Lemon Law for California

Build Dates : April 01, 2006 - May 31, 2006
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 06V307000 
Date Owner’s Notified: 20061107  Date Received by ODI: 20060811  Date Added to Databse: 20060811 
Manufacturer’s Involved: GENERAL MOTORS CORP. 
Manufacturer’s Responsible for the Recall: GENERAL MOTORS CORP. 
Manufacturer Campaign Number: 06079 
Component: WHEELS:RIM 
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 3227 
Summary:
Certain sport utility vehicles and trucks fail to comply with the rewuirements of federal motor vehicles safety standard No. 110 “tire selection and rims”. These vehicles have an incomplete tire rim designation on the certification/tire labellocated on the driver’s door edge. In addition, the label may also be missing the tire load rating on the label. Although this information is not required by the standard, if a tire of a lesser load rating is installed,the tire may not be able to sustain the loads encountered during use.

Consequence:
If a customer replaces a wheel and only relies on the rim size designation that is indicated on the label, a wheel that is of a different rim contour designation may be installed. It may be difficult or impossible to mount the tire on a wheel with the wrong contour.If the tire is mounted on the wheel with the wrong contour, the wheel and tire may not perform as intended, which could increase the risk of a crash.

Remedy:
A label that will correct the label originally installed will be mailed to consumer along with installation instructions. The customer will have the option for dealers to install the label. The recall began on November 7,2006.Owners should contact Cadillac at 1-866-982-2239 , Chevrollet at 1-800-630-2438 , and GMC trucks at 1-866-996-9463.

Most motor vehicles are safely designed and carefully manufactured. Some, however, are carelessly made or improperly designed. Poorly designed or defectively produced vehicles can be dangerous and can cause serious injury or death.

The laws governing responsibility for defective motor vehicles and what must be proven in court to establish liability vary from state to state. In most states, the parties who may held liable include:

* The vehicle manufacturer
* The manufacturer of defective component parts such as tires, hoses etc.
* The dealer, if the vehicle was purchased from a dealer

Several different reasons exist for holding a party liable for harm caused by a motor vehicle defect. The three most common legal theories for finding someone liable are breach of warranty, negligence, and strict liability.
A manufacturer or vehicle dealer, but not an individual who is not in the vehicle sales business, may be liable for breach of express or implied warranty if the vehicle is not fit or safe to be operated as intended. A breach of warranty may occur if there was an error in the design of the vehicle, if a particular vehicle was put together poorly, or if the components installed on the vehicle did not perform properly. However, it is possible for a seller and buyer to disclaim all warranties during a vehicle sales transaction. Your attorney can review all of the documents signed at the sale of your vehicle and all of the surrounding circumstances to determine if there is an express or implied warranty in effect.

A manufacturer or a dealer may be held liable for negligence if the vehicle was not manufactured according to specifications, if it contained a design defect, or if the installed components were inadequate. Negligence may also apply if a vehicle was marketed improperly, such as if a vehicle is shown in advertisements driving at a higher rate of speed than is safe for that vehicle.

Strict liability does not require an injured party to show that the manufacturer or seller of a product was negligent. The injured party needs to show only that the product was unsafe.

The most important concept in vehicle defect liability cases is “crashworthiness“. Crashworthiness is the ability of a vehicle to prevent injuries to the occupants in the event of a collision. During a collision, a vehicle’s occupants are subject to a number of forces that can result in injury, including rapid deceleration and rapid acceleration, depending on the direction of impact in the collision. Crashworthiness deals primarily with the ’second collision’ that results from these forces, in which the driver and passengers collide against the interior of the vehicle. An effective crashworthy vehicle design will distribute these injurious forces over as great a period of time and distance as possible, including by directing them to parts of the body that are more capable of withstanding them.

Crashworthiness features, which are designed to minimize occupant injuries, prevent ejection from the vehicle, and reduce the risk of fire, include: seat belts; crumple zones; and, airbags (including side impact protection).

It is key to remember that the cause of the accident is usually considered irrelevant in crashworthiness cases, but that the concept can be used to hold a vehicle manufacturer liable for injuries sustained in a car accident because of a defect that was not the cause of the accident, but caused or made worse the injuries suffered in the accident. Basically, crashworthiness is concerned with whether the manufacturer designed the vehicle and its components so that it is safe for any reasonably foreseeable use. A vehicle’s reasonably foreseeable use includes the possibility of its involvement in a collision; therefore, a manufacturer’s duty extends to the design of a vehicle that is reasonably safe should a collision occur. Injuries caused by a vehicle’s crashworthiness are considered (and can be compensated) apart from the injuries that were caused by the accident itself. This distinction can prove to be a little difficult when it comes time to prove your injuries and their causes, especially when it comes to medical proof of the extent of an enhanced injury beyond the injury that could have been expected if the vehicle had been crashworthy.

Recently, there has been significant effort in Congress and in some state legislatures, to establish that a vehicle manufacturer’s compliance with government safety standards is a valid defense to a vehicle defect claim, but courts are continuing to rule that, regardless of federal standards, vehicle manufacturers have a duty to build a car that is as safe as is reasonably possible under the present state of mechanical technology, vehicle design, and safety.

In order for you to recover in a claim based on a motor vehicle’s crashworthiness, you will likely need to show that a design feature that was reasonably avoidable either caused an injury in an automobile accident, or increased the risk of that injury. One of the most effective ways to establish this is to show that a safety device was available, and that such a device could have and should have been used.