well if they are worried about a civil suit, i can pretty much guarantee the victims family is going to sue due to the fact the MB neglected in assisting the police in capturing the suspect and how can MB win that case knowing that they purposely ignored the court order.

the main thing about this case is that it is a court order...either they accept and cooperate or ignore, as such the case, and be dealt with

 

I still remember that. The news was showing a guy with ak-47 shooting at the police and all around. Reminds me of the beginning scene of predator 2.

 

i dont know only thing i can imagine is that it's a privacy thing and their stand firm on it

 

Although I am no longer in civil practice, I don't think anyone can actually sue MB for not helping the prosecution, unless there's a specific statute that says otherwise.

In this case, there are various reasons that can prevent the family from getting any legal remedies.

1. MB didn't create any risk to the deceased (even if it did, it would've been a stronger reason for its lawyers advising the company not to comply with the court order).

2. MB never tried to prevent the victim's family from getting other help

3. Common law does not dictate a duty to report crimes,

4. Good Samaritan statute does not apply to this scenario

5. I don't think the driver of the vehicle is actually married to or has any blood/special relationship with MB anyway.

The way I see it, the family's probably got no case against MB for negligence simply because MB refused to comply with two court orders. On the other hand, had MB voluntarily assumed to help the victim's family and something goes wrong at the end of the tunnel, it will be more vulnerable to lawsuits from the family.

Food for thoughts….

Jon

 

You might have a point here, Och....even if you meant it as humor. M-B vehicles, as a whole, rank lower on Consumer Reports' reliability-by-manufacturer chart than any other nameplate, including Land Rover.

 

This is a really sticky situation. I am perplexed, and that doesn't happen often.

As sad as the entire story is, the driver is innocent until proven guilty.
That being said, I am all for bringing criminals to justice, especially in personal
injury situations like this where the criminal shirked his responsibility to stop...
what happened to decency? Or being a human being?

On the flip side to that coin, Mercedes undoubtedly has some high profile
people that purchase their automobiles... good and bad. The whole thing
smacks as kind of "Big Brother" to me, and I have serious issues with that
portion of the case.

What if the guy had been driving an '81 Honda? He gets a pass
because his car has a carburetor and no GPS?

How about the po-po find the car and driver through good old-
fashioned police work? They have the plate number and a good
description, for crying out loud!

Tracking people down through their cell phones can't be far off
(in some cases, I know it already happens).

 

I give M-B credit where credit is due (always have)....in the extreme stiffness of the body structure, the effectiveness of their crumple-zones, the excellent crashworthiness of their vehicles, and the company's policy of sending factory engineers, if possible, to ANY fatal crash site, worldwide, involving a fatality in a M-B-designed product to evaluate the wreckage and come up with improvements. I have seen M-B engineers myself, on occasion, at local accident sites in this area....they wear white or light blue coats and clearly identify themselves.


And if you are annoyed by simply reading MY comments, how would you feel if you got stuck with an unreliable car like many recent M-B customers have? You would probably be a whole lot MORE annoyed.
.

 

I think a large part of the issue is that it's not his car - its registered to a family member.

 

 

What ammendment is it that gives you "THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT". MB has this right and therefore doesn't have to complie....plus the above statment was right with regards to the civic, its not fair to the MB owner that he has that car and can now be tracked.


Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have been j-walking...not excusing the guy who hit her its not his fault its the victims, however it IS his fault for leaving the scene and that makes him a criminal with major mental issues to leave something like that. Back to topic...MB has the right to remain silent, they should not give the police what they want in my opinion. They are not sure he's guilty.

The GPS should only be used to PROVE it during the hearing not to locate the guy....

 

No. IMO, this is not a privacy issue. If it was, the judge would (probably) not have given the order to locate the vehicle.
I don't know how the judge is going to handle this, but my guess is a Contempt-of-Court citation pending an appeal by the company....although, by now, because of M-B's stalling, the order may not do much good....it has given the car's owner time to deactivate the system.