California car accident lawyers have joined consumer groups, injured parties and other law firms around the country in opposing a provision in the General Motors and Chrysler bankruptcy plans that would free the automakers from liability for vehicle defects.
GM and Chrysler will enjoy immunity for any cars they manufactured up to the date of the bankruptcy filing. If anyone is ever injured or killed in a GM or Chrysler car that has a defect, no matter how far out into the future, those people cannot sue. This represents a very large tort reform.
The new provision is being opposed by eight state attorneys general, including those from Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and Vermont. All have filed an objection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York, arguing that GM's plan to shed these auto defect liabilities would bar car accident victims from crucial legal rights. The new proposal could also undercut double or triple damages--provisions that put real teeth into the lemon laws enacted by some states.
California car crash lawyers feel this provision impacts car consumers across the country. Individuals who have a pending auto product liability lawsuit, or anyone involved in a car accident that results in an auto product liability lawsuit, will not be able to recover for damages. Freeing an automaker from current and future tort liabilities has some very serious repercussions. Granted, they've made sure warranties are honored but that's where it ends. The government is basically saying that if you roll your SUV and the poorly designed roof caves in, killing or permanently injuring you, you can't go after the automaker. If your tire falls off, GM will honor that repair, but heaven forbid your tire falls off and you lose control of your vehicle, you get in a car accident and some other party is seriously injured or killed. YOU are liable, but NOT GM.
If the zero-tort liability provision is allowed, alternative backup measures should be adopted to protect consumers. If GM is immunized from liability for injury defect claims, then at least they should be required to get insurance, or have the government set aside part of their rescue package to cover these claims.
A national public awareness campaign regarding the provision's fallout has prompted a huge outcry among consumer groups nationwide. They urge consumers to voice their outrage in essentially immunizing GM and Chrysler from current and future auto defects liability. To stop this provision, write your congressperson and/or senator and let them know that bailing out an automaker is one thing, but excusing them from tort liability will have disastrous consequences.
Consumers also need to know that even past tort cases will be locked up in bankruptcy court, so after all the creditors are paid, and if there's any money left over, they'll get pennies on the dollar if they litigate their case in bankruptcy court.
California car collision lawyers are acting as consumer advocates when business or government agencies fail to act in cases where the public feels that a product is defective and might have caused them financial loss or even injury. However, GM's Federal bankruptcy court case greatly complicates any existing consumer law case.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น