Gone in 60 munutes... or less...

[Wild Cobra]

At 8:07 p.m. on Dec. 19th, Lance Utley crashed his new 2015 707 HP Challenger cat, less than one hour after driving it off the dealers lot.



I did some checking around, and I'll bet some lawyer will try to take this case and sue the dealer and/or Chrysler. You see, this car was equipped with Pirelli summer tires. Pirelli says this about the equipped tires:

Pirelli’s warranty does not cover tires that develop compound cracking due to use in ambient temperatures below 45° Fahrenheit (7° Celsius), so the P Zero Nero, like all summer tires, is not intended to be driven in near-freezing temperatures, through snow or on ice.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....el=P+Zero+Nero

I think some lawyer will try to argue the accident was not his fault as the tires are not capable of gripping properly below 45 degrees. Anyone think some lawyer will not be that creative? Such tires would be too hard to properly grip asphalt.


Edit...


Ooops...

Meant to put this in the club...

[boutons_deux]

a fool and his money ....

[Wild Cobra]

a fool and his money ....

Well, he definitely was going too fast for the conditions, but I do wonder if it was nothing more than misjudging the tires capability at the near freezing temperatures. I wonder what the skid marks will say besides the drifting already stated on one article I read? I will assume this is not his first powerful car. I think he just didn't know the Pirelli's temperature limitation.

$70k, gone in less than 60 minutes.

[FromWayDowntown]

The wonderful thing about tort reform, in most places, is that the culpability of the claimant is almost universally something a jury can and should consider is determining liability in a products action.

But if the driver was driving the car reasonably and this sort of an accident occurred because of some problem with the tires -- either a failure or the fact that the car was equipped with the wrong tires for the conditions (particularly if the conditions were known to the manufacturer and/or seller) then I think there's a very clear products liability/negligence case under the law of virtually any state.

I don't think that would be a particularly controversial lawsuit.

[Wild Cobra]

The wonderful thing about tort reform, in most places, is that the culpability of the claimant is almost universally something a jury can and should consider is determining liability in a products action.

But if the driver was driving the car reasonably and this sort of an accident occurred because of some problem with the tires -- either a failure or the fact that the car was equipped with the wrong tires for the conditions (particularly if the conditions were known to the manufacturer and/or seller) then I think there's a very clear products liability/negligence case under the law of virtually any state.

I don't think that would be a particularly controversial lawsuit.

I wonder if the tires are the issue, and if so, was the driver made aware of Pirelli's disclaimer.

Personal responsibility is paramount in my view, but some things do need to have no uncertainties involved.

[CosmicCowboy]

I wonder if the tires are the issue, and if so, was the driver made aware of Pirelli's disclaimer.

Personal responsibility is paramount in my view, but some things do need to have no uncertainties involved.

You buy a car with 707 horsepower you intend to break the tires.

[Yonivore]

It's number three in their "ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT & REPLACEMENT LIMITED WARRANTY PASSENGER & LIGHT TRUCK TIRES" do ent that I'd be willing to bet accompanied the purchase.

Also, isn't it standard language in any owner's manual that the buyer should read and understand the manual before operating the piece of equipment covered in the manual?

[FromWayDowntown]

I wonder if the tires are the issue, and if so, was the driver made aware of Pirelli's disclaimer.

Personal responsibility is paramount in my view, but some things do need to have no uncertainties involved.

Personal responsibility is fine and the law in most jurisdictions accounts for that by limiting liability where the claimant is at least somewhat at fault for an occurrence. But if the tires failed through no fault of the driver or if those with superior knowledge of the product failed to warn the driver (or to equip the vehicle with appropriate tires for the conditions), precluding a tort recovery is tantamount to saying that we don't care if manufacturers put out ty products that hurt people and that sellers have absolutely no obligation to warn those who are, presumptively, equipped with inferior knowledge of the product about its hazards. I realize that the tort reform movement is based significantly upon the notion that enabling business is a substantially greater concern than compensating those who are injured when bad business practices cause harm, but societally, we certainly haven't gone so far as to provide manufacturers and sellers with immunity where they were in position to prevent or limit the injuries caused by their products, which seems (to me, at least) a sensible balance.

[Yonivore]

Personal responsibility is fine and the law in most jurisdictions accounts for that by limiting liability where the claimant is at least somewhat at fault for an occurrence. But if the tires failed through no fault of the driver or if those with superior knowledge of the product failed to warn the driver (or to equip the vehicle with appropriate tires for the conditions), precluding a tort recovery is tantamount to saying that we don't care if manufacturers put out ty products that hurt people and that sellers have absolutely no obligation to warn those who are, presumptively, equipped with inferior knowledge of the product about its hazards. I realize that the tort reform movement is based significantly upon the notion that enabling business is a substantially greater concern than compensating those who are injured when bad business practices cause harm, but societally, we certainly haven't gone so far as to provide manufacturers and sellers with immunity where they were in position to prevent or limit the injuries caused by their products, which seems (to me, at least) a sensible balance.

I read a few gear head blogs on this accident and, realizing they're not legal scholars, they suggest no manufacturer installed tire would have performed any better, under the conditions. 707 horsepower can cause snow chains to lose traction under certain types of acceleration.

But, I agree, the manufacturer and dealer are responsible for ensuring the vehicle is properly equipped with the appropriate safety equipment.

[CosmicCowboy]

When you buy a high performance vehicle it comes with speed rated tires. The tires are special purpose for going fast. It used to kill me to replace Z rated tires back when I was doing performance cars. , I had a Vette that literally had 4 different tires on the ground and you bought them as a set and didn't rotate them. If the dealer had installed snow tires on that bad boy they would have literally flown apart under the potential stress that car was capable of putting them under.

[Wild Cobra]

You buy a car with 707 horsepower you intend to break the tires.

Those tires were the right fit for warmer weather. Just not near freezing.

[Wild Cobra]

Personal responsibility is fine and the law in most jurisdictions accounts for that by limiting liability where the claimant is at least somewhat at fault for an occurrence. But if the tires failed through no fault of the driver or if those with superior knowledge of the product failed to warn the driver (or to equip the vehicle with appropriate tires for the conditions), precluding a tort recovery is tantamount to saying that we don't care if manufacturers put out ty products that hurt people and that sellers have absolutely no obligation to warn those who are, presumptively, equipped with inferior knowledge of the product about its hazards. I realize that the tort reform movement is based significantly upon the notion that enabling business is a substantially greater concern than compensating those who are injured when bad business practices cause harm, but societally, we certainly haven't gone so far as to provide manufacturers and sellers with immunity where they were in position to prevent or limit the injuries caused by their products, which seems (to me, at least) a sensible balance.

What I bolded is what I think could be the issue.

[Wild Cobra]

I read a few gear head blogs on this accident and, realizing they're not legal scholars, they suggest no manufacturer installed tire would have performed any better, under the conditions. 707 horsepower can cause snow chains to lose traction under certain types of acceleration.

But, I agree, the manufacturer and dealer are responsible for ensuring the vehicle is properly equipped with the appropriate safety equipment.

Yes, there are plenty of issues, including spinning the wheel inside the tire.