Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 86Formula
rather then pass the blame on a company because they actually have money to be fined
|
you hit the nail on the head. the first, and only, one to do it. the company was included in the suit because THEY CAN PAY. they can't get $105 million, or even a million, out of the driver. this is the part that galls me.
let's reduce it to that fact. it's the only reason anyone started digging up studies and researching the seats in the first place.
the other one, and i stressed it in the initial post, was the guy hitting them at 70 mph (the van was stopped).
btw, the kid in the child seat should not only be in the rear seat (cars with only two rows of seats) or in the middle row (cars with multiple rows) - but they should be REARWARD FACING. this simple, overlooked, fact could've saved the kids life. it might've killed the front passenger, as they might have impacted the rear of the child seat, but the kid would be alive. i'm sure that was not brought up in court, though. i am not sure the kid would've survived in any case.
thanks for the opinions, everyone. i knew if i brought it up here i would be able to see other angles to this case. it's being appealed, but we all know the company will end up paying for someone else's mistake (the guy driving 70, not paying attention and plowing into the back of a minivan).
oh, and you don't have to be on a highway to do 70 mph.
