BraveDemon

1. A single incidence of injury will not be probative evidence in a civil action. Most civil actions for defective design require that the injury be specific to the defect.

Example: Tobacco compnay case - plaintiff (and lots of other plaintiffs) claimed that cigarettes were defective by design because they were highly addictive, making it impossible to quit smoking, and thus were now suffering from lung cancer as a result.

Surprisingly, plaintiffs one this case because of the overwhelming medical evidence that proved cigarettes contained highly addictive substances that caused lung cancer. And there were lots of medical reports, and expert witnesses that testify to those facts. And those injuries were specific: Meaning everyone of the plaintiffs suffered the EXACT same injury.

Here, it'd be hard to show that this guys' fiancee would have suffered an injury similar to lets say another person due to the tranny failure and that the injury stemmed directly from the tranny itself and not outside factors. I mean, there are just too many factors involved; how fast was he driving? Did he ignore all the signs of a slipping tranny to begin with? Did he take in the car to get the service that was required? Is serious bodily harm likely if someone is driving 50 mph? What if other factors were involved, like weather? Tire wear? Intoxication? What about if they're driving 70mph? At 70 MPH is the driver now contributorily negligent for causing the injury since he broke the speed limit?

2. Firestone/Ford recall was for a very specific design defect and injury: the tire tended to blow out when explorers reached speeds of 45 mph. Although there may have been lots of ppl driving over the speed limit, facts proved that the tires had a drastically improved chance of blowing out at any speed above 45 mph and that a person driving within the speed limit could have their tires blow out. And the injury resulted from the tire blow out was "death or significant bodily harm." And any expert can testify that tires blowing at 45 mph + on a highway will seriously injure someone or cause death.

Statutes will determine what a "significant bodily harm" is, but short of one losing a limb, requiring emergency treatment, or fear if imminent death... I doubt it would qualify as a serious injury.

And in our case, as Fsttyms1 stated, you can tell the transmissions gonna go way before it reaches actual failure. If you ignore the signs, and dont take it in to get inspected, then at that point you may be held contributorily negligent for causing the injury.

We don't know what caused the guy's finance to get injured, but I bet that guy ignored the signs of a failing tranny and didn't get it serviced. Most people's trannys don't just "die all of a sudden" without any symptoms.

Also, I'd be super hesitant about some guy saying "I suffered the same thing, I have info for you!" on a public website. It sounds like a ploy for spam, or some attorney wanting to fish in some business.

BLADE RUNNER

I looked at the link you provided. In it was this statement:

There are no "known " case's of any death's related to these transmission failure's, but take note we are speaking of KNOWN case's because if one had their transmission fail in one of the catastrophic way's which are described on the website's and did not live to tell how the accident occured ,then it would NOT then be able to be known


That was the point that I was thinking about. If there are no studies or tests that show the affected vehicles involved in a fatality was tested, in that the transmissions were removed and tested for slippage or catastrophic failure; how can any side claim that this defect did not cause any deaths?

fsttyms1

you guys also need to remember that what brough about the recall for the oil jet was infact a catastrophic failure of the tranny. That is what the oiljet was for. the 2nd gear shaf would over heat and shear causing wheel lock up with no signs of failure and no control of the car. That is the figure you see from honda and the NTHSA of the 1% or less failure. We cant compare a accident or problem of the 2nd gear with the main problem that we all suffer from.

Fast99TL

I have 130,000 miles and no tranny problems yet but if i did no warrenty.

TunedTL

The link I provide shows just one injury that is known to us (the public), I don't know that is the only injury caused by the tranny failure.
Chances are, they are more but one needs to research more to come up with good stats to be used in the case.
9 months/ 9K is just too cheap to release one's right, can we send a letter back to exclude ourselves from the class?

BLADE RUNNER

If everyone that is over the mileage opts out in writing and everyone else who is close to 109k opts out, it would be interesting to see how it would effect the settlement. I am opting out to preserve my rights over 109k.

More research is needed but it would costs a large amount of money to perform.

I wonder how many class members there are and what % has 109k miles and over?

chiltonj

I have a 03 Acura TL-S that I bought in 4/02 with 80K miles. It was a "managers car" and I got a decent deal. Looking back, I wonder if the dealer knew that they were selling me a quasi-lemon. I received the statement letter the other day and although I think the 93 months extension is OK, the additional 9,000 miles is a joke.

Consider the additional car owner costs as a result of the transmission problem that Acura has failed to realize (from my own personal experience):
* Four trips to the dealer - mileage, gas, wear and tear, missed time at work, rental car (that I had to pay for), and stress. Yes, stress from worrying about getting killed on the highway. The dealer finally rebuilt the transmission.
* Loss of resale value - any buyer who looks up information on this car will notice the transmission problems. I can talk around the problem with prospective buyers but I have a feeling that it will take longer to sell and I'll take a hit on the selling price. Furthermore, if I do a trade-in at the dealer, it will be considerably less than the "bargain" dealers typically provide when buying your car.
* Dealers don't want to mess with service and support especially if it's free. I have to take my car to get it checked again and I'm not sure if it will ever be fixed. I'll probably end up paying for something I don't need when I visit them. Right now, the downshift is random and doesn't happen often like it did before.
* Opportunity cost. Based on the decision (93mths/9K), I'm not sure I'll get another Acura. I can see GM doing this to people, but c'mon, Acura?

walter eckland

Just got a letter telling me about a potential out-of-court settlement on the Acura transmission problems. The big winners are the lawyers. The second-place winner is Honda (they extend warranty 9K and still get to decide who gets a new tranny. The loser are the owners. I am sending a letter Objecting to the settlement and will withdraw from the settlement. Comments?

walter eckland

Acura has not been the customers friend. The push away legitimate claims. This settlement leaves Acura in charge. They decide who gets new tranny. This is about money and Acura will not budge. Bottomline: A huge win for Acura. I urge everyone to write to the judge and object or withdraw.

walter eckland

I agree with the opt out. I also urge you to write to the judge objecting to the settlement. This isn't about injury. This is about failed transmission at $2-3,000 a pop. Acura needs to replace the trannys sweet and simple.

walter eckland

I disagree with your shameful defense of Honda. Honda has done everything it can to avoid taking responsibility for bad tranny. The out-of-court settlement is a sham and a shame.

fsttyms1

^ And i agree with optomos. Acura has gone above and beyond what ive seen any other manufacturer do and extend the warranty to 7 years/100k. The NTHSA looked into it and said they didnt have to recall it. And it also appears that they have found a answer to the problem and have fixed it.

TunedTL

Opting out is the most reasonable decision to me. Personally, I think it is more important than spending time and energy supporting/blaming Honda.
BTW, it is pretty good school you got into. UCLA Law