Woman Cleared in Death Caused by Faulty G.M. Switch

[CosmicCowboy]

One more time nono. The english language is very specific. "drugs' does not necessarily equal pot. The drug test clearly confirmed a class II narcotic in her system, she had no prescription and was known to use illegal prescription drugs recreationally. The dead guys mother even confirmed she was trashed on them the night before the wreck the last time she saw her. Why are you accusing me of making this up? It's simple reading comprehension.

[ElNono]

You called her "stoned". Stoned is what you can call somebody intoxicated with marijuana.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stoned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoned
Substance intoxication, particularly cannabis intoxication

The drug test confirmed "traces" of Xanax. But the prosecutor himself says that if they would have known about the switch, the grand jury would have likely not convicted her.

At this point, you're arguing with the prosecutor and the judge's decision. Seems pretty silly to me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The automaker’s public acknowledgment linking Ms. Anderson’s crash to the defective ignition switch came in a letter from G.M.’s lawyers that was submitted by her lawyers to the district judge in Van Zandt County, Tex.

Should be in the case file.

[Shastafarian]

Like I said, I'm not defending GM.

[ElNono]

To CC's credit, he isn't defending GM, tbh...

I just don't get the rant about the story being "twisted"...

[Shastafarian]

To CC's credit, he isn't defending GM, tbh...

I just don't get the rant about the story being "twisted"...

"may" is not an admission of fault or responsibility.

Also note the calculated distinction between "old" GM that was possibly responsible and "new" GM that didn't manufacture the vehicle in question.

I realize he doesn't think he is because of his actual feelings toward GM or whatever, but this is defending the company that won't even defend itself in this case. Isn't it?

[FromWayDowntown]

Cosmic Cobra? I must be in the Twilight Zone.

[spurraider21]

lol unless you got into a time machine and inspected the car as the accident happened, you technically can't determine what the cause of the accident was. but there is this thing called product liability, and when they're having this huge, expensive recall, thats some damning evidence. especially when GM conducted an internal investigation and concluded that their vehicle was at fault

[ElNono]

lol unless you got into a time machine and inspected the car as the accident happened, you technically can't determine what the cause of the accident was. but there is this thing called product liability, and when they're having this huge, expensive recall, thats some damning evidence. especially when GM conducted an internal investigation and concluded that their vehicle was at fault

Agreed, but there's also the forensics aspect. A lot of conjectures are connected to create the theory of what happened under the assumption that certain things worked as expected. A car shutting down at an unexpected moment throws a big wrench into that.

[spurraider21]

Agreed, but there's also the forensics aspect. A lot of conjectures are connected to create the theory of what happened under the assumption that certain things worked as expected. A car shutting down at an unexpected moment throws a big wrench into that.

yep. add in that they are recalling that car for those exact reasons, and you have this reversal. not sure what cc is worrying about

[CosmicCowboy]

Guys, I'm not worrying about anything. Yes GM had a recall for that model. Yes it could have been the cars fault. That is all GM said...they had a recall on that product and it might have been the cars fault.

They didn't say it was the cars fault. They didn't examine the car. Nobody examined the car.

What is so hard to understand? She is getting a big payday. I'm ok with that. Maybe being stoned wasn't the cause of the accident. She seemed to think so at the time,but who really knows?

[ElNono]

I would surmise that GM did some sort of forensics before concluding their vehicle was at fault?

[CosmicCowboy]

I would surmise that GM did some sort of forensics before concluding their vehicle was at fault?

And around and around we go. GM never admitted fault.

[FromWayDowntown]

And around and around we go. GM never admitted fault.

The article seems to make it pretty clear that by May 2007, GM determined its vehicle was at least a cause of the accident in its own internal do ents and has now acknowledged the likely link between the defect in its vehicles (for which new GM assumed liability) and the Anderson accident. In Texas, nobody has to prove that a particular thing was THE cause of an accident in order to impose liability against a person; it is enough to prove that a particular thing was A cause of an accident. That GM's faulty ignition switch might have been a cause of the accident is enough for it to be held liable for that defect and the consequences it created.

That GM didn't expressly admit to liability in the papers it provided in aide of Ms. Anderson's exoneration is more indicative of an effort to create a supportive paper trail (I think) than an actual refusal to acknowledge any responsibility for causing the accident. Erickson's mother has a pending lawsuit against GM for this very accident, based on this defect, so it's definitely in GM's interest to not provide her with smoking gun-type proof in that lawsuit.

[FromWayDowntown]

Nobody examined the car.

So you're saying GM:

1. linked the faulty ignition switch in some Saturns to this particular accident;

2. conducted an internal review of the accident and concluded its car was to blame;

3. had an engineer conclude that the power to the vehicle had most likely shut off; and

4. included Ms. Anderson in the compensation program

all without ever examining the vehicle?

[CosmicCowboy]

So you're saying GM:

1. linked the faulty ignition switch in some Saturns to this particular accident;

2. conducted an internal review of the accident and concluded its car was to blame;

3. had an engineer conclude that the power to the vehicle had most likely shut off; and

4. included Ms. Anderson in the compensation program

all without ever examining the vehicle?

apparently so.

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vid...257c%257c%257c

[CosmicCowboy]

online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579435171004763740

[FromWayDowntown]

apparently so.

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vid...257c%257c%257c

Where in there does she say that GM never inspected the vehicle? The interview is now dated, given that GM has offered the very support that Barra said she thought was inappropriate for GM to provide, but beyond that, through her various dodges she never says "Well, we didn't have the opportunity to inspect the vehicle" or anything like it.

I'll admit that I've not kept up with the story, so if there's some attenuated reference to other context that would even suggest the lack of an investigation, I'm not aware of it at this point.

Instinctually, though, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that even a poorly-managed corporation would allow its employees to develop do ents establishing its own responsibility for an accident without taking simple steps like examining the product. It seems much more likely that if GM was denied the opportunity to inspect the vehicle for some reason it would have simply acknowledged a defect that was pervasive on a particular make/model of vehicle without saying that it caused or contributed to any particular accident.

[ElNono]

Yeah, what kind of internal investigation is it if you determine the switch was likely at fault without looking at the switch? That makes no sense.

Plus, AFAIK, forensic investigation in fatal crashes are fairly normal. Especially when you're charging somebody.

[CosmicCowboy]

Fine, have it your way.

No law enforcement, attorney, or anyone else notifies GM about the accident. GM on their own flew someone down there, they jumped the fence into the impound yard months after the accident when they finally heard about it,and did a complete teardown on the vehicle to determine their switch was at fault, then jumped the fence again and flew back to Detroit without ever telling anyone they were there. Ever.

makes perfect sense.

I'm done in this thread.

[ElNono]

Couldn't they just get the forensic report from the case? Seems like that would save a lot of fence jumping.

Why would GM acknowledge to have looked at this case particularly without particularly taking a look at it? Now that makes no sense. Unless you're saying they lied about looking at this case.

[Th'Pusher]

I'm done in this thread.

A little late, as nearly every response you've had in this thread has demolished by multiple posters with reasoned responses.

Better late than never I suppose.

[ElNono]

Nobody is winning the internets... chill...

[Th'Pusher]

Nobody is winning the internets... chill...

It's not about winning. He was making a fool of himself...and his comments about teaching you the English language were belittleling. Sorry, but the guy is a .

[spurraider21]

Nobody is winning the internets... chill...

not with that at ude. i'm the 5x defending champ