[home][rumors and news][model release matrix][dealer network][desktop calendar][exhaust notes][tov forums][links][search][sponsors][garage][login]

Tire Rack Upgrade Garage
 Search for a Dealer:
 Canadian Flag US Flag
 Honda Acura
 ZIP  
2020 Accords already appearing in dealer order system
More.......................
Is Acura going to reveal a new Legend at Pebble Beach this year?
More.......................
Honda reports February Sales
More.......................
Honda revealing production RWD prototype of Urban EV Concept at the Geneva International Motorshow
More.......................
BBC: Honda set to close Swindon factory in 2022
More.......................
Nikkei: Honda enters agreement with CATL for battery supply contract through 2027
More.......................
Acura Marks 30 Years Since Debut of Iconic NSX Supercar
More.......................
American Honda reports January sales
More.......................
Today's Reading Links --> Re: How Acura orchestrated a massive turnaround with a renewed focus on design
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Honda in talks about pulling Acura out of China
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: The glory days
Join Discussion......
Amateur Racing & Driving --> Re: Toronto Motorsports Park - 10th Gen Civic Si Track day
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Honda/Acura Gossip
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Honda / Acura Shakeup?
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: Colton Herta Becomes Youngest Indycar Winner Ever
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Lamborghini Urus
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Honda Acura shake-up caused by logistics
Join Discussion......
Odyssey --> Re: JDM Odyssey Type R
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: 2020 Sonata
Join Discussion......
Civic --> Re: I chose the Si over the GTI
Join Discussion......
Odyssey --> Re: Shy away from ‘05-‘10 VCM Odysseys or NBD?
Join Discussion......
HR-V/Vezel --> Re: European HRV with 1.5 L VTEC Turbo engine coming Spring 2019
Join Discussion......
Service Experiences --> Re: BEWARE OF HILLSIDE HONDA
Join Discussion......
2019 Honda Passport PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
2019 Acura NSX PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Acura ILX
Read Article....................
2019 Acura ILX PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Honda Pilot
Read Article....................
2019 Honda Pilot PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................

[fancy] [flat] [simple]
TOV Forums > General Talk > > Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit

Go to:

Viewing Threshold (What is this?)

Thread Page - 1 [2]
Author
  Post New Thread
DCR
Profile for DCR
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-19-2019 17:31
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Reading the original petition now, I'm finding it hard to believe this won't get tossed in appeal.

If we focus only on the Honda piece, I have a few comments.

In the independent study, 50 of 53 people incorrectly buckled the seat belt. Though the petition does not technically state the injured woman was drunk, it is highly suggestive of that fact. Were the 53 people in the independent study also drunk if that was the case? That sounds ridiculous on one hand but on the other, decision making, attention span and motor skill is affected by that. Tossing that aside, if 3 people could correctly latch the belt without instruction, and the crash occurred with one of them in the seat, would the vehicle have been deemed safe?

The constant references to Honda releasing an unsafe vehicle due to this singular design element is frankly ridiculous to me. If Sarah was sitting in the passenger front seat and fastened her seat belt, but then slid the shoulder strap over her head and behind her, and the waist belt caused a similar effect where her head hit the windshield, is Honda liable? Both scenarios are an incorrectly used seat belt, when a perfectly functioning one is supplied.

https://www.fortworthinjuryattorneyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/233/2017/01/Milburn-v.-Uber-lawsuit.pdf


VIII. CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST HONDA DEFENDANTS
A. CAUSE NO. 5: Strict Liability and Negligence Claims

66. Plaintiffs incorporate all prior paragraphs in support of this cause.

67. Sarah Milburn acted responsibly by using the seatbelt in the Honda Odyssey (the “Vehicle”). Unfortunately for Sarah, the Honda was designed in an unsafe manner and was not crashworthy. As a result, she was profoundly injured when a foreseeable collision occurred.

68. The Vehicle at issue in this suit was designed, manufactured, constructed, marketed
and/or distributed by and through the agents and/or representatives of Honda.

69. Honda was regularly engaged in the business of supplying or placing products, like the Vehicle in question, in the stream of commerce for use by the consuming public, including by Uber and
passengers like Sarah. Further, such conduct was solely for commercial purposes.

70. The Vehicle remained unchanged from the time it was originally manufactured, distributed and sold by Honda until it reached the point where Sarah was a passenger and ultimately led to her injuries. Stated another way, the Vehicle was defective and in an unreasonably dangerous condition at all times until it ultimately caused Sarah’s injuries and damages.

71. At the time the Vehicle was placed into the stream of commerce, it was, or should have been, reasonably expected and foreseeable that it would be used by persons such as Sarah in the manner and application in which it was being used at the time Sarah suffered her catastrophic injuries.

72. There were no mandatory safety standards or regulations adopted and promulgated by the federal government or an agency of the federal government that were applicable to the Vehicle at
the time of manufacture and that governed the product risk that allegedly caused harm. Alternatively, the design of the Vehicle did not comply with mandatory safety standards or regulations adopted by the
federal government that were applicable to the vehicle model at the time of the manufacture and governed the risks that caused Sarah’s injuries. Again, in the alternative, in the event that such standards
were in effect, and they were complied with, they were nonetheless inadequate to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury or danger, or the manufacturer, before or after marketing the Vehicle,
withheld or misrepresented the information or material relevant to the federal government’s or agencies’ determination of adequacy of the safety standards or regulations at issue in the action.

73. With respect to the design of the Vehicle, at the time it left the control of Honda, there were safer alternative designs. Specifically, there were alternative designs that, in reasonably probability, would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of injury to Sarah. Furthermore, such safer alternative designs were economically and technologically feasible at the time the product left the control
of the Honda by the application of existing or reasonably achievable scientific knowledge without substantially impairing the utility of the vehicle model or otherwise increasing the risk of injury.

74. At the time the Vehicle left the control of Honda, it was defective and unreasonably dangerous in that it was not adequately designed, manufactured or marketed to minimize the risk of injury. By way of example and without limitation, the product in question was unreasonably and dangerously defective because the seatbelt failed to appropriately restrain Sarah, causing her catastrophic injuries. Further, the pre-sale and post-sale warnings and instructions were inadequate to remedy the unreasonable danger.

75. The above unreasonably dangerous defects in the Vehicle in question were a proximate and producing cause of Sarah’s damages.

76. Honda breached its duty of care and was thus negligent by:

a. Designing and distributing the Vehicle model with a design standard that was intended to meet the minimum government regulations, instead of safely designing the vehicle to reasonably minimize injuries in foreseeable accidents;

b. Failing to adequately monitor the performance of its vehicles in the field to ensure that they were reasonably minimizing injuries and deaths in foreseeable accidents;

c. Failing to adequately test the vehicle model to ensure that it would be reasonably safe in foreseeable accidents;

d. Failing to adequately test the vehicle model's seatbelt system to ensure that it would perform as intended and be reasonably safe in foreseeable accidents;

e. Designing and manufacturing the Vehicle with a third-row seatbelt system that was defective and dangerous;

f. Designing and manufacturing the Vehicle with a seatbelt system that was defective and dangerous;

g. Failing to provide adequate warnings and instructions with the Vehicle; or

h. Failing to provide adequate post-sale warnings, recalls or retrofits after Honda knew, or should have known, that the vehicle model was defective and unreasonably dangerous.


TonyEX
Profile for TonyEX
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-19-2019 18:01
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
So according to this jury, American Honda was guilty of making a car that was not drunk-moron-careless proof.

As I keep writing... we got too many lawyers in the USA and too many cuddled Snowflakes that feel that accidents don't happen and the people should never be held responsible for their own stupidity or carelessness.

notyper
Profile for notyper
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-19-2019 18:18
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
HondaForever wrote:
HondaForever wrote:

This is not addressed specifically to you, CPD, just an opportunity to make a general point. Don't you find it interesting that the very people who complain the most about government overreach and want the government out of our lives are the very first people to try and hide behind the skirt of government when there is a problem?




Amazing! Whenever the insults start flying you know logical analysis has ceased! You ought to be better than this SC.



I left a piece of your original post in the above quote. If you weren't looking for trouble with that passive aggressive bullshit, then I'm a little green man from Mars.

If you want to snipe with comments like that, I drop a grenade down your shorts (metaphorically speaking for the mentally numb out there, I'm not going anywhere near his shorts - I'd throw the grenade from 30 yards).

As for the rest, you've once again asserted one thing as proof of something else that is completely non-related. Insulting you does not preclude a factual, logical refutation of your ill-constructed argument. It simply allows me to tweak your nose while boxing your ears, so to speak. I'm efficient like that.

SC

fcd
Profile for fcd
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-19-2019 20:21
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
All, I’m a bit confused. The van in question is a 2011 Odyseey which seems like it would have the same belts as my 2012. The way the article describes it as being used seems entirely wrong. The anchor for the lap belt is clearly not designed for everyday use. It requires the use of the belt buckle to release it. The way it should be used is when the rear seat is put up it’s attached in the operable position. When you put the seat down you have to take the other buckle and insert it into a tiny slot in the anchor.

While the woman should have recognized that the belt was not properly attached, I don’t know that I would expect her to know how to use it. The anchor is pretty hidden when a belt is not attached. A larger person might well hide it with their body.

To me it’s very clearly the Uber driver’s fault for not properly installing the rear seat. (Not to mention getting in a wreck) How Honda’s attorneys were unable to convince a jury is beyond me. Maybe it’s a case of the jury thinking “maybe I’ll get mine” or what can also happen is the ‘arrogance’ of the corporate attorneys makes the jury mad.

HondaForever
Profile for HondaForever
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-19-2019 20:27
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
notyper wrote:
HondaForever wrote:
HondaForever wrote:

This is not addressed specifically to you, CPD, just an opportunity to make a general point. Don't you find it interesting that the very people who complain the most about government overreach and want the government out of our lives are the very first people to try and hide behind the skirt of government when there is a problem?




Amazing! Whenever the insults start flying you know logical analysis has ceased! You ought to be better than this SC.



I left a piece of your original post in the above quote. If you weren't looking for trouble with that passive aggressive bullshit, then I'm a little green man from Mars.

If you want to snipe with comments like that, I drop a grenade down your shorts (metaphorically speaking for the mentally numb out there, I'm not going anywhere near his shorts - I'd throw the grenade from 30 yards).

As for the rest, you've once again asserted one thing as proof of something else that is completely non-related. Insulting you does not preclude a factual, logical refutation of your ill-constructed argument. It simply allows me to tweak your nose while boxing your ears, so to speak. I'm efficient like that.

SC


Ok, buddy! Let's take it outside!

CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-19-2019 22:38
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
HondaForever wrote:
Dren wrote:
I found it both logical and insultfully refreshing.

Then that's your problem.

I suppose you've never seen the expression "Meets OR EXCEEDS all applicable federal standards"? That is the difference between ordinary and GREAT companies.



This is a horrible take. "Great" companies have nothing to do with this. We're talking about the jury essentially claiming that Honda's seatbelt design, despite meeting federal standards and is common in minivans, is defective. There are a lot of mediocre companies who have not faced this kind of judgement because they've met minimum federal requirements.

CB77 wrote:
"We can't do that, because if we did, and then we later get into a lawsuit over one of our earlier-built models (without the improvement I had suggested) Honda will be attacked by the plaintiff attorneys, saying 'Why didn't you have this safety feature on the earlier models?' "



Your manager is full of shit. As engineers we make safety improvements all the time. We have a change control process designed specifically for making improvements, including to safety characteristics. Either that or Honda has a different culture than I'd expect from a OEM.

CB77
Profile for CB77
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-20-2019 07:25
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
HondaForever wrote:
Dren wrote:
I found it both logical and insultfully refreshing.

Then that's your problem.

I suppose you've never seen the expression "Meets OR EXCEEDS all applicable federal standards"? That is the difference between ordinary and GREAT companies.



This is a horrible take. "Great" companies have nothing to do with this. We're talking about the jury essentially claiming that Honda's seatbelt design, despite meeting federal standards and is common in minivans, is defective. There are a lot of mediocre companies who have not faced this kind of judgement because they've met minimum federal requirements.

CB77 wrote:
"We can't do that, because if we did, and then we later get into a lawsuit over one of our earlier-built models (without the improvement I had suggested) Honda will be attacked by the plaintiff attorneys, saying 'Why didn't you have this safety feature on the earlier models?' "



Your manager is full of shit. As engineers we make safety improvements all the time. We have a change control process designed specifically for making improvements, including to safety characteristics. Either that or Honda has a different culture than I'd expect from a OEM.



You do not understand how conservative Honda's legal dept was...thus, my manager's admonition. The ATC debacle worsened that situation.




HondaForever
Profile for HondaForever
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-20-2019 07:43
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CPD, you write : "This is a horrible take. "Great" companies have nothing to do with this. We're talking about the jury essentially claiming that Honda's seatbelt design, despite meeting federal standards and is common in minivans, is defective. There are a lot of mediocre companies who have not faced this kind of judgement because they've met minimum federal requirements. "

I believe you misunderstood my statement. I was not implying that Honda is not a "great" company. My point was that ANY company that ONLY designs to the MINIMUM standards would be hard put to see itself as a "great" company.

And, in fact, I did point out that on numerous occasions, Honda has tended to exceed the minimum standards required at the time, the rear view camera example being one.

My intent was to point out that Federal standards are the MINIMUM standards and as the NHTSA brochure itself says:

"These FMVSS are regulations written in terms of minimum safety performance requirements for motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. These requirements are specified in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of crashes occurring as a result of the design, construction, or performance of motor vehicles and is also protected against unreasonable risk of death or injury in the event crashes do occur."

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/fmvss-quickrefguide-hs811439.pdf

HondaForever
Profile for HondaForever
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-20-2019 07:54
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
HondaForever wrote:
CPD, you write : "This is a horrible take. "Great" companies have nothing to do with this. We're talking about the jury essentially claiming that Honda's seatbelt design, despite meeting federal standards and is common in minivans, is defective. There are a lot of mediocre companies who have not faced this kind of judgement because they've met minimum federal requirements. "

I believe you misunderstood my statement. I was not implying that Honda is not a "great" company. My point was that ANY company that ONLY designs to the MINIMUM standards would be hard put to see itself as a "great" company.

And, in fact, I did point out that on numerous occasions, Honda has tended to exceed the minimum standards required at the time, the rear view camera example being one.

My intent was to point out that Federal standards are the MINIMUM standards and as the NHTSA brochure itself says:

"These FMVSS are regulations written in terms of minimum safety performance requirements for motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. These requirements are specified in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of crashes occurring as a result of the design, construction, or performance of motor vehicles and is also protected against unreasonable risk of death or injury in the event crashes do occur."

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/fmvss-quickrefguide-hs811439.pdf


The regulations go on to say:

"These requirements are specified in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of crashes occurring as a result of the design, construction, or performance of motor vehicles and is also protected against unreasonable risk of death or injury in the event crashes do occur."

The debate therefore is about the word "unreasonable". Clearly multiple people on this platform have different interpretations of how to apply the "unreasonable" test to the situation here.

That is what we have a legal system for. Any of you have a better idea as to how to go about establishing that "unreasonable" standard other than in a court of law? You and I may disagree about the outcome of this case, but the process used here is the process that has governed all legal disputes since the Republic was founded and before...


CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-20-2019 11:08
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
If following the rules to a tee is deemed insufficient, then change the rules. Don't punish the people who follow them.

It's hard to imagine that Honda won't appeal this.

notyper
Profile for notyper
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-20-2019 17:00
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
HondaForever wrote:

My intent was to point out that Federal standards are the MINIMUM standards and as the NHTSA brochure itself says:

"These FMVSS are regulations written in terms of minimum safety performance requirements for motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. These requirements are specified in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of crashes occurring as a result of the design, construction, or performance of motor vehicles and is also protected against unreasonable risk of death or injury in the event crashes do occur."

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/fmvss-quickrefguide-hs811439.pdf


The regulations go on to say:

"These requirements are specified in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of crashes occurring as a result of the design, construction, or performance of motor vehicles and is also protected against unreasonable risk of death or injury in the event crashes do occur."

The debate therefore is about the word "unreasonable". Clearly multiple people on this platform have different interpretations of how to apply the "unreasonable" test to the situation here.

That is what we have a legal system for. Any of you have a better idea as to how to go about establishing that "unreasonable" standard other than in a court of law? You and I may disagree about the outcome of this case, but the process used here is the process that has governed all legal disputes since the Republic was founded and before...




What is so unreasonable about requiring a person to fasten their seatbelt? Is it because the rear belt requires two steps to fasten instead of one if someone has disconnected the shoulder belt? Have we reached full idiocracy such that instructions sets >1 step are too much? Is it because inserting Tab A into Slot B is too difficult in the dark when you're drunk?

Look, if they had made the case that, say, you could insert the seatbelt tab and a reasonable person would believe it was fastened when it wasn't (heard a click, slight tug didn't release the belt, but it comes free in a crash), they'd have a case. If they'd proven that, say, it was easy to insert the shoulder belt into the wrong slot and screw things up, they might have a case.

But when the plaintiff in this case simply didn't use the shoulder belt at all, didn't make any attempt to get the driver to show her how to use it, you can't say the product is defective, dangerous or unreasonable. You can't award someone damages because they _didn't_ use your product, let along use it correctly. That's absurd to the nth degree.

SC


Grace141
Profile for Grace141
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-20-2019 23:58
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
The self-reliant person that I am believes the Uber driver should have either had the seat belt ready to go or helped the lady buckle the seat belt properly.

The technical side of me though thinks of the four cars we've now owned which have had the Honda 2-piece center position seat belt for the back seat. It's an example of good engineering which is spoiled by how it is implemented. Drawing the shoulder belt down from the roof of the car (the CUV design) and correctly buckling it to the lap belt isn't an obvious, intuitive task. When correctly stowed in the roof mount housing, it doesn't even look like part of the seat belt. Effective safety devices are those which not only work well but are simple and intuitive to use. I like the idea of the seat belt light being on and the chime sounding when the lap belt is buckled but the shoulder belt isn't.

But, assigning blame to Honda in this case just seems like a slippery slope.

Grace141
Profile for Grace141
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2019 00:33
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
The description in this ruling of the lap and shoulder belt combinations to be used for the rear seat positions is interesting.

https://one.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/Anton_FRNov16.html

The use of the word "integral" makes me curious if a 2-piece belt combination actually complies with the law.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-27-2019 01:33
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
The level of mental gymnastics required here to absolve stupid people from being stupid really is a sight to behold.

So here are a few thoughts as a safety guy:

1) If a person is reasonably provided with instructions on how to use their equipment, is the manufacturer's fault if the owner/operator chooses to not utilize those materials? Is it reasonable to expect Honda to have to send a representative out to show every single human that might ever touch their product to have an in person educational session on how to properly use their equipment? Further, should this education include teaching on 100% of Honda vehicles ever made? What happens, say 5 years down the road when said previously educated individual goes to enter a Honda product and can't remember the specifics of that model?

I mean this isn't even a slippery slope. It is a logical cliff into a mental black hole. It doesn't even approach the realm of reality.

At what point are human beings reasonably expected to be able to successfully operate a simple piece of equipment when provided with clear and logical instructions, multiple warning labels and a person operating the car that probably knows how to use it? Especially when said item is fundamentally similar to every other said item mounted in a car for the last 40-50 years? It isn't like a rational human shouldn't be able to figure out that it needs 3 anchor points. They don't even have to have a physics degree, they just have to be able to Cro Magnum match things that are alike. Literally "OOH OOH Rock. OOH OOH Rock! ROCK SMASH!" We built fucking pyramids with sticks and stones for crying out loud.

2) I see a lot of "minimum standard" talk in here, which raises a couple of thoughts:

First, did anybody verify the test results of that seatbelt with the "minimum" standard set by NHTSA? It is quite possible that Honda did, in fact, outperform the "minimum" standard when the device was used properly. If they did, then that pretty much disproves ANY suggestion that Honda should have "exceeded" the Federally mandated standard because they may have and they STILL lost the lawsuit.

Second, isn't the sole purpose of paying a government Trillions of dollars per year to develop standards to make sure that "people" are kept safe? So if the government's "minimum standard" didn't guarantee safety, then how is it a minimum acceptable standard? If the standard was met and the person still died, isn't it a failure of a multi-billion dollar governmental agency? I find it amazing how far some can bend over backwards to support it being Honda's fault because "evil profit driven corporation that only cares about money" but then puts a complete logical blinder on when a BIGGER government agency developed the standard that failed...

Pretty hard to argue that this is even remotely Honda's fault without simultaneously acknowledging that trillions of dollars worth of government also failed.

3) There is no universe were design and use can be conveniently changed to benefit logic.

Modern cars are designed to be "pedestrian safe," so by the logic of some in this thread, I should be able to drive through town hitting people at will, and if they die, then it is also Honda's fault. I mean, after all, they DID make the car pedestrian friendly and they should have clearly exceeded the "minimum standard" to ensure any casualties didn't happen...

I mean, it couldn't POSSIBLY be that the lady using the seatbelt was drunk and stupid and the driver was negligent because they aren't multi-billion dollar entities... It also isn't possible that trillions of dollars of government failed to keep us safe because that would be to openly admit that trillions of dollars of government might not always be the solution.

Here is a good question... Go google pictures of the Southwest flight last year that blew an engine and killed the lady from Wells Fargo. Look specifically at the oxygen mask pictures (gotta TWEET my death YO!) where at least several people have those masks improperly fastened. Is Boeing liable because they didn't design an idiot proof enough butter container that literally wants to sit on your mouth and nose when you put it on your face? Should they be solely responsible for educating people that you breath through your mouth and nose? Is Southwest liable because they didn't provide clear enough instructions that have literally been dumbed down to pictograms (which are ALWAYS followed by a live performance) that put on a convenient, color coded card placed a few inches in front of their faces? Brings new meaning to the term "mouth breather" I guess.

I mean I'm sorry, but this is why humanity is completely doomed. We have literally sunk to the point where we are blindly trying to protect abject stupidity.



P.S. Here is the picture above.

P.S.S. I have that same seatbelt (or extremely similar) in my HR-V. I am not some scholastic genius and even when drunk I would have been able to tell it wasn't connected to anything but the ceiling.

The lady was stupid. The driver was negligent and Honda should appeal. Simple as that.

Nick GravesX
Profile for Nick GravesX
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-27-2019 05:23
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
My MX-5s had a label stating 'keep hands away from roof whilst folding'.

Even after three packets of Viagra I was still finding it awkward.

Grace141
Profile for Grace141
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-27-2019 08:26
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:




A safety science professional would look at this photo and see a system which failed. It doesn't matter if the cup thing is too small or the people using them incorrectly are just dolts, safety professionals only care about whether the intended systems achieve the intended result. Yes, they will be redesigned and replaced because of this photo otherwise the process has failed. It's not what seems to be the smart outcome of all of this but it's the reality of 2019.

I figured out the center position shoulder belt in our CRV (our first Honda which had the shoulder belt in the roof mounted retractor) within a minute or two of looking at it. I read the owners manual too but it's not necessary. The belt is a simple device once you realize that it's there. Someone who has never seen one though who then climbs into an unfamiliar car, possibly at night (I don't know the specifics of the case), is going to be pressed to realize there is a shoulder belt, where it is located, and how to connect it to the lap belt.

I place the majority of the blame on the Uber driver who should have had the belt ready to go or provided instructions for using it. Having said that, Honda needs to look at a different idea for the center position belt because it's a safety device which could/should have been used but wasn't.

There is the case of the photo above and then there is the Payne Stewart case. I doubt Stewart's crew lacked proper safety training but it still happened.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-28-2019 23:25
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Grace141 wrote:
owequitit wrote:




A safety science professional would look at this photo and see a system which failed. It doesn't matter if the cup thing is too small or the people using them incorrectly are just dolts, safety professionals only care about whether the intended systems achieve the intended result. Yes, they will be redesigned and replaced because of this photo otherwise the process has failed. It's not what seems to be the smart outcome of all of this but it's the reality of 2019.

I figured out the center position shoulder belt in our CRV (our first Honda which had the shoulder belt in the roof mounted retractor) within a minute or two of looking at it. I read the owners manual too but it's not necessary. The belt is a simple device once you realize that it's there. Someone who has never seen one though who then climbs into an unfamiliar car, possibly at night (I don't know the specifics of the case), is going to be pressed to realize there is a shoulder belt, where it is located, and how to connect it to the lap belt.

I place the majority of the blame on the Uber driver who should have had the belt ready to go or provided instructions for using it. Having said that, Honda needs to look at a different idea for the center position belt because it's a safety device which could/should have been used but wasn't.

There is the case of the photo above and then there is the Payne Stewart case. I doubt Stewart's crew lacked proper safety training but it still happened.



Are you trying to assert that I am not a Safety Science Professional? Because if so, just come out and say it. I'll be your huckleberry.

P.S. The causal factors of the Paine Stewart crash and not being smart enough to put on a passenger oxygen mask when given multiple forms of instruction less than several hours old are not even remotely the same thing.

cksi1372
Profile for cksi1372
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-01-2019 11:02
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
The level of mental gymnastics required here to absolve stupid people from being stupid really is a sight to behold.

So here are a few thoughts as a safety guy:

1) If a person is reasonably provided with instructions on how to use their equipment, is the manufacturer's fault if the owner/operator chooses to not utilize those materials? Is it reasonable to expect Honda to have to send a representative out to show every single human that might ever touch their product to have an in person educational session on how to properly use their equipment? Further, should this education include teaching on 100% of Honda vehicles ever made? What happens, say 5 years down the road when said previously educated individual goes to enter a Honda product and can't remember the specifics of that model?

I mean this isn't even a slippery slope. It is a logical cliff into a mental black hole. It doesn't even approach the realm of reality.

At what point are human beings reasonably expected to be able to successfully operate a simple piece of equipment when provided with clear and logical instructions, multiple warning labels and a person operating the car that probably knows how to use it? Especially when said item is fundamentally similar to every other said item mounted in a car for the last 40-50 years? It isn't like a rational human shouldn't be able to figure out that it needs 3 anchor points. They don't even have to have a physics degree, they just have to be able to Cro Magnum match things that are alike. Literally "OOH OOH Rock. OOH OOH Rock! ROCK SMASH!" We built fucking pyramids with sticks and stones for crying out loud.

2) I see a lot of "minimum standard" talk in here, which raises a couple of thoughts:

First, did anybody verify the test results of that seatbelt with the "minimum" standard set by NHTSA? It is quite possible that Honda did, in fact, outperform the "minimum" standard when the device was used properly. If they did, then that pretty much disproves ANY suggestion that Honda should have "exceeded" the Federally mandated standard because they may have and they STILL lost the lawsuit.

Second, isn't the sole purpose of paying a government Trillions of dollars per year to develop standards to make sure that "people" are kept safe? So if the government's "minimum standard" didn't guarantee safety, then how is it a minimum acceptable standard? If the standard was met and the person still died, isn't it a failure of a multi-billion dollar governmental agency? I find it amazing how far some can bend over backwards to support it being Honda's fault because "evil profit driven corporation that only cares about money" but then puts a complete logical blinder on when a BIGGER government agency developed the standard that failed...

Pretty hard to argue that this is even remotely Honda's fault without simultaneously acknowledging that trillions of dollars worth of government also failed.

3) There is no universe were design and use can be conveniently changed to benefit logic.

Modern cars are designed to be "pedestrian safe," so by the logic of some in this thread, I should be able to drive through town hitting people at will, and if they die, then it is also Honda's fault. I mean, after all, they DID make the car pedestrian friendly and they should have clearly exceeded the "minimum standard" to ensure any casualties didn't happen...

I mean, it couldn't POSSIBLY be that the lady using the seatbelt was drunk and stupid and the driver was negligent because they aren't multi-billion dollar entities... It also isn't possible that trillions of dollars of government failed to keep us safe because that would be to openly admit that trillions of dollars of government might not always be the solution.

Here is a good question... Go google pictures of the Southwest flight last year that blew an engine and killed the lady from Wells Fargo. Look specifically at the oxygen mask pictures (gotta TWEET my death YO!) where at least several people have those masks improperly fastened. Is Boeing liable because they didn't design an idiot proof enough butter container that literally wants to sit on your mouth and nose when you put it on your face? Should they be solely responsible for educating people that you breath through your mouth and nose? Is Southwest liable because they didn't provide clear enough instructions that have literally been dumbed down to pictograms (which are ALWAYS followed by a live performance) that put on a convenient, color coded card placed a few inches in front of their faces? Brings new meaning to the term "mouth breather" I guess.

I mean I'm sorry, but this is why humanity is completely doomed. We have literally sunk to the point where we are blindly trying to protect abject stupidity.



P.S. Here is the picture above.

P.S.S. I have that same seatbelt (or extremely similar) in my HR-V. I am not some scholastic genius and even when drunk I would have been able to tell it wasn't connected to anything but the ceiling.

The lady was stupid. The driver was negligent and Honda should appeal. Simple as that.



Unfortunately, this is where we are as a society..government always good, even when bad, because some @$$hole politician or agency (either side) said "they cared". I call it the "feeling" exception. Whereas, every company is bad, even if they do something good, because they are in business to...hold your nose, make money for providing a product/service. At least with a company, you usually have the choice to go somewhere else...not so much with Uncle Sam.

Anyway, and off soapbox, this verdict will be overturned on appeal.

NealX
Profile for NealX
Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-01-2019 16:29
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Nick GravesX wrote:
My MX-5s had a label stating 'keep hands away from roof whilst folding'.

Even after three packets of Viagra I was still finding it awkward.


Some might find "whilst" confusing...


 
Thread Page - 1 [2]
Go to:
Contact TOV | Submit Your Article | Submit Your Link | Advertise | TOV Shop | Events | Our Sponsors | TOV Archives
Copyright © 2018 Velocitech Inc. All information contained herein remains the property of Velocitech Inc.
The Temple of VTEC is not affiliated with American Honda Motor Co., Inc. TOV Policies and Guidelines - Credits - Privacy Policy
29 mobile: 0