which side are you on?

[jims69camaro]

first of all, let me just say that any death is something to mourn - but the death of a child draws up such strong emotions in me that it can cloud my rational judgement. this may be the case with many of you and, i caution you, the following story may pull on your heart strings. further, if you are squeamish or queasy at the idea of the death of a child, maybe you should move on to another thread?

ok, so basically what we've got here is a driver slammed into the back of the baby's grandparents' minivan at 70 mph. that's the first fact that should stand out in your mind throughout this article. hitting anything at 70 mph is probably considered by most to be excessive. i know i wouldn't think the automakers should have to test their vehicles for 70 mph speed crashes. most don't.

ok, so the article is here, and do your best to control the violent emotions that come to the surface as you read it.

so, which side of this argument are you on? should the carmaker have to pay that exhorbitant award, or is this whole thing just simply ridiculous? i tend to lean to the side of ridiculous, only for the fact that if the reckless driver had not hit the minivan at 70 mph, the seat would not have failed. should carmakers have to test for such violent crashes, making sure that none of the equipment in the car fails under such violent conditions? i'm interested in your opinion.

[TheWraith]

if anyone lived in a 70mph crash, that's a miracle in itself and the people who walked away should be licking the president of daimler chrysler's taint.

[Tru2Chevy]

I agree that the fine was quite excessive, and the accident was not Daimler Chrysler's fault. They say in the article that the seatbacks collapsed in every rear-end collision test that was conducted.

I say if the vans were completely unsafe, then they wouldn't have passed the crash regulations set by the NTSB. As long as the van meets the required safety guidelines, how can you fine them for something like this?

- Justin

[SpeakersGoBoom]

I have to say its a tough call. Especially if its true that they knew it happened. I mean, yea, 70mph IS excessive, but its also possible. If it was found that the back seats came down at 150 mph, id say thats nothing to worry about, partially because most cars out today dont go that fast, and partially because anyone who was in that kind of accidnet would be surely dead. I do think the fine was excessive tho. But like i said. the fact that it happened I dont blame chryster for at all. the fact that they KNEW it happed(if its true that they did) is what leads me to believe they should be held SOMEWHAT liable, though the 100+ million dollars seems completely unreasonable

[skorpion317]

this is yet another example of over-litigation in this country. I can understand the grief that the parents must be going through, but it was not DaimlerChrysler's fault that the baby died. It was the reckless driver who slammed into the van who did that. I'm so sick of people spreading the blame around, when it should only be concentrated on the truly guilty party. These are the same type of people who sue gun makers when a gang member shoots someone, or when they spill their hot cup of coffee on themselves and blame the coffee shop who gave it to them. Judges need to start throwing these types of frivolous lawsuits out of court.

[79dizZy28]

i voted for no, 70mph is quite excessive and it just plain shouldn't have happend at that speed

[NJSPEEDER]

70mph is such a crazy speed to hit someone.
when the average rear impact is prolly only in the 20mph or less speed differential i wouldn't expect a car maker to account for a 70mph incident.
if there is evidence that the minivan seats are unsafe at a reasonable speed then i could see where this was coming from, but hitting someone at 70mph is a complete disregard for human life.
what vehicles can anyoen out there think of that could take a shot at 70mph and not have occupants injured? maybe a hummer? maybe a sherman tank?
i think this is jsut another fine example of teh "not my fault" society we are living in today. get a few lawyers together and everyone is to blame regardless of how much negligence lead to the injury.[/rant]

later
tim

any 70mph collision will break the plastic that holds the seat up. its common sense. rather then looking at why the seat broke shouldnt they be looking at why the other driver was doing 70? rather then pass the blame on a company because they actually have money to be fined, they should (as much as i hate to say it) crack down on people speeding. that would be like saying a drunk driver hit someone head on at 120mph and they died... why didnt the air bags save them? BECAUSE THE OTHER DRIVER WAS DOING 120!!!!!!!!

[Amy]

It is a tough call, but if there really has been several or even hundreds of cases covered up about the same thing the least Chrysler could have done was called in a recall-- that way it's on the vehicle owner's hands if it is not repaired. Mostly kids are in the backseat and I'm sure this messed that family up real bad. Granted the wreckless driver should be shelling out some $$$.. but if Chrysler knew about it, didn't recall it, or better yet did not improve their craftsmanship on newer models I kind of think they deserve it.

[Fasterthanyou]

There's some shady stuff going on. What they should do is test the mini-vans and see if they don't comply with federal mandate. If that's the case then it's true that Chrysler should be at fault. This is a law and if any of the accusations towards Chrysler were true (which it sounds like there were) then they should be held accountble. I'd still go after the person that slammed into the back of the mini-van, he doesn't get off that easy!
I voted no but I wasn't in court so I don't have all the facts.
Think about it and re-read the post slowely about how ALL their minivans are failing this federal mandated requirement.... that's something seriously fubar and unfair to other automanufactures that are spending $$$$$$$$ to meet these federal mandates. Chrysler has some criminals in their firm if they truely did fire Sheridan for the reasons stated.
Should we all be driving tanks and speed limits limited to 20mph? No, but should the mini-van be able to CLAIM that it meets federal mandate when it doesn't, NO. Just because they were going 70mph doesn't mean anything. I think the case would have been stronger against Chrysler if they had picked a family that had been effected at a lower speed collision. Does anybody know what speed the mini-vans are tested at?

[Ian]

If ANY car got rear ended by someone doing 70 mph, someone is at the very least get hurt! I don't care if your in an H1 hummer, you'll at least get whiplash or something to that effect. Its very tragic that a baby had to die because of a jack-ass driver, but I really doubt auto makers could make a vehicle that could withstand a 70 mph collision. And if they could, it would cost too much to justify making it. Not to sound cold hearted, but give me a f#*king break! True, the people in the minivan couldn't have done anything about the accident, but don't go blaming the manufacturer because they didn't build a tank of a minivan. this is just like a while ago when some sports star was whipping down the freeway in the snow and rolled his SUV and died. His lawyers blamed whoever it was that built the thing. Cars are much safer now a days compared to 3 decades ago, but they aren't life-preserving means of transportation.

[ShitOnWheels]

I'm torn. On the one hand, 70 is excessive (though not at all impossible given that speed lmits are 65 in some areas, and I know I routinely go well over that speed limit...come to a sudden stop on the highway for whatever reason, the person in front of me, and myself, are screwed), and the driver doing 70 is at fault. But the seats show a history of failure (though the article doesn't say if it's only at high speed crashes or if it happens at lower "reasonable" speeds), and DC should be responsible for not fixing their mistakes.

At this point, beceause not all the facts are known, I'm going to say I need more information, but I do think the fine was excesive. The judgment should pay for medical expenses, lost wages, and "pain and suffering"...no way can all that lead to $105 million. $1million would suffice, maybe $2million to give some room for taxes and fees.

[V]

personally i think it could possibly be chryslers fault along with the other driver, but i just also wanted to say something. everyone seems to think 70 is "excessive" ok well it is, for around here, but remember in the south the higway speed limits are 70mph, where as here they are 55 and 65. also the article did not say if the minivan was stopped or moving, it could have been going 35 or 40 say just getting onto a highway and the van didnt yeild and the other driver, could have been doing the speed limit and couldnt avoid or didnt see the van. I dont remember readin if the other driver was charged with anyhting or even fined, maybe he was determined to not have been at fault and just a tragic accident, thats why they went after daimler-chrysler. I think in any regards, youd need to knwo the whole story, not what the press decides to print. In closing, ( i feel like i'm back in school) car makers should build their cars to withstand crashes liek this, one solution would be to make a non folding middle seat and only the rear folding. or even seperate sturdy latches to lock the seat for kids, latches much stronger than whats in place now, thats even somethign that could be recalled and repaired. its a tough call though

[ShitOnWheels]

Originally Posted by SmokingSS

personally i Â*think it could possibly be chryslers fault along with the other driver, Â*but i just also wanted to say something. Â*everyone seems to think 70 is "excessive" ok well it is, for around here, but remember in the south the higway speed limits are 70mph, where as here they are 55 and 65. also the article did not say if the minivan was stopped or moving, it could have been going 35 or 40 say just getting onto a highway and the van didnt yeild and the other driver, could have been doing the speed limit and couldnt avoid or didnt see the van. Â*I dont remember readin if the other driver was charged with anyhting or even fined, maybe he was determined to not have been at fault and just a tragic accident, thats why they went after daimler-chrysler. Â*I think in any regards, youd need to knwo the whole story, not what the press decides to print. Â*In closing, ( i feel like i'm back in school) car makers should build their cars to withstand crashes liek this, Â*one solution would be to make a non folding middle seat and only the rear folding. or even seperate sturdy latches to lock the seat for kids, latches much stronger than whats in place now, thats even somethign that could be recalled and repaired. Â*its a tough call though

It wasn't the rear or middle seat that folded, it was the front passenger seat that folded backwards which crushed the kids skull behind the front seat.

[Amy]

"In 1992, Sheridan was named to head a "Minivan Safety Leadership Team." The team concluded that the collapsing seatbacks needed to be redesigned. But Chrysler disbanded the team and, a month later, fired Sheridan, testimony indicated."

Just reread that. Let em burn.

[SpeakersGoBoom]

Just as a side note...
I dont know if its law or just suggestion (i think law around here) that kids in car seats need to be in the back seat. Probably has little bearing on this, since i agree. you cant get the whole story from the press release, but just food for thought. its pretty much well known that the front seat is a dangerous place for small kids.

[89 Trans Am WS6]

Just another story of someone getting greedy. a hundred and what million? thats rather excessive i think. and so is a impact of 70 mph in the rear. Ok, maybe that IS the speed limit in the south..but that also means this guy must have been tailigating at 70+ or not paying attn at 70+ then tried to hit the brakes and it was to late and hit the van.

either way you toss the coin, if that guy was driving safely and keeping safe distance and speed, that child wouldnt be dead.

[SpeakersGoBoom]

Anyone read the story in the paper today?!

A guy got drunk at a giants game, drove home, hit and crippled a kid, and now the kids parents are suing the medowlands for serving him the beer.

[Tru2Chevy]

Originally Posted by SpeakersGoBoom

Just as a side note...
I dont know if its law or just suggestion (i think law around here) that kids in car seats need to be in the back seat. Â*Probably has little bearing on this, since i agree. Â*you cant get the whole story from the press release, but just food for thought. Â*its pretty much well known that the front seat is a dangerous place for small kids.

The kid wasn't in the front, the kid was in one of the middle seats. When the van was hit, the front seat broke, allowing the passanger who was in that seat to fly backwards. The passanger's head collided with the child's head, the child's skull was fractured, and the child died the next day.

- Justin

[SpeakersGoBoom]

Oh. well, then I say that it is partially chrystlers fault. If they KNEW there was a problem, and not only did they do nothing, they took steps to cover it up....because like i said before, 70 is excessive, but not impossible.

[jims69camaro]

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.