By on July 3, 2009

Sean Kane of gave us the heads-up on a move to put warning labels on products manufactured by pre-C-11 Chrysler.

WARNING! This vehicle was produced prior to the date when the Chrysler bankruptcy was approved. If you buy this vehicle and are injured or killed, even if your injuries were caused by the manufacturer, you or your survivors will not be able to recover your losses by taking action against the manufacturer. If your passengers are injured or killed, even if their injuries were caused by the manufacturer, they and their survivors will not be able to recover their losses by taking action against the manufacturer.

No, really. The Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety (CARS, again) is petitioning the Federal trade Commission (FTC) to require New Chrysler to affix warning labels on pre-C11 build cars telling prospective buyers about the “unique liabilities” differentiating Old/New ChryCo products.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

12 Comments on “New Chrysler Liability Warning Label?...”

  • avatar

    That sticker will look great on the dashboard of an 86 Diplomat.

  • avatar
    John Horner

    CARS has a good point.

  • avatar

    I hear not only will the cars have the Surgeon General’s warning label (probably with super glue so you can’t remove it) but when you pull down the visor to use the vanity mirror it will have the word “Sucker” etched in the glass…

  • avatar

    That actually doesn’t seem too unreasonable. Because New Chrysler is taking over the dealer network of Old Chrysler and will be making the same models for the foreseeable future, it seems like consumers should be warned when looking at two identical cars sitting side-by-side on a dealer’s lot that one of them is “exempt” from liability, while another is not, just because of a few weeks’ or months’ difference in the date of manufacture.

  • avatar
    Richard Chen

    As if the Chrysler brands aren’t enough warning…

  • avatar

    ChryCo Canada did not ‘technically’ declare bankruptcy.

    Does that mean I can sue them for anything made in the Brampton factory?

    I’ve never actually been in an accident in a Chrysler however I have seen a 300 C drive into a tree recently and I think that I’m suffering from “Observer Trauma”.

    I can no longer rent a car because they’re all Chrysler’s and I’m now kind of scared of trees too……..

  • avatar

    bluecon :
    July 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 am

    Most of the suits have nothing to do with the auto and are caused by human stupidity. So they blame the auto amd get millions of dollars from the manufacturer.


    Unless you can prove that all of the suits have nothing to do with the auto and are caused by human stupidity, such a warning label makes sense.

  • avatar

    Why a dog and not a lemon?

  • avatar

    And not a peep from the MSM.
    Is Limbaugh correct that the Dems control the MSM?

    The MSM are owned by the corps who expect quid pro quo for their monetary contributions. This includes Limbaugh who was pushing GM when they paid him to do so.

    It’s also true that democrats have become increasingly like republicans in embracing corporatist values. This is because much of middle american is indoctrinated from birth by the MSM to embrace corporatist values and political parties do nothing if not cater to norms.

    For example, notice here how corps have managed to deflect criticism to their political puppets/scapegoats and by extension the representative “government” that is supposed to keep that kind of power in check. It’s somewhat subtle and assuredly never gets noticed by weaker minds.

    The chrysler sticker issue is totally trumped up. The gov will likely end up paying the few reasonable claims out of taxpayer monies just like it did on the warranty claims.

  • avatar

    No Problem.
    The car as such will be discounted anyway.
    And the rest of the product liability claims is generally anyway frivolous in the USA. Wo, where is the problem?

  • avatar

    @bluecon: I believe you answered your question with the second line. GE owns NBC/Universal and all it’s 24-hour news channels. That’s quite a bit of news coverage from the MSM right there.

  • avatar

    The original TARP contained all sorts of tax subsidies for unrelated industries.

    Stuff like this is nothing unusual. Of course the companies (who just ponied up the quid, for the quo) try to pin it on politicians, who are only acting as you would expect given apathetic and ill informed voters.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • here4aSammich: So I have to ask, what does a vehicle that uses a reduction gear drive like? Is it like driving a golf...
  • redapple: kc flyer Former Williamsville guy here. Subaru calls for Brake Fluid change at 30,000miles. My brother had...
  • ToolGuy: Nice writeup, Matt. – “Mixing composites with aluminum helps minimize weight and lets WAE brag...
  • crtfour: Can a vehicle be any more dull than a compact CUV in flat gray?
  • DC Bruce: Although the Honda hybrid system should work well enough in average use in the midwest — and perform...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber