Idiocy: Supreme Court Allows Idiotic Liability Lawsuits

In CA, the family of a woman sued Mazda after their crapbox 1993 MPV hit another vehicle head on back in 2002.

Why would Mazda be liable? Because the woman was in the middle seat in the back, and was only wearing a lap belt, there was no shoulder belt. The other three people in the car, all with shoulder belts, survived.

The suit claimed that even though the MPV met all safety requirements at the time it was sold, and even though a goddamn idiot knows that a lap-belt is not going to be as safe as a shoulder belt, the suit was seen as having merit. On what basis, I don't know, because this is friggin idiotic.

Mazda did nothing wrong. Absolutely nothing. They built a car which for 1993 was a safe and perfectly normal car. There was no malice, intent to cover up defects, or intentional use or instillation of unsafe features. At the time, lap-belts for the middle seat were standard. Let me repeat, it is absolutely clear that Mazda did absolutely nothing wrong, had followed all regulations, and the car was not defective at all, in any way.

And yet, they are going to be liable. Let it be know that if you own any old car, and new safety technology was not available on it, you can now sue the car company. If you rear-end the car in front of you, sue because your car does not offer stop-short radar and braking. If you don't bother to look before you change lanes on the highway and smash into the car next to you, sue because your car did not offer blind spot detection. If you royally suck at parallel parking, sue because your car does not offer automatic parking. Hell, if you are injured in any way, sue the car company, because I can guarantee that unless you are driving a top of the line Mercedes S-class, your car is missing some safety features.

This is just idiotic.