My friend recently had a minor rear end collision and was found at fault by the insurance company. He had said and remains steadfast in his belief that he felt the pedal go to the floor for a moment and had no brakes but then the brakes suddenly came back to full operating capacity and that’s what caused the collision but had no way to prove it.
Now he gets a notification mailed to him talking about a recall in the antilock braking system that causes conditions exactly like the one he told me about.
He insists he had plenty of room to stop but had no response from the brakes.
My friend says:
”I was just looking at it online. It says that soft braking at low speed is when the problem occurs. I wonder if I didn’t slam on them because I felt there was ample time to stop? I just know it didn’t feel right.”
Is there any recourse as it relates to the accident knowing, in hindsight, there was a recall/defect that causes the very condition under/for which he was ultimately found responsible?
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-recalls-defects/gm-recalls-suvs-and-pickups-for-braking-issue/
From the Consumer Reports article:
The problem: The power brake vacuum pump—a component within the braking system—may generate less pressure over time because of a buildup of debris. As a result, the output of the power braking system may decrease.
The fix: Dealers will update software in vehicles at no charge to owners.
Um, I'm no genius but how does a software update alleviate a buildup of debris? Wierd.
Was his statement documented anywhere at the time? Like in the police report, etc.? If it was, I would think he had a case, otherwise, pretty tough. Lawyering-up is about his only recourse, but what does he expect out of this? "Not his fault" on his insurance claim? Not much there.
Not at fault is worth a fair amount of $$$. Here in MA it is five years of points to you license meaning much more costly insurance and it means you get your deductible back. That could be thousands. Definitely worth pursuing especially if it was in his statement or police report.
I remember my local news covering this phenomenon with these trucks before the recall happened as well. A gentleman called the I-Team or whatever it's called. The guy was trying to get GM to do something before someone got hurt.
He remembers saying something to the police but needs to see if it’s on the report.
My initial thought is this: the insurance company can’t prove it wasn’t the recall issue and my friend can’t prove it was. So tie goes to...
...Probably the party with higher paid lawyers
codrus
UberDork
9/14/19 11:00 p.m.
I'm not sure if a mechanical failure in your vehicle makes it "not your fault" in the eyes of the law, anyway.
codrus said:
I'm not sure if a mechanical failure in your vehicle makes it "not your fault" in the eyes of the law, anyway.
The parking brake failed on my MR2 while I was at work, unfortunately causing my car to roll into and crack the bumper of some guy's Focus SVT. After explaining the situation three or four times, my insurance company finally grokked that I was not inside my car when this happened, and they put the claim in the "act of God" bucket.
codrus said:
I'm not sure if a mechanical failure in your vehicle makes it "not your fault" in the eyes of the law, anyway.
I’d agree if he had forgone any maintenance and there was a failure as a result but this is, assuming it’s recall-related by default, not his fault.
My guess is that the order of things would go like this: When (and if) he is found at fault he could then pursue remedies against GM.
How were the runaway Toyota cases handled? I’d assume that would be his precedent to get at least the insurance end to put it under no fault and not hike his rates. I doubt the police give two E36 M3s
In MA you also have the opportunity to appeal the points, but there is a limited window.
If the window hasn’t passed he may be able to get the points removed even if he doesn’t get the deductible back.
Definitely worth a call to the insurance agent.
On edit: FAQ on appeal process
codrus said:
I'm not sure if a mechanical failure in your vehicle makes it "not your fault" in the eyes of the law, anyway.
You are wrong on this. The cause of the failure does mater. If it is from lack of maintenance or you modding something then you should be liable. Having a factory part or system fail in a new vehicle is not the fault of the operator and as such you are not liable. This is why we have recalls. Crashes caused by defective parts become the manufacturers liability along with the responsibility for the damages to others they cause. This is the motivation for auto manufacturers to do recall work. It is cheaper than paying for the damages there defective part or system causes.
The issue will be with the insurance company. It is much easier for them to pay out and blaim the vehicle owner versus trying to recoup anything from the mfgr. So instead the make you at fault and then re coup a larg portion of the payout from your rate increases they can get for an at fault accident on your record for the next five years.
I suspect that this really is something a lawyer or a advocate may be needed. I would also contact the state insurance board and see if they can help.
The reality of the situation is this:
If it was a minor accident, no one is going to give a single damn what your friend says. The insurance companies involved have adjudicated and closed the claims. Your friend can scream up and down it was mechanical failure that caused the accident, but no one involved will care. Both insurance companies have made their insureds whole and have literally millions of other claims to process.
You friend could theoretically hire an accident investigator to issue a report. But that will probably cost in excess of $1000 dollars and will do him next to no good, because again, the insurance company doesn't care anymore.
The best way to approach this is to chalk it up to a bad turn of events, thank your lucky stars no one was hurt, and drive more carefully in the future (yes, I am more than a little dubious about your friend's claim). You would be shocked at how many of the cases of inattentive drivers causing accidents are the result of 'mechanical failure.'
GarageGorilla said:
The best way to approach this is to chalk it up to a bad turn of events, thank your lucky stars no one was hurt, and drive more carefully in the future (yes, I am more than a little dubious about your friend's claim). You would be shocked at how many of the cases of inattentive drivers causing accidents are the result of 'mechanical failure.'
You’re dubious of my friends claim? What kind of an shiny happy person statement is that? He’s been my closest friend for almost 40 years. He’s been the guy who’s been my moral compass and steered me straight on way too many occasions. The guy, honest to God, has NEVER as much as used a swear word in my presence. To this very day, he will text me something he heard at work etc. with something like this: “A customer called the woman b**** right in front of his kids!”. He won’t even TYPE a swear word.
He told me immediately (incident being discussed happened months ago) what had happened and that he felt the pedal do something strange but then couldn’t be replicated.
This man has been a saint his entire life so take your dubiousness and shove it up your ass.
(apologies to the Mods and the other readers but that post really pissed me off)
My friends actual text to me:
”Remember how I told you that my pedal went to the floor and the truck seemed to lurch when I rear ended those people in my truck? Anyhoo, I got a recall from Chevy saying that in low speed rapid braking, there isn’t enough vacuum and the pedal may go to the floor. I wonder if I have any recourse regarding being found at fault?
I felt like I had plenty of room to stop.”
Again, you know what you can do with your dubiousness.
One other thing to consider, sometimes elderly folks mistake the accelerator pedal for the brake in a sudden stop situation. This seems like a likely occurrence in the instance as well. Would love to pull the ECU history for throttle application during and right before the crash.
GarageGorilla said:
Wow. You’re unhinged.
No, but don’t let being totally ignorant of the facts get in the way of your being wrong. You haven’t so far. You obviously don’t know what unhinged means. But you don’t have to be a genius (apparently) to see I’m pissed off. I guess you’ve discovered one of the only things that’ll get to me and make me react.
Is 49 years old elderly now? I honestly haven’t seen comments like this from someone so ill-informed since, well since now. Congratulations.
Its just that you’ve proven that the world is full of people that’ll type things onto a forum that they’d never dream of saying face to face.
You don’t know this man or how he’s lived his life and yet you have no problem doing what amounts to calling him a liar and likely attempting to commit insurance fraud.
Must not be much fun to be so suspicious and negative.
I have no interest in polluting GRM with any more replies to you regarding the morality of the most kindhearted, honest and upstanding person I know besides my wife.
As much as I do not want to, I'll chime in here as a referee.
Lets start with what Oxford has to say:
du·bi·ous
/ˈd(y)o͞obēəs/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: dubious
-
1.
hesitating or doubting.
"Alex looked dubious, but complied"
| synonyms: |
doubtful, uncertain, unsure, in doubt, hesitant; More |
| antonyms: |
certain, definite |
-
2.
not to be relied upon; suspect.
"extremely dubious assumptions"
| synonyms: |
suspicious, suspect, under suspicion, untrustworthy, unreliable, undependable, questionable; More |
| antonyms: |
trustworthy, decisive, clear, definite |
If Mr Gorilla is saying he is hesitant, doubtful of claim of mechanical failure then I think Mr Gorilla is not out of line. The nature of this very posting is, "how do I get people to believe...?"
However, it seems that Mr Ebony/Ivory might be interpreting that Mr. Gorilla is stating that the believes the driver is morally suspect and of questionable moral value.
I will side that Mr Gorilla was doubting the claim and its mechanical attributes not doubting the moral fiber of the driver.
Best for all included here to drop this portion of the discussion and focus back to, "what recourse could the driver have after the recall?"
In reply to John Welsh :
I respect your opinion but I’ll absolutely disagree with it. I believe he’s of the opinion that my friend is making this up ie: lying and then proceeds to suggest that barring him being a liar, being elderly (again, he’s 49) is also likely.
I’m out, for a while at least. I think online forums might not be the best place for me.
A friend drove a customer's Chev truck through his shop door because of a rusty knuckle that pushed the wheel speed sensor too far from the sensor ring.
Just saying.
Don't think that changes the fact that he was behind the wheel. Sue GM, but the insurance company won't give a E36 M3.
Seems a lot of people have misconceptions about what lawyers will and won't do. Plaintiff lawyers care about one thing and one thing only. Money. You (i.e. their client) are just the vessel by which they make their grab for cash. If there aren't bucks in it for them, they won't take the case, unless it's a personal favor or you're their family or something. There's no cash in this for them, so I'd be stunned if a plaintiff lawyer would take it. If you want to pay a lawyer to do this, I'm sure you'd find one, but I wouldn't hold my breath for results.
As for "fault" with the insurance company, it's a two pronged answer. Up front, the cause of the "failure" doesn't matter one bit. If their insured rear ended another a vehicle, they are going to owe that claim regardless of the cause. Where it may matter is in subrogation. If...and that's a HUGE if...the insurance company can prove this recall was directly related to why the accident happened, they would be able to get some or all of the money back from the manufacturer. But the odds of that are highly unlikely.
I didn't see this accident happen, so I can't say for sure. But from just a tad of experience I'd honestly say I'm highly dubious of the drivers' explanation too. Not that it couldn't be true, but rear end accidents from mechanical failure are extraordinarily rare.
And, insurance didn't care when I told them that my customers Ranger slave cylinder failed with her foot on the clutch on first gear, and that's why she drove into a guy after they had both stopped at a red light.
Still her fault.
