Donkey®

iTrader: (3)

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/...on-apnewjersey


I don't come in here often so if it's a I don't care.


Article continued on link...

irish44j

iTrader: (38)

$325,000
- 32,500 (I will assume the state will take 10% for the "investigative costs", if not more)
---------
$300,000
-100,000 (1/3 cut for the class action lawyers, from what I've heard that's pretty standard. even if it is the "state" suing them, they probably use a private law firm that specializes in mass tort).
---------
$200,000/750 members of the class action

so, each of you/them will get around $260 or so.....when somebody here actually gets a check, please let me know if I was close with my estimate



all that said, I still disagree with the ruling. It's like suing the company that makes your car windows because thieves can break them and steal your stereo.....

maybe Jersey will take their cut of the money and put it toward catching the people stealing the lights....

SEmy2K2go

iTrader: (10)

F5 for CNN link not working.

Gjohnson

iTrader: (1)

I have to say I agree with Irish44j, I don't really see how you can sue the comany for make products that criminals want to steal.

5thgenmaxima

iTrader: (1)

It's like suing a weapons manufacturer for the actions of the idiots that use them improperly...
Like suing Nissan because someone driving a Maxima runs into another car....
Ok my analogys may not coinside exactly with this suit...But I still think the first one is B.S.
...In all fairness the TSB they sent to the dealerships that showed they acknowledged the problem, and had a suppossed "fix", yet didn't inform the consumer is what lost them the case. Any consumer that reqested the "fix" was to be charged for the work....
It's more like buying a car with a well known easily pickable lock and informing all the locksmiths and dealerships that they are easily pickable and not telling the seller anything...
I'm willing to bet that if someone wanted them to "fix" the theft problem with their car and took a copy of the suit into the dealer it would be free of charge.

Lontar1

iTrader: (5)

You beat me to the numbers.. NO ONE is going to get a penny out of this...... but if someone gets anything please be a good person and send me some...

irish44j

iTrader: (38)

....because here in America, anything that happens to you is someone else's fault. Spill hot coffee in your lap, sue McDonalds. Get cancer from smoking, sue "big tobacco" (btw, I smoke). Trip over a display rack in a ski shop, sue the shop (this happened to a shop I worked at).

I love this country, but the tort laws are one of the things I hate most about it.

I actually got a class action lawsuit check for a faulty child seat attachment in my wife's old Jetta.....it was for $1.48. (Seriously) I wrote "return to sender" on the envelope and dropped it in a mailbox.

UGAd13

I agree with everything you said except the fact that there was no ruling in the State's appeal. Nissan is settling the case. Sometimes it costs less to settle a case then to continue the litigation process.

housecor

iTrader: (2)

Sad but true. I believe the plaintiff should have to pay for the defendant's court costs if they lose. That would certainly cut down on frivilous lawsuits. But lawyers have lobbied mercilously to kill such legislation in the past - it'd cut into their livelihood.

Irish - I'd say your 10% guess for the state is way low. If Jersey pays itself first, I'm sure it can conjure up enough man hours worth of investigation to burn through nearly the entire sum. But it sounds like the settlement outlines that only some of the money can go to the state - hard to say what limit was set.

FanaticMadMax

that's a great article, thanks for the post

kenny

The issue is whether Nissan could have made the HIDs more theft deterrent (ie. thieves should not be able to jack them in a couple of minutes). Granted the thieves are the real culprit and should be jailed. But if Nissan's product was not on par with other manufacturers in terms of theft deterrence and car buyers (and knowing about the subpar product) ended up as easy victims, it seems that may have an axe to grind with Nissan.

Hey, my HIDs were never stolen and I now have the anti-theft brackets and datadots installed (thanks to Nissan's remedial efforts). I just wanted to point out that the issue or the law is not clearly black and white, but has a lot of gray areas that may be subject to different interpretation.

rbrown81

iTrader: (3)

Move to Australia. Its nice there, and we dont sue nearly as much

irish44j

iTrader: (38)

how about this: My wife's Mazda (2004 3s) doesn't have the "immobilizer" key that the Maxima has. Someone could just "hotwire" it and steal it. Is Mazda liable because they didn't tell customers that their car could be hotwired and offer Immobilizer or "the club" for them? i think not.

The HIDs are not a subpar product. They do exactly what they're supposed to do. The fact that someone CAN steal them easily is irrelevant. Someone can also steal your wheels EASILY (even if you have wheel locks), or break in and steal your aftermarket CD player in about 20 seconds. Is Nissan liable for these things as well? i think not.

the only thing they should be liable for is a "manufacturer defect." The HIDs are not defective or designed wrong....they are simply easy for someone to steal, which cannot be prevented. BTW, to those of you with Data Dots - get a grip on reality....your HIDs can still be stolen - the thiefs will just do some extra damage to your car while doing it.

nismo0604

iTrader: (18)

[QUOTE=irish44j]
the only thing they should be liable for is a "manufacturer defect." The HIDs are not defective or designed wrong....they are simply easy for someone to steal, which cannot be prevented. BTW, to those of you with Data Dots - get a grip on reality....your HIDs can still be stolen - the thiefs will just do some extra damage to your car while doing it.[/QUOTE]


great point Irish, thats exactly why I think datadots are a bad idea, because after they do the extra thousand dollars worth of damage because of the data dots, they will smash a few windows in frustration

kenny

"HIDs are not defective or designed wrong....they are simply easy for someone to steal, which cannot be prevented."

Agreed, the HIDs do what they are designed to do, ie. light up the road when you drive in the dark. However, the theft can be deterred, though not entirely prevented, as a professional thief can steal not only your HID, but also the whole car. My point is ... after the theft deterrent brackets and datadots were installed, the theft rate has declined significantly. This shows that a better (ie. more theft deterrent) product an be manufactured by Nissan at only extra nominal cost.

"BTW, to those of you with Data Dots - get a grip on reality....your HIDs can still be stolen - the thiefs will just do some extra damage to your car while doing it."

So, are you suggesting that Data Dots do more harm than good? I tend to disagree. Your argument is tantamount to this ... why get treatment for your illness if you think you are going to die eventually since the treatment will only prolong your death.

5thgenmaxima

iTrader: (1)

I'm willing to bet.......................
Kenny is a Liberal...
Any guesses?

kenny

Actually, I am a registered Republican with an open mind. In general elections, I vote for the candidate rather than along party lines.

When analyzing issues, I keep an open mind instead of sticking with preconceived notions. Take for example stolen HIDs, 2 groups are clearly harmed: the Maxima owners (who need to pay the deductible) and their insurance companies (who need to pay everything else). As you know, insurance companies have a lot of political clout and they can influence government officials to take actions that individuals (like you and me) are incapable of doing.

Honestly, I don't know whether the insurers here actually spoke to the NJ attorney general, but it is not inconceivable that they did. By raising the issue, insurers could force Nissan to take remedial action (ie give theft deterrent brackets and datadots to Maxima owners for free instead of charging them) to reduce future thefts. Is that such a bad thing? I don't think so. Everyone benefits here: Maxima owners can now sleep better without having to worry about their HIDs, insurers do not have to pay out as much, and Nissan can redeem itself and savage its customer relationship.

Also, although I haven't seen the complaint that was filed in court, I presume it was actually signed by the AG himself rather than an outside law firm. So, it is not like an ambulance chaser plaintiff attorney trying to line his own pocket with fees, it is the attorney general trying to prosecute a case to protect the citizens of NJ. Now, does this make you feel better about the suit?

Peace, my friends and Maxima fans. I know I am the lone dissenting voice, but I hope I can persuade some of you with my analysis. Feel free to reply and express your views.

Y2k2maxse

iTrader: (1)

Its not just maximas that are easy to steal the headlights...i work at a bmw bodyshop near newark, and we get cars all the time (x5's, 5 series, and acuras mostly) that have the headlights stolen. Its not that hard to do. they usually bend up the 2 edges of the hood, take out the bolts, scratch up and bend the fenders and bumper and cut the wires (except in the acuras which they simply disconnect them) so its def not just the maximas.

CVicVogel

Hey....I paid an extra $150 when I bought my 2K3 just so they could install the reinforced hood cable to make it harder to break into to hood.

Nissan was well aware of the problem in March 2003 and charged me. Had they said that they have found a problem and installed it for free-I would not be as resentful for spending the money.

I later got the datadots for free....but by that time, the "cow was out of the barn"...the lights sold on Ebay....and the thieves buying themselves a used BMW.

frankd121

iTrader: (1)

The issue at matter IS NOT whether Nissan could have made the HID's less prone to theft. If you read the last part of the article, the initial lawsuit was about Nissan's negligence in informing the customer that they had HID theft deterent kits and that they would only put these kits on the cars at owner's wilful request and cost. This is a civil suit against the company's negligence, not the fact that they poorly designed the headlight from preventing it from being stolen.

It would be a frivolous lawsuit if the state were to claim Nissan for not designing a good enough headlight. A claim as such would almost immediately be denied in the court.