I very much look forward to reading about all the cases where something even close to this has ever happened. I'm guessing it's right up there with the class action law suits against car companies for allowing drivers to turn off their head lights and then running into a bus full of nuns and orphans.
Not the same idea... If you disable a safety feature on your own car and you are injured, the manufacturer not liable. If the dealer disables your lights so that they do not work when you turn them on, then the dealer may be liable for your injury (and the injury to the nuns and orphans who have never had contact with the dealer). Regardless of your personal beliefs, the dealer / manufacturer are right to be concerned about their potential liability.
You may believe that the laws should be changed (and I would not challenge you to your opinion), but that has little bearing on potential liability under current laws of most states. Having the dealer remove the safety device / warning could easily result in liability to that dealer.
As for "all the cases where something even close to this has ever happened," it's really not that hard to find numerous cases involving liability associated with disabling or removing a safety feature, guard, or warning for a wide variety of devices. "[T]he various pronouncements in Liriano instruct that a manufacturer who issues no warnings concerning the danger of operation without a safety device is not absolved from liability for failure to warn as a matter of law simply because the machine was substantially modified through removal of the device." (Cacciola v. Selco Balers, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. 2001) 127 F.Supp.2d 175, 189, citing Liriano v. Hobart Corp. (1998) 92 N.Y.2d 232). The fact that the dealer makes the modification may also increase the likelihood of liability by giving the dealer actual knowledge instead of constructive knowledge. In Arizona, only an unforeseeable modification of a product bars recovery from the manufacturer. Anderson v. Nissei ASB Mach. Co., Ltd. (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999) 197 Ariz. 168; Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993) 180 Ariz. 170. Missouri may fall a bit closer towards protecting a dealer... it is a state law issue that would require analysis of an individual state's law...
Last edited:
