Comments on: House Rep Carson Introduces Bill to Make New GM Liable for Old GM’s Vehicles

By: injuredbygm

injuredbygm — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:25:31 +0000

Our family was injured from a product defect in our 1994 Suburban . Our medical bills have reached over $6 million. We’re in the midst of litigation & GM gets to run away. We have lost our careers, our life savings, our home & our health. GM knew in 1987 about the problem – we have copies of their own research. GM had a fix for the problem in 1987 – we have copies of that research, also. THEY FIXED THE PROBLEM IN THEIR 2006 MODELS. They knew for 19 yrs & chose to do nothing. We only want replaced what they stole from us.

By: conch101

conch101 — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:22:00 +0000

May be I am out of step here but with millions of vehicles still on the road from the old GM/Chrysler and a proven record of a lack of ability to correct problems with those vehicles for years after they were made isn’t the idea of allowing these companies to walk away from the problems they have created an issue for people?

My expectation is that if I bought my car prior to the bankrupcy shouldn’t I be entitled to the same protection against defects that someone who bought after the backrupcy?

I agree that multi million dollar payouts for driver issues should be prevented but when you set the stage for the companies being able to ignore known problems since they are not liable for them and someone dies as a result don’t you think someone needs to be held accountable?

They may be tugging at the heart strings but if it was your brother, sister, parent or child that was killed because the company walked away from thier responsibility how would you feel.

If the companies don’t want to be responsible for what they created my suggestion is they return the billions we gave them to stay a float and sell off thier pieces and start over.

By: indi500fan

indi500fan — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:38:12 +0000

His grandmother held the House seat for years, even though she was functionally illiterate and in her last term, completely senile and wheeled into the Capitol only for close votes.
Upon her death, Andre was appointed by the local Dem org, although he has won a subsequent election against a token Republican.

By: Signal11

Signal11 — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:13:41 +0000

That guy looks like Uncle Phil, if Uncle Phil lost about 100 lbs.

By: Cougar Red

Cougar Red — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:51:41 +0000

Obama et al really screwed the trial lawyers (major Dem backers) on the Chrysler bankruptcy.

We’ll see what happens with GM. If they get to shed their products liability responsibility too, talk about Ford being at a competitive disadvantage . . .

By: afabbro

afabbro — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:42:00 +0000

@cicero:
“I’ve e-mailed my congressman and asked him to introduce a bill that would bring back tailfins on all GM sedans.”

That is so damn funny that I’ve just opened another browser window and am emailing Congressman Earl Blumenauer as we speak, requesting the same thing.

By: golf4me

golf4me — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:34:58 +0000

Umm, sorry that’s what bankruptcy, and especially section 363 is for. Getting rid of liabilities so that the company may move on. And, as far as I know, you cannot (not even Congress can) change the rules once underway. So, only the laws on the books as of June 1st will apply to GM. Now, there may be interpretations of said rules by the judge, but not even legislation from Congress can have any effect on what GM decides to do via present law. Now, if GM’s new owners (the gubment) decides of there own free will to pay out for such liabilities, then they have that choice I suppose, but then, what’s the point of BK?

In addition, these people are partly responsible for GM’s demise anyway, so why should they get a dime? I’ll bet that if you look at these suits in detail, they are the ones where the plaintiff is trying to get 20-100x the amount of actual damages. You know what, you only get what you paid for the car minus what you’ve used, and even that’s generous. Get over it.

By: CarnotCycle

CarnotCycle — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:12:23 +0000

From the liability lawsuit POV, what’s the point? Either don’t get paid ’cause Uncle Scam screwed you, or don’t get paid because there is no money to pay you.

I guess they want the establishment of liability because then it opens up the government coffers for a tort-liability free-for-all. I’m thinking Asbestos 2.0 type slush-fund or something maybe? The sharks own the Donkeys, so we’ll see how that pans out.

By: Cicero

Cicero — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:31:58 +0000

I’ve e-mailed my congressman and asked him to introduce a bill that would bring back tailfins on all GM sedans.

By: stevesloc

stevesloc — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:48:03 +0000

I would like new GM held liable, if that is what the bankruptcy laws dictate. What I don’t like is the fact that we do not know what set of rules this bankruptcy is working under.

By: quasimondo

quasimondo — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:15:52 +0000

So, do we want new GM liable for old GM or don’t we?

Everybody’s up in arms over this and so when a congressman (whose heartstrings were tugged by the woeful tale of a young Indiana man and his Jeep) at the behest of his constituents decides to do something about this, we gripe?

Do we want new GM liable for old GM, or don’t we?

By: superbadd75

superbadd75 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:56:08 +0000

I am officially at the point of hating General Motors. It is completely idiotic for them to use bankruptcy to screw the very people that they need to come back and buy vehicles again and again. At some point the government IV will be pulled and GM will have to survive naturally. If they screw the people that buy their cars now, who’s going to buy their cars in the future when they need it most? The people running this show are either much more stupid than I ever thought, or they just don’t care. Either way, if it keeps going like this then GM will end up in liquidation.