http://www.wfaa.com/perl/common/video/wmPlayer.pl?title=www.wfaa.com/041119_1800backupsuit_am.wmv

And of course it happens to be near where I live.

A guy runs over is 2 and a half year old daughter with his Infiniti SUV and is filing a suit with Nissan claiming the SUV should of had cameras put on the SUV so he could see his blind spots.

Where the **** was the damn mother when she should of been watching there child that "rocked there world"? Was she too busy getting ready for the cameras and fake crying and then 30 seconds later was mysteriously fine?

I want to sue General Motors because my Pontiac Grand Prix, which was made 10 years ago, doesn't have today's technology to make it get more than 18 miles to the gallon.

It's your fault I'm careless!

QFT.

For once I agree with you.

Whatever happened to turning your head to check your blind spots? Using your mirrors? Not driving with your head up your ***?

What a dumbass.

In driver's education I was told to physically take a walk around the vehicle to check for obstructions before backing out. Sure, toddlers move, but you can tell if your own child is in the vicinity so you can use a little more caution.

There's an even more alarming matter here. Why is this case being granted scrutiny? It's a waste of judicial resources and a waste of man hours, which could be used for cases that matter.

You know what's really sad? It will probably now be made law that every vehicle has to have cameras on the back, and someone will inevitably still manage to run someone or something over, and then sue because the screens displaying the cameras weren't in a conspicuous enough location to be noticed.

"Make something idiot-proof, and someone will come up with a better idiot"

The judge should somehow sentence these people to purchase a smaller car if they're too incompetant to drive an SUV.

Dot Dot Dot

That about sums it up for me.

Even better, they could save lives by preventing them from having more children.

I say we just kill them. It's like dredging s*** out of the gene pool.

Smaller car? How about NO car.

This way, when he walks backwards over his two year old daughter, maybe he'll trip, bust his head wide open, and save everyone some misery.

Of course, you could ban SUVs and get more than two miles to the gallon. Or go diesel.

And yes, this guy is a pillock. It's like me sueing Walls because I dropped my ice cream, or sueing ATI because my graphics card overheated and died.

I think we need to get Grissom on this case.

Welcome to the US [mockery of] Justice System.

Alright, I really tried to find some detail that would redeem this lawsuit, because I know that American society frequently designates as "frivolous" lawsuits in which the plaintiff actually has a valid claim. The McDonalds coffee lawsuit is a good example.

I couldn't find one. The plantiffs' entire contention is that the SUV they owned should have had a feature installed that was available on other Nissan vehicles. First, if this feature was really important to them, why buy the G35 instead of a vehicle that had the technology they claim they wanted? Second, I would bet that the G35 manual contains a disclaimer stating that back-up cameras are not meant to replace head checks.

That said, I wouldn't worry about the judicial resources being devoted to this case, because at this moment there are none. The guy has either just filed suit, or he's planning to file suit. Neither of those means that his lawsuit will ever see the inside of a court room.

That is true. The judge will probably throw it out.