Is Hyundai Responsible ?

[justblue]

Las Vegas man sues Hyundai after wife killed in crash with teen driving stolen car

IMHO this is a really big stretch. I mean, why not sue the owner of the car for not getting the one with a better theft prevention option because they should have known that a 14 year old punk would steal it?
What say you folks?

 

[adjusterjack]

Makes about as much sense as holding gun manufacturers liable for the criminals and crazies that go on a killing spree.

In other words, no.

I'm sympathetic for the victims, but I hope this one goes down in flames.

Unfortunately, the Plaintiffs and their lawyers are relying on Hyundai's fear of lost profits from the adverse publicity and sympathetic juries that bend negligence law until it's unrecognizable.

I could be wrong, but I predict that Hyundai will settle with no admission of liability.

It's legalized extortion.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Makes about as much sense as holding gun manufacturers liable for the criminals and crazies that go on a killing spree.

In other words, no.

I'm sympathetic for the victims, but I hope this one goes down in flames.

Unfortunately, the Plaintiffs and their lawyers are relying on Hyundai's fear of lost profits from the adverse publicity and sympathetic juries that bend negligence law until it's unrecognizable.

I could be wrong, but I predict that Hyundai will settle with no admission of liability.

It's legalized extortion.

I think it's more likely that the trial judge will dismiss the case for failure to state a valid claim. Cars are not required to have theft deterrent systems installed in them by law, and many such cars are still on the road today. As a result, there has never yet been an appellate court decision holding that the failure of the theft system could be considered the proximate cause of the accident. The lawyers in this case likely know that their odds of success are long, but they are going after it because they might be able to wring some significant money out of it. If they try and lose on a challenge to complaint, they haven't lost anything but the time drafting the complaint. Hyundai has no incentive to discuss settlement at this stage. They will submit a motion to dismiss and, if successful, the case is over before it really begins. Any settlement would come much further in the case, typically once discovery is concluded. Once both sides have all the available evidence and have reviewed the applicable law they can determine their risk exposure. It is that assessment that drives settlements. Here, though, I think the lawyers are overly optimistic about their chances of surviving a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment.

The kid who stole the car is obviously liable. The owner of the car might have some liability if he failed to turn on the anti-theft system. The parents of the kid in at least some states would be liable on the premise of negligent supervision of their kids.

But to say that a car maker could have reasonably foreseen this kind of chain of events AND that it had a duty to make a theft deterrent to some as yet to be discoverd standard is a very long shot. In that circumstance, there may be a settlement, but it will be the going away money kind of settlement: a few thousand bucks for the company to save paying its attorney's more in fees to see the case to the end. In those kinds cases, the plaintiffs themselves get little or nothing out of it once the costs of the action have been taken into account.

 

[justblue]

I think it's more likely that the trial judge will dismiss the case for failure to state a valid claim. Cars are not required to have theft deterrent systems installed in them by law, and many such cars are still on the road today. As a result, there has never yet been an appellate court decision holding that the failure of the theft system could be considered the proximate cause of the accident. The lawyers in this case likely know that their odds of success are long, but they are going after it because they might be able to wring some significant money out of it. If they try and lose on a challenge to complaint, they haven't lost anything but the time drafting the complaint. Hyundai has no incentive to discuss settlement at this stage. They will submit a motion to dismiss and, if successful, the case is over before it really begins. Any settlement would come much further in the case, typically once discovery is concluded. Once both sides have all the available evidence and have reviewed the applicable law they can determine their risk exposure. It is that assessment that drives settlements. Here, though, I think the lawyers are overly optimistic about their chances of surviving a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment.

The kid who stole the car is obviously liable. The owner of the car might have some liability if he failed to turn on the anti-theft system. The parents of the kid in at least some states would be liable on the premise of negligent supervision of their kids.

But to say that a car maker could have reasonably foreseen this kind of chain of events AND that it had a duty to make a theft deterrent to some as yet to be discoverd standard is a very long shot. In that circumstance, there may be a settlement, but it will be the going away money kind of settlement: a few thousand bucks for the company to save paying its attorney's more in fees to see the case to the end. In those kinds cases, the plaintiffs themselves get little or nothing out of it once the costs of the action have been taken into account.

Thank you, TM! I was hoping you would chime in on this! <3