Read the story

 

that scares me. i also drive a 95. maybe it was some sort of freak accident that could happen to any car? that dude sure did get a lot of money though....

 

$14.4 million is a lot of money and could last a while, but permanent brain damage and mentality of a child is forever.

 

I certainly hope Nissan appeals, because the $ amount is outrageous. Lost wages is fine, no problem with that. But to say x to each children, x to wife, x for loss of enjoyment, x to this, x to attorneys, x to here, fuggediboudit. It's a shame what happened to him, but it would have happened whether the Maxima were a 96, or 2k2, or 89, or 81, and so forth.

One of my former employers got sued and lost more than that for discrimination. We were all like WTF, discrimination? If anything minorities and women had great opportunities and we made a list of best co's to work for women and minorities. Sure enough in appeals the guy didn't get Prada, he got nada. Life is full of tragedy, but in America juries tend to like to bash corporations for unreasonable amounts. They're so fascinated by this stuff in Canada because they don't have it.

 

OMG that is the most ridiculous BS lawsuit ever. Okay, since you can't drive, you'll blame the car manufacturer. You got yourself into a car accident, probably wasn't even wearing a seatbelt. That's so pathetic. HE got himself into the accident, the car didn't. I cannot believe he won. That is PATHETIC. I hate this country.

 

Seems very reasonable to me. Check this out:

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/95012.htm

Cars like it 0 is correct. No other sedan (or car for that matter) did as poorly as this.

 

Mitsu did worse? Two PPs right off the bat
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/95008.htm

 

yep the 95 96 are really bad

 

this is America (NJ especially) people will sue anyone over anything, and win...no surprise

 

96 is completely different...

"It was shown at trial that the identical car was sold in Europe with the reinforcements that would have protected Mr. Ziemer and that they were not added to US models until 1996."

One of many safety changes to the 96 that the 95 didn't have...just because they look the same doesn't mean they are.

Erik

 

If you read the article, then you know that the OTHER car crossed the median and crashed into HIM. Last I checked, that wasn't his fault. Secondly, the safety ratings of the 95-96 maximas are pretty bad for a $20k+ car. Without actually seeing crash pictures, I would conclude that the lawsuit had some merit at least.

 

You bring up a reasonable point but the point of awarding such high damages is to make sure the companies get the message. ie you think Nissan would even care if the jury awarded $100,000? They would write it off as lawyers fees.

The point of high penalties is to drive across the point that companies need to take more care.

 

i thought it was the 97'+s that changed, and that's why they are heavier? i was under the impression 95/96 were the same.

 

The car was involved in a head on collision. It was caused by the oncomming car, not even the one which he was driving. So who should get sued? The owner of the other car I believe was at fault here.

Then the lawyers get involved and find this.

Quoted from the story:Don't get me wrong, but screw the Auto Mfg. (NISSAN) for distributing the same car to differnet coutries with different safty reinforcements. Especially being that they had the technology and know how to make this car safer. I agree with the findings of the jury and hope that the Auto mfgrs. will take this one as an example.

Basically if you think about it, Nissan screwed the USA with a cheaper build on 95 models. Does anybody think thats fair? They put more $$ in their pocket and gave us an inferrior product.

This case was not about the accident itself, but about how the public gets screwed.

 

I understand what your saying, BUT now WE the consumers will pay more money in parts/labor/anything nissan can charge to help recoup the loss.


NOT saying your wrong, BUT it's NOT just nissan who flips the bill

 

I was under that impression also.

"Introduced in 1996" could mean that it was put into car made in 1996 and sold as 97's.

 

i saw the article in the news. the guy was messed up pretty bad, in a wheelchair and couldn't even talk right. i think the amount of money is reasonable.. but nissan did bring up a point that the severity of the accident was a factor too.. the car that hit them was going pretty fast.

 

I'm not buying a 95

that is a sad accident but at that a collision of that magnitude, he is lucky he came out alive although it's a shame regarding what happened to him. In a way though, people should be aware of the risks and poor crash test ratings and if it is a concern then they should buy something more safe. I doubt the results would be much different to other cars of the same size.. That's a serious accident..

 

yes the amount is very high BUT what this tells Nissan is no more cost cutting. the reason for the verdict was because they had the technology available to make the car safer in the european version of the car but choose not to use it here and if they did it would have lessened the severity of the crash.

 

The changes are for the 97 Maxima model, which is structurally modified compared to the 95-96 models. So yes, "changes in 96" means built in 96 as a 97 model.

The changes included a reinforced front bumper, larger rear bumper (you will notice the 97 rear bumper sticks out about 1/2" more than the 96), and numerous structural enhancements for crash worthiness. Compared with the poor rating for 95-96, the 97-99 got an "acceptable" rating, with high ratings for the bumpers.

 

I happen to think that the amount awarded was very reasonable. That guy might have recovered from the accident had he been driving a comparable car with good safety scores (Volvo 850/S70). Interestingly, even current Maximas have poor scores for leg injuries and the Maxima continues to be the lowest rated car in its class.

 

Jepht20 - There are plenty of changes between 95 and 96.

clee130 - Yes, but there were changes in the 96 as far as safety wise.

Eric L. - Correct, however the 96 did have safety changes over the 95.

...there was a crash test done in 1996 that basically stated that there were changes made from 95. Beyond that, the cars couldn't even be close to the same weight becuase the 95 did not have OBD II. The drastic changes between 95-96 and 97-99 effected low speed impact (there was a thread on this too) where at some 5mph or something the 95-96 was like totaled and the 97-99s didn't have a scratch.

Unfortunatly any 4th gen involved in an accident over 80mph...this will most likely be the result. Also, you must understand that this was head on...so the impact is double...

Erik

 

Speaking of Volvos, leases sure are crazy these days. Volvo S60 for $299/month on tv. Who the heck wants to drive junk anymore?

 

This picture got me the most about the differences... I'll accept more weight... also I have a 98 bumper which actually sticks out even more then my 97 did.



Do you guys think the WSP Subframes would help improve the rigididty of the safety cage? I've never seen them in person so I don't now how far foward the run, etc.

 

Are you sure? Because I thought 95, 96 were the same, and 97, 98, 99 the same.

I don't think Nissan has any incentive to engineer a better car. They can't even sell the ones they make, so it's not easy to do R&D. At the same time the NHTSA standards which kicked in in 1997 leveled the playing field a little, so even a Kia Sephia with Kuhmo tires has to meet pretty stringent standards. As good as an Audi or Volvo, maybe not, but much closer than ever before. I think 1997 is when those cool stickers with the VIN number started appearing on all the panels by law. Not sure if they were there earlier by choice.

 

We as a country are creating are own demise by lawsuits. The liability is so great in everything that we do these days it's so much harder to make money and live carefree. I'm sick of all this blaming, the dumbsh*t who decided to buy the Maxima is the one and only one at fault, he should have checked crash tests before buying the car.

 

Yeah, my car got hit in the back and the body shop that was working on my car said they had a 98 and asked if they could use it. when they put it on my tailpipe was distinctly further back under the bumber then before... maybe it was a fluke but i don't think so... my tailpipe ends before the bumper starts now, which it didn't before... the replacemnt had a Nissan sticker on it so i assume its not a replica...

 

Only in America.
I am sorry for the guys suffering and I am sure his kids love those $1M's, but just because Nissan designs cars differently for US and Europe doesn't mean he deserves the cash. He is disabled not because of Nissan, but because he was in a head on collision. The only reason Nissan was sued is because they have the money, and the guy who hit him probably doesn't.
So if a car manufacturer offers a car without side impact airbag option, like Kia Rio, and they offer side impact airbags in Kia optima or something, now everyone injured in a Kia Rio side impact collision is entitled to 15 Mil?
This guy should have researched the Maxima crash ratings before buying it. that's all I got to say.

 

I dont know if this point has been made ...havent read page two of the posts... but had to respond to this. I may be totally off base, but its something to consider.
Yes Nissan knew how to make the North American market Maxima safer and could have...BUT... it was more likely their FORCED compliance with CAFE (Fuel economy and by extension,emissions) standards that some yoyo in Washington is dictating which caused Nissan to shave weight. Economy and lower emissions at the expense of safety and performance courtesy of your friendly neighbourhood politician, all to appease your not so friendly enviromentalist whacko, tree huggin', booger eating moron! Bottom line here is your own govenrment "screwed" you...not Nissan.

 

the lawsuit is bull****

first off why didnt they go after the person tha hit him for 14 million? what happened to his part of the liability?

second, the vehicle passed the FEDERAL crash safety tests for model year it was intoduced. the car was deemed safe and roadworthy by the DOT..
these reinforcements that were introduced during the 96 model year may not have been available until the next model year, 1997. was the european maxima in question a early 97 model sold during the 96 calender year. even if the vehicle was a true 96, the reinforcements were on the Euro models because their governments may have required it. while US didnt. where is the liabilty on the US DOT?

even in relativly "low" speed crash, lets say 40 mph. 40mph for both vehicles headed towards each other is an 80mph collision. how many other 95 model year vehicles can you think of that would do better if the left front corner hit a solid unmovable object at 80mph? the offset test that IIHS runs is done at 40mph to solid/unmovable obect, and only a few cars scored good in the same class. i doubt they would get the same results if they tried it a 80mph.

the sad part is its all about the money for all parties concearned.

the lawyers and the wife are looking to blame the person with the deepest pockets for an accident. the guy that hit him doesnt have enough ($14mil) liabilty coeverage in his policy so why sue him? they couldnt win a case against the government so why bother?

if they were really concearned about public safety this story should have been all over the national news tv shows and nationaly circulated newspapers and mags like the lewinsky blojob!!

even nissan looks a little shady. IF (big if) the reinforcements were available in the early 96 calender year, what would it have cost to recall all 96 model year cars that were already on the road and in dealer lots and in transit form japan and update them to the new standard? way more than $14 million. still yet this guy was **** out of luck his was 95, straight a$$ed the *** out!!

i admit that the technology exists to make cars safer but who is going to pay for it. the manufacturer isnt going to do all the R&D build and install all this safety equipment for free/lose profit margin. it may be sad but safety (just like speed) cost money in this world. the idea of airbags has been around for least 8 years before they were introduced to US vehicles. yet when passenger airbags were an option most consumers decided not to have them.

some of you are *****ing because the sticker on a new maxima ~30k loaded. what if that same maxima could get you through the same accident with little to no injury but the sticker price was $50k would you buy it for $50k no haggling? what if it was a Civic for 30k?

the american consumer wants a "cheap" good looking car that "looks' safe. consider this, my mother had 91 volvo 240 wagon. it had an airbag and very solid construction, but it was ugly. my wife drives a 91 accord, ( no airbag) its reliable but i doubt it is as safe as the 240 volvo. b4 i bought the honda i was gonna give my wife my old 86 240 sedan but she refused to drive it because it was ugly. so i bought the accord, less safe but the car looks better. in a head to head collision both cars might get wrecked but the occupant/s of the volvo would be safer than those in the accord. as we all know the 2 series volvo was not one of the top 5 sellers in the nation.


imagine going to the local nissan dealer and seeing a maxima in the showroom with a full set (5) of 5 point harnesses with a roll cage. the "sport package" $2000 some of us might get amped up but the joe/jill doe would say " i want the same car but with regular seat belts and none of the those monkey bars"

 

not being a jerk or snappy, but can you tell me what the some of the differences are? i can't think of any offhand.

 

thats really weird because i am from Short Hills and i got into a severe car accident with my 95 SE last year in hillsborough my passenger/best friend suffered with brain injury but is now in good shape, that is just weird and retarded that Nissan is the one to pay...then again most people from short hills just sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue ... you get the point.

 

but the point of the lawsuit is that the car had a defective side impact beam. that is the angle the lawyers went at. i don't know how they proved that, but they got their $$$$$

 

I dont get it, the buyer has the responsibilities of the car. Like Jeff posted, Mitsu did worse. The buyer should do research and what not... True, it wasn't the drivers fault that the car collided into him, but its NOT the cars fault either. A car is not a guardian angel.

 

Every car sold in America has passeed Federal safety standards.
And what is deemed as "safe" by our regulatory agencies is rarely questioned by the public UNTIL THERE IS A WRECK. It doesn't matter if it doesn't have guard beams that European cars have. Its still a "Safe" car according to the NHTSA. I can understand the anger that family must be feeling right now, and I was shocked to hear Nissan has decided to protect America less than Europe, but the best protection in life is research and education. Know what you've got before you get it.

Jesse

 

It's much different when a case goes beyond trial level. Court of Appeals would yield a different result, so I wouldn't be surprised if Nissan appeals the case. But then you'd have 60 Minutes coming to the people's rescue--look what that show did to Audi for years, but Audi fought and came back.

 

no sum of money is worth what that guy has to live with now..im sure if he had a choice he would trade everything for his health back.

 

This guy is not going to see a cent, this thing will be tied up in the courts for years to come.

This is America, you can sue anyone for anything.

 

Who wants to get in a wreck and sue? Sounds like some quick cash. All you have to do is ham up the injuries, blame the evil capitalistic manufacturer, find a jury of idiots, and you are rich.

 

whomever caused the accident...sue them. It's so stupid to sue the manufacturer for that much money because someone hit you or you hit someone. It was someone's fault, not a company. Regardless of the crash ratings...they fixed it on the next year model...nothing they can do now.