Arizona Supreme Court: Jeep can be sued over girl's death

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By BOB CHRISTIE

PHOENIX (AP) — The family of a little girl who was killed when her mother’s car was rear-ended by a Jeep on a Phoenix freeway can sue the SUV’s manufacturer for wrongful death because it did not install automatic emergency braking devices that were available as optional equipment, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The court rejected arguments from lawyers for Jeep parent company Fiat Chrysler Automobiles US that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s decision not to require the devices pre-empted the state lawsuit.

The decision written by Justice Bill Montgomery also overturned a similar 2019 decision that said automakers were immune to such lawsuits because of the federal agency’s decision not to require the technology.

The crash on Aug. 15, 2015, killed 4-year-old Vivian Varela, who was riding in the back seat of her mother’s Lexus sedan. Melissa Varela was preparing to take an exit from the Loop 101 freeway in north Phoenix when traffic stopped because an emergency vehicle was blocking the off-ramp, according to one of her lawyers, Brent Ghelfi.



This undated photo provided by Melissa Varela shows her, her husband Mitchell Varela and their daughter Vivian, who was killed in a 2015 car accident. The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 1, 2022, allowed the Varela's wrongful death lawsuit accusing Fiat Chrysler of failing to install automatic emergency braking systems on the Jeep Grand Cherokee that rear-ended Melissa's car to proceed. The court rejected arguments from lawyers for Jeep parent company Fiat Chrysler, now part of Stellantis, that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's decision not to require the devices pre-empted the state lawsuit. (Melissa Varela via AP)


Read more: https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-technology-business-arizona-supreme-court-arizona-f659224e8d17a290c44b6636419b567c

[Scrivener7]

1. The child's death is a tragedy but that decision sounds crazy.

[oldsoftie]

2. Yes. No way this should move forward. It was an "option".

Maybe the driver should have NOT hit the victims in the rear.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. +100

[nuxvomica]

3. Good decision

The manufacturer took a risk in favor of profit by bundling a safety feature that costs $100 into an option package that costs $10,000, unnecessarily pricing cheap safety out of reach for some buyers.

[ShazzieB]

19. Wow, that sucks!

[EX500rider]

27. I am fairly skeptical that auto-braking would be a $100 option.

Freaking floormats can be more then that, adding a fwd camera sensor hooked to software to the brakes seems like it would be more.

[nuxvomica]

28. That's the manufacturer's cost according to the article

And that seems a likely number considering that according to Google, after market can range $320-$1000, including labor. Still way below the $10K trim line that may include things someone doesn't even want. It's not like they couldn't afford to make it standard; it's that they made it a premium option bundled with a lot of more expensive stuff.

[marie999]

5. If the US Supreme Court rules on this and allows the suit, which I don't think it will,

then every safety feature should have to be installed in every car new and used car that can have them. The government did mandate seat belts.

[sop]

6. Upgraded stereos, leather seats, sunroofs and fancy rims should be optional,

but basic safety devices like ABS, seat restraints, airbags and other technology must be included as standard equipment. The courts have a role to play in forcing auto manufacturers to adopt new safety technology.

[cinematicdiversions]

11. Are you sure they are talking about ABS and not self driving automatic brakes?

The latter makes more sense.

[sop]

13. Just to clarify:

Automatic or passive braking systems are designed to either prevent possible collision, or reduce speed of the moving vehicle, prior to a collision with another vehicle, pedestrian or an obstacle of some sort. These systems combine sensors, such as radar, video, infrared or ultrasonic to scan for possible objects in front of the vehicle, and then use brake control to prevent collision if the object is detected.

ABS and ESC were mandated for all passenger vehicles, trucks and busses back in 2013 by the NHTSA. Now, under a provision of the recent infrastructure bill (H.R.3684 - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act), all passenger vehicles and large trucks sold in the U.S. will have to be equipped with passive emergency braking systems.

https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2021/09/01/infrastructure-bill-mandates-automatic-emergency-braking-in-all-passenger-vehicles/

"The bill leaves up to the Secretary of Transportation when the new regulations would be imposed, including any phase-in period.

"The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) have long been advocating the adoption of crash-avoidance technology, using HLDI’s volumes of claims data to evaluate this feature on passenger vehicles.

"According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, police-reported crash data shows that crash avoidance technology could cut front-to-rear crashes in half.

“'This bill pushes U.S. road safety policy forward in a number of areas, and we can see the work of IIHS-HLDI clearly reflected in many of the provisions,' said IIHS-HLDI President David Harkey in a statement. 'In some cases, the legislation is catching up with industry changes that we have already set in motion; in others, the bill could tee up meaningful progress on issues that we have been sounding the alarm on for years.'

"IIHS reported in December that 10 automakers have fulfilled a voluntary commitment to equip nearly all the new light vehicles they produce for the U.S. market with automatic emergency braking (AEB), ahead of the 2022-23 target set in the agreement brokered by IIHS and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration in 2015.

"In all, 20 manufacturers promised to equip at least 95 percent of certain vehicles with the crash avoidance technology by the production year beginning Sept. 1, 2022. The agreement covers light-duty cars and trucks with a gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less.

“'The 10 manufacturers put the technology on more than 95 percent of the vehicles they produced between Sept. 1, 2019, and Aug. 31, 2020. Another three automakers exceeded the 90 percent threshold. However, five of the 20 automakers that signed the commitment equipped less than half of their vehicles with AEB,' IIHS said at the time.

"Four of the 10 — Audi, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo and Tesla — met their commitments last year, according to manufacturer reports. This year, they were joined by BMW, Hyundai, Mazda, Subaru, Toyota and Volkswagen.

“'This voluntary effort is succeeding in getting an important crash prevention technology into vehicles quickly,' said IIHS President David Harkey. 'It’s great to see AEB become a mainstream safety feature that’s now standard equipment not just on luxury cars and SUVs, but on affordable models as well.'"

[cinematicdiversions]

16. That makes a lot more sense

Thank you for the clarification and additional information.

[ShazzieB]

20. By "all vehicles," I presume they mean all NEW ones?

ABS and ESC were mandated for all passenger vehicles, trucks and busses back in 2013 by the NHTSA. Now, under a provision of the recent infrastructure bill (H.R.3684 - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act), all passenger vehicles and large trucks sold in the U.S. will have to be equipped with passive emergency braking systems.

Sorry, I'm just a little salty about all the safety features that aren't available to me because I can't afford a brand new car or even a recent model used one. I drove a rental car for a few days a couple of months ago while my car was in the shop and was bowled over by some of the features. Like the backup camera....holy cow.

[Ford_Prefect]

7. This is gonna be a tough one to try before a jury.

The assertion that the optional automatic braking would have prevented the child's death depends on the likelihood that there was sufficient distance for it to work well enough in the instance.

The article suggests that Jeep bundled the braking option in such a way as to make it relatively unaffordable, that it was part of a luxury package like heated leather seats. Thus a useful and relatively inexpensive item ($100 we are told) was kept from installation rather than becoming a standard safety feature like seatbelts.

ABS braking is a very good device but it requires that the driver uses it correctly, and that the car and tires are maintained.

The jury is going to have to decide how many different factors fed into this tragedy and I suspect it will not be simple.

[essaynnc]

8. I think Lexus has more to blame.

Why didn't they spend the extra couple of 100 bucks to make the rear end of their vehicle crash proof?

[Ford_Prefect]

9. 5000 LB jeep at highway speed has far too much mass to prevent damage on that scale

in a vehicle of significantly lesser mass. If you're confused about this take a walk around any wrecking yard.

This goes back to debates over the safety of having such large vehicles in common traffic conditions. One argument goes that we'd all be safer if every car were armored like a tank, thus we'd all drive brick houses on wheels so to speak.

[keithbvadu2]

10. Pinto had some issues

[MichMan]

12. People killed riding motorcycles or ATV should be able to sue because there are no airbags

The manufacturers failed to install proper safety equipment

[Major Nikon]

18. I'll take false equivalencies for $800, Alex

[PoliticAverse]

26. It's more like - motorcycles are inherently unsafe, why are they allowed to be sold at all? n/t

[Farmer-Rick]

14. If you knew nothing about the US, you would think this is a strange decision

But since we all know federal regulatory agencies have been captured by the filthy rich who own these corporations, they should be held liable for safety of their products even if they are Not mandated by agencies they control.

"The Supreme Court’s decision noted that the federal safety agency opted to forego imposing a mandate for several reasons, including that it wanted to spur innovation and because automakers were adopting the technology on their own."

Now that decision is right out of the captured regulatory agency handbook.

So the filthy rich pressures our government Not to make common sense safety features mandatory. And when someone dies due to lack of these safety features they point to the government as not having mandated it. They get their cake and eat it too.

There is no mandates for lightbulbs that don't electrocute you. There is no mandate for car seats that don't move when you are driving. There is no mandate for car doors that don't swing open at high speeds. There are a lot of safety features that have been put in to place, are expected, but aren't required by law.

So, on the surface, if you didn't know how the US government worked you wouldn't understand this ruling.

Just because a regulatory agency hasn't mandated it, doesn't relieve a corporation from making a safe product.... especially since it only costs $100.

[Shellback Squid]

15. I'm sure she would have survived if the parents had bought a Volvo

[ripcord]

21. I bet she wouldn't have died if her mother hadn't killed her in a auto accident nt

[eggplant]

17. The basic rule of thumb here is that you sue people with money.

They were driving a Jeep, Jeep has money, ergo you sue Jeep. QED.

Jeep will fight to get it thrown out, then will put up a vigorous defense to deter others from trying the same tactic, then if things go badly for them, they will quietly settle out of court for an undisclosed amount of money and no admission of guilt. It's the American way!

[lonely bird]

22. This is the essence of capitalism

It is not about what is good for the public. It is ALWAYS about what the public can pay and how much they will tolerate until revenue declines to an unacceptable point. By regulation the government can force such safety features to be included in every vehicle. The manufacturers will not care in the end. They will simply raise prices to cover the cost. Even if, as so-called "free marketers" allege, the public demands such safety features the manufacturers will either keep them as a separate option (higher price) or they will make them standard and raise prices anyway.

And, yes, it was a a bad decision. Was the driver distracted? Does such safety systems absolve the driver from responsibility? Was the driver exceeding posted speed limits for the ramp?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

23. Seems like a dumb suit. I hope Jeep sues Varela's lawyer for costs.

Did the Jeep's driver apply the brakes? I'd maybe sue the Jeep's driver.

[MichMan]

24. If you accept the logic of the plaintiff's lawyer, no rear end collision is ever the driver's fault

It is the fault of the vehicle.


Ghelfi, the Varela’s lawyer, called automakers’ failure to universally adopt automatic emergency braking “a nationally important and fundamental issue.”

He said modeling done by experts determined that if Chrysler’s version of emergency braking had been installed on the Jeep, Vivian would not have died.

“It would have automatically braked that car, and this accident would have been a clean miss,” Ghelfi said. “At worst it would have been a fender bender, and most likely it would have been a clean miss.”

[MichMan]

25. Jeep Grand Cherokee is their flagship SUV

Wonder how many other options the buyer did purchase, instead of opting for the one with the emergency braking ?

Wonder if there were over $10k in other options chosen ?