May 21 2008
Is ‘Ultimate Driving Machine’ Really Safe?
Here is a serious question. “Can clever promotion and flashy advertisements overcome an automobile manufacturer’s inability produce and then maintain a persistently defective automobile?” You’ll probably answer; for a while, perhaps. However it should be considered that the dwindling spiral of shoddy workmanship, cynical customer service and deceptive repair practices will at one point destroy the manufacturer’s credibility and the public’s desire to own these products. If you lost it, it can take you years to regain it back. An attorney won a resounding victory against the German auto manufacturer, BMW in the case Alegria vs. BMW. It was one of those rare cases when the jury made a decision that the defendant should pay Mr. Alegria double damages. Now, pursuant to the decision of the jury, BMW is required to the plaintiff $75,960.95 for the repurchase of the vehicle and $151,921.90 for damages. There will probably be another motion for pre-judgment interest plus attorney’s fees and costs currently estimated, which will be around $135,000.00. Pursuant to the current law there may be a ‘lodestar’ award that makes it possible to apply as much as a five times multiplier to the award of fees.
If not the severe airbag safety issue the vehicle was well qualified for a repurchase under California Lemon Law, based on the five electronics control system defects. The mentioned defects included the engine shutting off when the vehicle was turned to the right or to the left, the accelerator sticking and that the engine died at stops; also the engine would die when placed in reverse. In the first 3,702 miles of operation Mr. Alegria took the vehicle to the dealership for repairs. After 32 days at the dealership the defects were not corrected by the various repair attempts and the vehicle became presumptive under California law.
However vehicle had another problem connected with the airbags. Mr. Alegria and his two passengers were driving on the freeway when the driver-side airbag deployed. Mr. Alegria had some minor injuries. He was able to get the vehicle to the side of the busy freeway. BMW argued that the driver must have hit a pothole on the right front of the vehicle. This announcement cannot be supported by any physical analysis. Odd that the airbag on the right side of the vehicle where is supposedly hit the pothole did not deploy. As was discovered at trial, BMW’s expert was in fact not an expert on the behavior of airbags at all. One of Mr. Alegria’s passengers testified that no pot hole was hit prior to the airbag deployment.
Nowadays, modern vehicles have half-dozen or more strategically positioned airbags, while some years ago there was only one for the driver. On the other hand, the developers of airbags have not proposed any to protect the driver from objects below ground or falling from the sky. So vehicle owners lose confidence that the car they purchased is safe and offers protection for all the passengers.
It should be noted that this is the first time BMW has had problems with its safety systems. Mr. Alegria wanted the BMW dream. He wanted to own the Ultimate Driving Machine and it was his right to expect excellent, thoughtful and caring service.