Ditto

http://www.wfaa.com/s/dws/news/local....72876ade.html

The family of a Garland girl who was accidentally killed last month when her father ran over her is suing a major car manufacturer for negligence.

On October 9, David Clemens backed up his Infiniti SUV and tragically ran over and killed two-and-a-half-year-old Adrianna.

"You just can't imagine the absence that is in our hearts right now with the loss of our daughter," mother Rachel Clemens said. "She rocked our world ... she was everything to us."

The family is suing Nissan, the parent company of Infiniti. They claim new back-up video cameras or sensors which detect objects behind a vehicle were available, and should have been installed in their SUV.

"This manufacturer was already putting it on some of its other vehicles, and it should have put it on this one," attorney Windle Turley said.

In a phone interview with News 8, Nissan/Infiniti spokesman Kyle Bazemore said the child's death was "very sad, very tragic," but added that even when an SUV comes equipped with a back-up video camera, it's not fool-proof.

"It's a convenience; it's not a substitute for proper reversing procedures," Bazemore said. "Drivers should always turn around and look."

"Yes, it's our responsibility, but so many tragic things have happened with children because of that," Rachel Clemens said.

Some research suggests as SUVs get bigger, so does the blind spot to the rear. Consumer groups estimate between 150 and 200 people - mostly toddlers - are killed in back-up accidents every year. Increasingly, consumers are demanding the new technology.

"As you can see, if you had a child laying on a tricycle or bicycle, laying behind you, you would be able to see that sitting in the driveway," said John Boyd of JR's Custom Auto as he demonstrated one of the back-up cameras.

"Our contention is that safety of this nature should not be optional, ever," Turley said.

The Clemens family believes if their SUV had a back-up camera, Adrianna would still be alive.

"She was my pride and joy," Rachel Clemens said. "She was a wonderful two-year-old that always had a smile on her face."

Turley said this is not just a case against Nissan; it's a case against the auto industry.

Rx900

omg! i knew someone was going to sue over the whole backup camera thing! But i thought i was going to be wrong!

tetra7

When will the ignorance end?!? The father & mother should be taken to the nearest septic tank and tossed in wearing cement shoes. EVERYONE OUT...SOMEONE PISSED IN THE GENE POOL AGAIN.

Honestly, even with a backup camera, which uses a wide-angle lens, you still have blindspots and distortion. There is no excuse for not thinking with your noggin.

Damn fool and his toys!

AgntTinkle

yeah...that is sad
but was it really nissans fault for a someone that is too lazy to supervise their children AND doesnt know how to look behind them when they drive?

Gojirra99

That's absurd He is solely responsible for the accident.

Davtown

Agreed... I hope this guy doesn't get a cent.

PureDrifter

iTrader: (10)

This guy must be super desperate for $$$.

Nissan clearly states that the backup cameras are NOT fool proof and that you should look over your shoulder anyway to check for obstructions. as for backup sensors, those are at bumper level, a toddler crawling around wouldnt be detected with those. Backup sensors were designed for parking to reduce fender benders. they are NOT a safety device. I feel for the family, its a hard loss, but dont disgrace your daughter by using her death to make some money.

Neo

iTrader: (3)

This is just rediculous. It is bad enough that the parents are negligent enough to do this. Now they are blaming a car manufacturer for not making an optional accessory standard? I know if for some horrific reason I did this, I would feel so incredibly bad. I would not go an do what these people are doing. For me, all I see is these people putting a "Look how stupid I am" sign on themselves.

It was sad and unfortunate. Own up to the mistake and move on. It won't be easy but it has to be done nonetheless. Despite being so rediculous (IMO), I hope they find some peace and get through this unfortunate event.

tofu_house

iTrader: (2)

that is quite possibly the dumbest thing i have ever heard of. how can someone sue a major car company for their own negligence and irresponsibility? why is there a 2 and a half year old crawling around or toddling around outside unsupervised? i mean the father should have been responsible enough to see where his daughter was and additionally, what was behind his SUV that he was backing up.

the fact that the family is sueing nissan for NOT MAKING THE BACK UP CAMERA STANDARD is quite stupid if i have to say. basically saying, they would have sued Lexus/Toyota if he backed up into his daughter in a GX470? the fact of the matter is, the father was completely irresponsible by 1. NOT knowing where his daughter was 2. showing irresponsibe driving ability (not looking behind) 3. Making poor judgement claiming it is Nissan's fault.

i hope this idiot learns to realize that it was indeed HIS fault and that the death of his daughter is in his own hands. i definitely hope that he loses the case and realizes how stupid he was first backing up into his daughter and second making a fool of himself by carrying out this sue. what an idiot...

bizzy928

The sad thing is that Nissan will probably settle with the family.

PureDrifter

iTrader: (10)

i doubt that theyl settle, most major companies and individuals only settle when they sense it would take too much time and money to win the case outright. if Nissan settled, they would basically be admitting defeat and most likely be forced eventually to put the camera and sensors into standard options.. then, if they do, the government would likely force the rest of the industry to follow which, of course, would raise car prices a bit across the board, from a civic to an LS.

mmarshall

I agree this is a frivolus lawsuit and should be tossed out........but Nissan also has got some explaining to do why it doesn't install more cameras, particularly if they are available. The fact that there are no grounds to sue doesn't absolve Nissan from having to explain its marketing decisions. Auto companies do a lot of dumb things and often never really have to EXPLAIN them......and THAT has to change.

D2-AUTOSPORT

This is what hurts a company that tries to install new technology in its vehicles. Some idiot gets a car with a backup camera, and never looks over his/her shoulder again! And the park sensors comment was just plain stupid, those things are to detect other cars and walls, not toddlers! (what did they expect the sensor would see the child and then the camera would aim down and display a message "watch out your child is here"??)

I know the parents of this child must be in grave pain, but a frivilous lawsuit is not a easy out of that pain. Plus they are making themselves look like money hungry scam artists, rather than grieving parents!

CleanSC

Then why'd you run her over, dip*****?

This man will burn in hell. He's not even suing because the camera didn't show the child, he's suing because it's an option his cheap *** didn't want to pay for in the first place? WTF. So he was aware he has to back up the old fashioned way, correct? The same way the rest of the planet does without killing their children? I fail to see how Nissan is at fault for selling this *** the car he wanted with the options he wanted.

What a complete *****.

mkorsu

What I would like to know is how two people, that are obviously dumber than a rock can actually have jobs that allow them to purchase an Infinity!!! I pray that their daughter is somewhere better now and at least she won't be subjected to her inbred parents amazment at the new-fangled water dripping machine in their kitchen! "WOW, Look honey!!! Indoor plumbing!!!! WOO-HOO!!!!
I hope they rot in hell!