Originally Posted by eddie4203
In which case, it is the insurance company who should pay,then go after the manufacturer, if they think it was some sort of engineering issue. That is what you pay your premium for.
I don't agree that with what you said that it does not matter what she did to precipitate the situation, just so long as it can be proven that the car malfunctioned. I think that her hand in this matter the most. Regardless of her intent, she made some VERY poor decisions once her car became stuck, which caused the "malfunctions" and catastropic tire failure.
Life lessons can be very expensive. I think she should just be grateful that nobody was hurt, and the only damage was to a car and to her house, both which are repairable.
I still think that forensics report is BS, and littered with innacuracies and non-essiential information, especially like the wagon example.
yes it really is an insurance issue at this point... while i would agree that any sort of situation like this has potential liability implications for MB, this particular situation is more of a rarity as far as the probability of having this sort of situation duplicate itself. the big question is whether the driver was spinning the tires like crazy or not.... initially the posts indicated that she was attempting to spin the tires a few times to get the vehicle out when the tire finally exploded. the most recent post now is alleging that the (maybe) the tire failure was caused by an uncontrolled spin up due to some sort of crazy failure with ESP, resulting in catastrophic failure of the tire in 5 seconds.
now whether of not that is true or even possible is another story but the forensic report produces absolutely no evidence to support such a conclusion. in fact the report produces no evidence at all, merely stating that the data supports the conclusion yet we never see the data. i guess its a bit harsh to say that the forensics report is "BS" because it has not been proven blatently false but rather is wholly imcomplete, non standard and full of suppositions. the examiner *could* always properly amend the report by adding about 100 pages actually detailing the actual operation of the vehicle, showing proof through test cases and submitting ALL relevant data good or bad in a manner that can be verified.
as to whether this will happen is not likely. the problem is that proving non-standard operation of an embedded computer system is *alot* different than proving something like tire failure due to a non standard condition or materials failure. tires for example are well understood from their construction to their testing. there are literaly thousands of pages of reference material that detail everything about tires. on the other hand, vehicle computer systems are by nature proprietary and closed systems. mercedes does not disclose their operation outside of the very basic operating principal (e.g. anti lock brakes stop the vehicle by modulating braking force on a slipping tire.) we know what it does but the detail of how and under what exact conditions are kept secret. mercedes has no obligation to release this information; it is by nature trade secret and the result of *billions* of dollars of and years of research and development. the only way to understand these sorts of systems then can only be done via reverse engineering (which is what my job is). RE is an profession that is practiced by a a very small subset of engineers who have to be very good at what they do. even then it requires *alot* of work to learn the inner workings of a closed system, taking months and sometimes even years. for an examiner to know or understand a failure mode of a particular system requires that the system is fully understood. since complete unaided reverse engineering is often impractical due to time or budgetary constraints what happens is that a case will proceed to court where the systems designer will be asked to disclose things like system firmware during discovery which is then protected under seal. (if they then are granted access to this information) this allows the RE to more quickly understand the system and then possibly prove a failure mode and possibly prove legal liability on the manufacturers part.
the problem is that all of this costs money... *alot* of money... more money than regualr people could ever possibly afford and thus its left to the law firm to decide if they want to finance a particular case against the possibility of a big dollar settlement. this is why these sorts of things are only done when large possible settlements are involved such as in class action suits or in things like aviation disasters where there is tremendous loss of life. this is one of those cases where its just not going to happen... at least not that i can see and certainly not for a $25K settlement.