Reactionaries have used rising car thefts to justify ineffective tough on crime policies despite widespread knowledge that the increases are largely a result of negligence from Kia and Hyundai and the inability to hold corporations accountable.
Reactionaries have used rising car thefts to justify ineffective tough on crime policies despite widespread knowledge that the increases are largely a result of negligence from Kia and Hyundai and the inability to hold corporations accountable.
It’s odd that a federal judge denied a class action lawsuit. I didn’t know that they could do that.
Who would be able to do that if not a judge?
Honestly thank god, because if being easy to steal was something you could sue for, every bicycle company about to go out of business.
Except we all know that and expect that to be the case when owning a bicycle.
Exactly, it’s about expectation.
A good analogy would be: pretend most bike manufacturers successfully make their bikes incredibly difficult to steal using hard, integrated locks, motion sensors, wheel locks, etc. And the user would somehow be none the wiser, it “just works”. Your average consumer doesn’t know what goes into car security, they just plop the key in and off it goes.
Now imagine if, e.g., Giant was the only bike manufacturer to not have these security features, that people have now come to expect from their bikes. After spending $25,000 on their bicycle, it gets stolen super easily and they now learn that they purchased a theft magnet. This will occur over and over until they get rid of the bicycle. Regular bike locks (The Club™) are super easy to open or destroy, and are barely deterrents.
It’s not a fair comparison to compare the unusual theft of a vehicle model that costs upwards of $20,000 to a bicycle where there is no expectation of security and costs around $500 on average.
I like it. This is a good analogy
I think it’s more like failing to meet basic standards and practices for a consumer product. Like how would you feel if the next cell phone you bought couldn’t be locked? Failure to comply with basic standards of what your selling is wrong.
deleted by creator
There’s a difference between what consumers accept to be standard and what’s legally required. Have you seen the state of consumer protections in the US?
deleted by creator
There’s a ton of different ways this could be approached legally from my limited legal knowledge. The entire basis of tort law is being able to sue for damages that were incurred due to actions or decisions of a party that caused you harm. What they did to harm you can be entirely legal. That’s the entire point of civil court. You don’t have to break the law to be sued.
Also this.
gb2reddit