OT Court lets Automaker sue Consumer Reports

Supreme Court allows Sukuki's libel suit against Consumer
Union to continue

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2199331

 

Then you don't remember it. Driven on their normal accident avoidance course,
the car lifted 2 wheels very high. So CR instituted a shorter, tighter course
(which they have used for all SUVs since); the Samurai lifted the wheels so
high they rated it unsafe and thus unacceptable.

Of all the SUVs tested on this tighter course, the Samurai, the Trooper, and
the Montero are the only ones to get the "unacceptable" label. And the
Montero has now added stability control and is no longer unacceptable. The
other two are gone.

 

I think CR will have a problem with this case. If I remember it all
correctl it went like this: The model in question had rolled over
when an employee drove over a snow rut so they decided to revise their
roll over test so the car would roll. So basically they video'd tests
until they made it extreme enuf so the car would roll over and you can
here them cheering when they are successful making the test extreme
enuf. (I've seen the video of the test.) The jury could interpret
this as being out to "get" the car.

 

Art, is this post below a forgery or did you suddenly forget how to spell?

DS

 

....with large, wide and extremely heavy outriggers bolted to the underbody
of the Samurai, yes. Outriggers which changed the moment of inertia (look
it up if you don't remember your physics) of the vehicle substantially
from its as-sold configuration.

Be sort of interesting to compare real-world rollover stats to see if CR's
ratings are predictive of greater frequency of rollovers for the Samurai
and the Trooper than for comparable vehicles from other manufacturers. I'm
sure it'll happen as the lawsuit progresses.

DS

 

Actually the outriggers will increase the moment of inertia around the
longitudinal axis of the vehicle, hence making it *less*, not more,
likely to rollover.

 

Sorry Lloyd but you don't remember the whole story. Indeed it lifted
the 2 wheels on the old test and they were disappointed because of the
accident involving a staffer and snow rut. Therefore they decided to
make the test tougher. The process consisted of making the test
tougher on the Suzuki until it flunked. That test became their new
test for all future SUV's.

 

It is not a forgery and I've never been famous for my typing or
spelling.

 

That is CU's argument. I suspect there'll be some fairly extensive
analysis of their outrigger setup and its effect upon the MoI of a Suzuki
Samurai during the court proceedings.

DS

 

Yes, almost as bad as the exploding pickup gas tank that one of the
major networks staged. I think CBS, but I'm not 100% on that.

Even though I've been a subscriber to CR for probably 20 years, I'd
almost like to see them lose this one. I think they have gotten too
extreme of late and seem to think they are untouchable.


Matt

 

Yes, the bigger issue is did they raise the center of gravity. Also,
they certainly increased the weight on the suspension and tires and who
knows what affect that had.


Matt

 

I would guess the most important part of the proceedings will be the
attempt to prove CU acted with malice. Just conducting a less than valid
test, arriving at poor conclusions, and publicizing those conclusions is
not the stuff winning libel suits are made of (otherwise millions of
scientist would be in court). Suzuki will need to prove that CU acted
with the intent to harm Suzuki. If Suzuki only proves sloppy journalism,
then nothing much will happen. The court may agree with Suzuki that the
test and article were wrong, but unless Suzuki can prove there was a
deliberate attempt by CU to fake results to damage Suzuki, I can't see
where this case is going anywhere. I don't see where Suzuki can expect
to recover damages when GM didn't get anything out of Dateline. or Audi
get anything out of 60 Minutes when both those "news" organizations were
shown to have faked tests to support erroneous conclusions.

Regards,

Ed White

 

GM got what it wanted out of Dateline.... a very embarrassing
over-the-air apology.

Regarding the malice in the Suzuki/CU case.... it will be interesting.
It depends on the interpretation of the cheers from CU staffers on the
videotape as the Suzuki finally failed a test drive. Was it cheers
that they finally "broke" the Suzuki or was it cheers because they
finally came up with the specs for an improved test. I believe that
is the judgement the jury will have to make.

 

The GM/Dateline case was more clear cut. Clearly Dateline wanted to
make sure the vehicle would catch fire and used an ignition system to
ensure it. Clearly malice.

In CU's case, they were arguably trying to improve their tests because
they found a vehicle which passed it and in their judgement, it
shouldn't have. Therefore they concluded that the test wasn't
properly designed. What becomes the sticking point is the cheers that
you hear on the videotape when they finally get the Suzuki to flunk an
improved test. Suzuki says it shows malice. CU would say that it
they were cheering the design of a new test (that the Suzuki happened
to flunk).

 

Or another way of putting that is if the average mass of the outriggers
is below the normal vertical center of gravity of the unmodified
vehicle. That should be easily provable one way or the other. I
guarantee you that a vehicle's mfgr. knows the CG of his vehicle. The
remaining question would be is the center of mass of the outriggers
above or below that vertical level (roll taken into account, but the
averages should remain pretty much the same).

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

I can tell you from experience that lawyers are not interested in the moment
of inertial. Consumer reports, as much as I hate them, would be correct in
this argument, but really the lawyers will have no regard for what's true or
false.

 

really the lawyers will have no regard for what's true or

Ain't that the truth!
~~~

Firing wasn't enough for Grady.

My eBay stuff:
http://tinyurl.com/tutc

 

I generally agree with you. For most lawyers it is about winning and
losing, not right or wrong, justice or correctness. However, the jury,
assuming a jury trial, should be concerned with what is true and false.
Unfortunately, most lawyers will try to exclude people from the jury
like engineers, physicists, etc. who will make decisions based more on
logic than emotion. They much prefer people they can appeal to
emotionally. The easiest way I've found to get excluded from a jury is
to simply state my occupation.


Matt

 

Which were attached to the underside of the car, making it harder to roll.

 

There was never any mention of a "snow rut."

Wrong. That's why the judge dismissed the case -- he found Suzuki had no
evidence.