If repeated pressuring from MB owners doesn't make MBUSA take action on these harnesses, perhaps a class-action lawsuit would?

From all of the MB/NHTSA complaints I read, I don't think a decent "Products Liability" law firm would have any trouble proving a claim. Ironically, it would probably take a serious injury to get a "decent" Products Liability law firm interested. Here's a broad description I pulled from the web:

Products Liability:

Products liability refers to a manufacturer or seller being held liable for placing a defective product into the hands of a consumer. Responsibility for a product defect that causes injury lies with all sellers of the product who are in the distribution chain. Potentially liable parties include the manufacturer, a manufacturer of component parts, the wholesaler, and the retail store that sold to the consumer.

The law requires that a product meet the ordinary expectations of the consumer. When a product has an unexpected defect or danger, the product cannot be said to meet those ordinary expectations. In general terms, defective products claims fall into three categories:

Design defects occur when it can be shown that the intentional design of the product makes it unreasonably dangerous;

Manufacturing defects exist when it can be demonstrated that the product does not conform to the designer's or manufacturer's own specifications;

Marketing defects include improper labeling of products, insufficient instructions, or the failure to warn consumers of a product's hidden dangers. A negligent or intentional misrepresentation regarding a product may also give rise to a products liability claim.


.

__________________
MERCEDES-BENZ 1991-1997 ENGINE WIRING HARNESS DEFECT NHTSA COMPLAINTS

Interesting article:


"The Legal Duty to Report Safety Defects Belongs to Vehicle and Equipment Manufacturers

The plain and simple fact is that the legal obligation to report possible vehicle-related defects lies with Ford and Firestone, not the victims of defect-related crashes and their attorneys.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, a manufacturer is obligated to "notify" NHTSA when it learns of any safety defect in its products. See 49 U.S.C. § 30118. Ford and Firestone knew of problems associated with their products, knew there was a significant number of lawsuits, knew that consumers were suffering tread separations and related rollover crashes, and knew of approximately one thousand consumer complaints.

The companies did not provide NHTSA with this data, which included information as to deaths, injuries and property damage claims, insurance reports, warranty claims and repair records, as well as changes in the design parameters of the vehicle and tire. After evaluating their products in the early 1990s, Firestone replaced the ATX tire with the new Wilderness AT tire in 1995, and Ford redesigned the Explorer suspension system for the 1995 models. The companies, abrogating their statutory duty, knowingly failed to inform NHTSA of the growing problems with this lethal tire and vehicle combination.

In 1999, a year before the Ford/Firestone U.S. recall, Ford conducted foreign "recalls" of the Firestone tires in Venezuela and the Gulf Coast countries, a fact which the companies’ in-house counsel believed was necessary to report to NHTSA, and yet did not. Internal company memoranda uncovered in litigation show that the two companies made a conscious decision to withhold facts concerning the foreign recalls from NHTSA despite the fact that identical tires and vehicles had been and were being sold to millions of American consumers.

A new law, the Transportation, Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act was enacted by Congress in November 2000, in recognition of the failure of manufacturers to disclose, and NHTSA to discover, the Firestone tire/Ford Explorer defect. The law clarifies the duty of companies to provide information regarding foreign recalls, and requires NHTSA to collect "early warning" information from the manufacturers, including lawsuits, complaints, warranty claims, deaths and injuries, etc. NHTSA is currently engaged in a rulemaking to define how this "early warning" information will be reported to the agency by manufacturers on a regular basis."

http://www.kraftlaw.com/Articles/ConsumerLawyersFirestoneFail.htm


.

__________________
MERCEDES-BENZ 1991-1997 ENGINE WIRING HARNESS DEFECT NHTSA COMPLAINTS

InfoAge:

Since you are in California, let me offer the following suggestion. No law firm is going to take on a wiring harness case unless it is connected to a major injuries case. But you probably already knew/suspected that. The cost of putting on a products liability case against a major company such as M-B is simply prohibitive. No one will do it unless: (1) the client fronts the costs of hiring experts or (b) there are major. serious injuries, that can be directly attributable to the defective wiring harness (so there is a big pot of gold at the end of the litigation rainbow).

I suggest, however, that you look into California's business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq. That is the Unfair Business Practice statute. Unfortunately the law was recently changed (by way of a proposition campaign, Prop 64) so that Sec 17200 is no longer available to private litigants.

Now only the State Attorney General or your local DA office can bring suit under B&P 17200. The good knows is that the standard of proof is different (and easier) than in a normal products liability case. Basically, B&P Sec. 17200 et seq say that ANY business practice is unfair if it gives a company an unfair edge over competitors. You don;t even have to show actual harm to a consumer.

In this case, if it can be proven/shown that M-B gained an unfair advantage over its competitors by using cheaper wiring harnesses, there "may" be a case.

What you should do is try to make an appointment with someone at the local office of the Attorney General's Office (in their Consumer Protection Section). If they agree to meet with you, then bring all your evidence for them to review. Explain to them how this has affected consumers not just in California but all over the US. The AG's Office successfully sued Enron to recover some of the money they overcharged California consumers. So the guys and gals at the AG's office know what they are doing.

I am not saying that they will agree to take on the case or that the case would be successful. It is, however, certainly worth taking a shot. In the good old days (last year) you could got o a private attorney and he or she might take the case. Now you need to go to the AG's Office, but it is still worth a try.

Good luck.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

The simple answer is yes, "we really have a chance of getting" something done. In answer to my pointed question, the NHTSA told me there is no "statute of limitations" that a manufacturer can hide behind concerning vehicle defects.

For those interested, please call the NHTSA and ask for yourself:

DOT Vehicle Safety Hotline:

For more information dial NHTSA's toll-free hotline at
1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236) 8:00AM to 10:00PM ET Monday-Friday.
Spanish speaking operators are available on the Hotline.

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ivoq/


.

__________________
MERCEDES-BENZ 1991-1997 ENGINE WIRING HARNESS DEFECT NHTSA COMPLAINTS

Being an automotive engineer I'll have to get a little defensive of our colleague who dreamt up the idea. There'a a good chance it's not the engineer's fault, but fault of the manager who wouldn't budget enough resources to thoroughly test the product before putting this "wonderful" idea into production.

I call it "field testing".

__________________
95 E320 Cabriolet, 169K

made sure to post complaint to nthsb but also per previous thread (who do we really complain to?) sent a letter to Pual Halata!

Good idea. Anyone happen to have Paul's email addy?


.

__________________
MERCEDES-BENZ 1991-1997 ENGINE WIRING HARNESS DEFECT NHTSA COMPLAINTS

For those who believe the Mercedes Benz NA line of bull***** that time shields them from a defective parts recall, click the "New recall information since" button on the NHTSA below link and note the vehicle age of the most recent defect recall results toward the bottom of the page.

Also note the number of "Potential Number Of Units Affected" in each case (especially the Fords):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9241475/

This agrees with what the NHTSA told me some time ago, about there being, in no way, a "stautue of limitations" shield for Mercedes to hide behind.

That said, I'm still waiting to hear more from the NHTSA about our ongoing problems with the defective MB wiring harnesses:

MERCEDES-BENZ 1991-1996 ENGINE WIRING HARNESS DEFECT NHTSA COMPLAINT SUMMARIES


.

__________________
MERCEDES-BENZ 1991-1997 ENGINE WIRING HARNESS DEFECT NHTSA COMPLAINTS

Well add me to this crusade.
I've contacted both the NHTSA and MB regarding this issue which indeed turned out to be safety related for myself. My 300e cut out while driving down the road and if it were to have happened on the highway, I might not be here posting this. This all happened last week, but only now has Joseph Leonardi from MB responded. I've also spoken to a regional rep via phone. They are, indeed, shrugging this off as an age related issue and therefore have no repsonsibility to cover any cost. I informed them of the several safety issues it could cause (including my own experience) and that the NHTSA has no statute of limitations on safety hazzards. We'll see where it goes from here. I have a CLK 430 which has been a gem, but am far more proud to drive my 93 300e. I wish MB would stand behind my older vehicle the way I do, and not only concern themselves with their newer stable (though I hear they could care less about them as well). I think once the CLK starts acting up its gone (better than dealing with the new breed of MB reps). I of course don't mind paying the higher repair costs, but not if it is a design flaw that could hurt my family. Best of luck to everyone in this.

__________________
2004 Chrysler Crossfire

Maybe you guys could get your dealer to replace the engine harness and then pay with a check using biodegrading ink that disappears by the time you get home.
When they call you and ask about the ink, you totally deny any knowledge of any such possible ink.

ozzy

Oh geez...Ozzy you crazy sob...what a genius idea...

__________________
2004 Chrysler Crossfire

croftynsteph,

I've added your complaint to my list. Perhaps you'd like to email the CEO of MBUSA, Ernst Lieb, and tell him how you really feel

ernst.lieb@mbusa.com

Ozzy,

That is, indeed, a brilliant idea; however, I believe we have a good shot at forcing MB to own up to and repair our defective harnesses. Stooping to their low level must remain a last resort.

.

__________________
MERCEDES-BENZ 1991-1997 ENGINE WIRING HARNESS DEFECT NHTSA COMPLAINTS

Does anyone have an old decomposing engine harness they can send me?

My defective harness is still in place, and I would like to forward one to the NHTSA.

I recently printed and mailed to the NHTSA all of the similar complaints I found on their website, and the NHTSA is looking at this problem with greater interest.

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/RepositoryFiles.cfm?module=COMPLAINTS&IfsDocId=10130247


Also, for those of you who have suffered this problem, but never took the time to file a complaint, NOW would be a VERY good time to do so...

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ivoq/


.

__________________
MERCEDES-BENZ 1991-1997 ENGINE WIRING HARNESS DEFECT NHTSA COMPLAINTS

The problem with the NHSTA complaint forum is they have the model designation all screwed up for Mercedes. They list 300 400 500 series then e c s class all for the same model year and its confusing where to place your car. I posted mine a while back and I know its not included in your write up( 10128437 is the complaint number and its under 94 year model e class passenger car electrical underhood the last one of four complaints) I dont know how to put it on the website here. But anyway with the complaints spread out as far as they are it would be hard for anyone to see a pattern. Oh well best of luck!!

Chris

PS I spoke to John at Mercedes and he knows who you are Tom!!

__________________
94 E320 with:
18" ///AMG Monoblock II's,AMG Gen II front bumper, H&R spings,500E sway bar, Bilstein sports, Eisemann Exhst, K&N,E500 Headlamps, Crystal Clear Corners, Avantgard Grill ...and more stuff to come! oh yeah 241k miles!!


My Car WOO HOO...... Now SOLD
New car.... 2001 Jaguar XJR!!!!