. Jerry was correct, why, as our first instructions under the "Lowering the Soft Top Into Sunrider Position" section would it say to remove all 3 soft top windows?"

​

The JK does have the following warning about driving with the Sunrider open. (See the NOTE).

But also has this warning to not drive with the rear window open unless the side windows removed.

Again, useful historical color commentary Jerry, but the JK manual and what's in it would likely never see the light of day in court proceedings. Different Wrangler, different instructions.

FCA's attorney would argue, speaking in metaphors, "Your honor, the JK manual isn't admissible and relevant anymore than the owner of a second generation corrected Corvair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvair who kills a pedestrian can blame Chevrolet because the first generation model may have had construction faults.

And that argument would be sustained. : - )

Sponsored