HC-12a law suite - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

alabbasi · #1 05-25-2011, 01:59 PM

I know that this product brings up some passionate arguments from both sides of the fence. But in my opinion, this was bound to happen sooner or later.

http://www.panama-guide.com/article.php/20110505171110578

compu_85 · #2 05-25-2011, 02:10 PM

Good read. If the safety switch had been left in place I wonder if the fire would have started.

Another question would be how much gas does a bus like that use?

-J

Pooka · #3 05-25-2011, 02:34 PM

One of the tech aspects that is mentioned in the article.....

Back in the dark ages, when I was in high school, I worked for a major auto A/C company that made and installed auto A/C systems. We were always replacing compressors on Taxis that had our system.

Since a Taxi is run all day, and the temp in Fort Worth is normally about 100 degrees during the summer, the evaporator coils were mounted on top of the car and they had two electric fans blowing on them when the A/C was on. This exchanged heat faster than if it were mounted in front of the radiator.

Since the Con unit in the car would freeze up due to continued use a safety switch device was installed to cut out the compressor so the Con could defrost. It was found that the drivers were wiring around these switches so the compressor could never cut out. Then the compressor would just overheat and bind up.

This bus fire looks like a classic case of not one thing going wrong but several things at one time. The wrong type of refig, the bypassing of a safety switch, the overworking of a system.....

One of these alone is a problem. The three of them together and you have a very serious problem.

tjts1 · #4 05-25-2011, 03:59 PM

^^^
Very well put.

mgburg · #5 05-26-2011, 02:22 AM

First off, what could have possibly been used/presented in any court to see this thing moved to the US for trial?

Fried baby parts for sympathy?

I hope the opening day is the last day this thing sees light. It's opened, laughed out the court doors and down the steps and out of the courthouse building itself.

However...some smarmy-@553d lawyer-group will keep it alive "...because it's all about the kids..."

kknudson · #6 05-26-2011, 01:14 PM

This is basically deep pockets legal action.
Sue everybody involved, wether they really have liability or not, figuring somebody has deep pockets and/or insurance that will pay out.

The concept has ruined our legal system

MTI · #7 05-26-2011, 01:32 PM

Bringing a lawsuit is one thing . . . prevailing in court or surviving motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, is another.

catmandoo62 · #8 05-26-2011, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kknudson

This is basically deep pockets legal action.
Sue everybody involved, wether they really have liability or not, figuring somebody has deep pockets and/or insurance that will pay out.

exactly.there was a case here in the county about 5 yrs ago.88 yr old lady lives in country on main US highway.for years she has pulled up to her mailbox to get mail,but by doing this she has to be on the (wrong)side of the road BUT the shoulder is a car and a half wide and mailbox is beyond that.so she is not a problem so to speak.
3 vehicles traveling on the side she is now on,first one is an 18 wheeler,second chevy astro van third mid 80's chevy pickup.18 wheeler passes old lady.as soon as van driver sees her he slams on the brakes thinking she is heading at him, to which the guy behind slams into van sending van across the centerline into path of an 18 wheeler going opposite direction.van was carrying 12 mexicans i believe 6 of em were killed including the driver who did not have a license,was under suspension and was over 2 times over the legal limit.relatives of surviving kids get lawyer and freeze all the old ladies assets as they farmed and owned alot of land.they also sued the trucker that hit them and the guy in the pickup that hit em from behind.
courts cleared the guy that hit em from behind but the truckers ins paid like 125,000 for the kids til they are 18.and as far as i know the old lady paid nothing.so you ask yourself WHY did the trucker that was just minding his own business and had a van tossed into his path have to pay.he had ONE tire that was below acceptible tread depth,it was an inside dual on the back of the empty trailer.more then likely the van had no brake lites and thats why he got hit to start with.man we need a season on lawyers.

kknudson · #9 05-26-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catmandoo62

exactly.there was a case here in the county about 5 yrs ago.88 yr old lady lives in country on main US highway.for years she has pulled up to her mailbox to get mail,but by doing this she has to be on the (wrong)side of the road BUT the shoulder is a car and a half wide and mailbox is beyond that.so she is not a problem so to speak.
3 vehicles traveling on the side she is now on,first one is an 18 wheeler,second chevy astro van third mid 80's chevy pickup.18 wheeler passes old lady.as soon as van driver sees her he slams on the brakes thinking she is heading at him, to which the guy behind slams into van sending van across the centerline into path of an 18 wheeler going opposite direction.van was carrying 12 mexicans i believe 6 of em were killed including the driver who did not have a license,was under suspension and was over 2 times over the legal limit.relatives of surviving kids get lawyer and freeze all the old ladies assets as they farmed and owned alot of land.they also sued the trucker that hit them and the guy in the pickup that hit em from behind.
courts cleared the guy that hit em from behind but the truckers ins paid like 125,000 for the kids til they are 18.and as far as i know the old lady paid nothing.so you ask yourself WHY did the trucker that was just minding his own business and had a van tossed into his path have to pay.he had ONE tire that was below acceptible tread depth,it was an inside dual on the back of the empty trailer.more then likely the van had no brake lites and thats why he got hit to start with.man we need a season on lawyers.

Yes, like the case Ford paid years ago.
A bunch of people in a mini-van, NONE wearing Seatbelts, they were ejected and most killed. Cause, door/hatch latches wern't strong enough HUH THEY WERN'T WEARING SEATBELTS.

The the one, I got into it with a local broadcaster she called me stupid.
Guy fell out out of a GM PU, cause the straps that hold the tailgate wern't strong enough.
Wait that means he was riding ON THE TAILGATE.

alabbasi · #10 05-26-2011, 04:48 PM

All valid points, problem here is that hc-12a and it's likes are marketed as "completely safe products that require no license".

If a car manufacturer can put a label on a rear view mirror to warn drivers that objects appear closer then they are (or further). We should expect at least the same kind of warning form the makers of hc-12a , es-12a etc.

I'm not saying that it's a bad product, but maybe they should rethink how they market it.

MTI · #11 05-26-2011, 05:11 PM

The issue in many of these cases is "joint & several" liability. Under J&S and it's variants, when there is more than one "at fault" defendant, the injured party's verdict is collectable against all, some, or even one of the "at fault" defendants, regardless of their percentage of fault. It is then up to the "at fault" defendants to litigate amongst themselves to even out the payment. So, a defendant could be found to be 1% at fault for causing injury, however if that 1% defendant has the ability to pay, then 100% of the award may be collected against that defendant, who then has to chase the other defendant(s) for the 99%.

Emmerich · #12 05-28-2011, 11:54 PM

Labeling isn't the issue unless an average person would think the object in question could be easily used wrongly. How many people do you know that would think of butane as a refrigerant? That would be like putting labels on baseball bats to not stick them up your ass. Somebody will, but if it gets stuck, do you sue Louisville Slugger?

alabbasi · #13 05-29-2011, 02:00 AM

Not so much labeling as marketing. Some sites selling es-12a suggest that no vacuum is necessary, it's completely safe, no need to change oil... etc etc ....

This will attract the least knowledgeable and the least interested people to the product because the literature suggests that it's completely safe and idiot proof.

Sure one can argue that if a pressure switch did not fail, the car wouldn't have caught fire, but in reality had they not used a combustible gas in place of freon, the car wouldn't have caught fire even if the pressure switch failed.

Like I said, I'm not against it, but if people were more aware of the facts, they may make the effort in taking some common sense safety precautions before using it.

retmil46 · #14 05-29-2011, 03:31 AM

So it's illegal to use this stuff in a transportation application in the U.S. because it's flammable.....

But yet, both the EU and the EPA have approved 1234YF - the supposed replacement for R134 - and GM is supposed to start using this stuff in the 2013 model year.

And this stuff is flammable, toxic to humans, and contains hydrogen fluoride - which produces hydrofluoric acid when mixed with water - and will require an automatic purge valve on the high and low pressure sides of the system to vent off all the gas in event of an accident. Some safety organizations are already raising cane about this.

So why is one banned for being flammable, and the other approved for use even though it's flammable and toxic? Simple answer - follow the money - in this case Dupont's expiring patents on R134.

tjts1 · #15 05-29-2011, 06:06 AM

Is hydrocarbon refrigerant any more flamable than a CNG fueled bus?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIh5nGvKFso

Or an LPG fueled Mercedes?