Comments on: California Sues Automaker Over Emissions

By: Roger Ricks

Roger Ricks — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:30:16 +0000

Has anyone noticed that Mr. Lockyer did not include BMW, Infiniti, Lexus, Saab, Jaguar or Porsche in the lawsuit?

By: rvman

rvman — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:11:50 +0000

I think folks here have come up with the next great thing in legal maneuver - the class action lawsuit where the defendant is the class, rather than or in addition to the plaintiff. Second-hand smokers suing the first-handers. Asbestos victims suing ex-employees of the asbestos manufacturers. Some musician or music company suing everyone who ever downloaded any of their music.

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:10:36 +0000

I was thinking the same thing as Anderson, Cars, trucks, and the like are regulated by federal law, that would make the lawsuit frivolous but that won't stop it! BTW, what about California's 10 percent law for new car sales and the state laws regulating gas additives? Wouldn't that exempt the auto industry from a lawsuit? This is "Theater in the Law", plan and simple.

By: Sonnenstich? | Mit dem Kopf voran

Sonnenstich? | Mit dem Kopf voran — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:27:43 +0000

[...] Mit dem Kopf voran 21.09.2006 um 13:22 UhrSonnenstich?von: steffenh Die Sonne Kaliforniens scheint so manchem Politiker die Hirnmasse zu zersetzen. Der Verdacht drängt sich einem auf, wenn man lesen muß, dass der amerikanische Bundesstaat Kalifornien sechs Automobilproduzenten wegen der klimaschädigen Wirkung der Abgase ihrer Autos verklagt hat. Demnächst werden amerikanische Automobilhersteller wohl auch verklagt, weil ihre Produkte das Tatwerkzeug von Verkehrunfällen sind. Oder warum verklagt man nicht einfach die Hersteller von Messern für die tiefen Wunden, die eine unsachgemäße Verwendung ihrer Produkte mitunter verursacht? Für eine Wählerstimmenmaximierung kann offenbar nichts dumm genug sein. Ihre deutschen Kollegen zeigen jedoch, dass auch in Deutschland die heiße Sonne nicht unbedingt weniger schädliche Wirkung hat. Denn noch immer sind es die Autofahrer, die durch Kaufentscheidung und Fahrverhalten die Emissionen ihrer Fahrzeuge verursachen. Da Klimagase erst schädlich sind, wenn sie entstanden sind, macht es auch Sinn, die Schere erst beim Benzinverbrauch anzusetzen. Dafür gibt es die Ökosteuer, alle anderen Maßnahmen kann man getrost in unter der Kategorie Populismus und Interessengruppenpolitik verschlagworten. Entweder versucht man bei den Wählern die Illusion zu erzeugen, man könne die Klimaschutzkosten auf die Unternehmen abwälzen oder man macht sich bewußt oder unbewußt zum Handlanger derjenigen, die mit dem Klimawandel richtig Kasse machen wollen. 0 Kommentare | VerlinkenKommentare zu diesem Eintrag:Einloggen zum Kommentieren: Username PasswortHinweis: viele Funktionen von blogigo (z.B. Einträge kommentieren) stehen Dir erst nach einer kostenlosen und unverbindlichen Registrierung zur Verfügung. Hier kannst Du Dich in Sekundenschnelle registrieren. NavigationHomeÜber dieses WeblogZurück zu blogigoDieses Weblog zu meinen Favoriten hinzufügen >>LoginUsernamePasswortPasswort vergessen?Neu registrierenWarum registrieren? September 2006 [...]

By: Herb

Herb — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:57:08 +0000

The big automakers should decline to do business in California and not sell cars there.

Then, we will hear the crying and screaming from those who would have to walk everywhere rather than drive their cars.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:25:05 +0000

I wonder what the UAW thinks of Mr. Lockyer right now?

By: JKB

JKB — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:41:20 +0000

Well, it would be more appropriate for Arizona to impose a $25/KW pollution tax on the electricity sold to California. California forced the power plants to locate out of state due to harassing regulation, thus exporting the green house gas pollution to Arizona and other states. It is only right that the good people of Arizona be compensated for the damage to their quality of life caused by California's direct exportation of their power generation.

By: Steven Plunk

Steven Plunk — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:06:56 +0000

Charles Austin had it right but let's take it all the way, why don't they sue the citizens of California who drive all those darn cars and pollute the air?

The citizens buy 'em, fill 'em with gas, and drive 'em like maniacs. Look at all the second hand deaths the drivers are causing through accidents besides the primary deaths through pollution.

Perhaps targeting the leadership of the citizens would accomplish the goal? Go RICO on the elected leadership who writes the laws allowing such behavior.

By: JR

JR — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:42:02 +0000

Not a big student of California Civil Law...BUTTTTT... It would be interesting to see the car makers file an action to Join the Attorney General of California as a defendant in the suit. Since he, more than likely, owns and operates a motor vehicle.

In other words, file an Action that names every individual in the State of California who owns a car or truck or motorcycle or leaf blower etc. as an additional defendant, and then launch a big ass PR campaign to assure all defendants that they have the AG of California to thank.

Then, file a Summary Judgement Action indicating that they just make the cars..."they don't pull the trigger."

Just funning,
Cheers
JR

By: Anderson

Anderson — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:36:15 +0000

Emissions are regulated by the feds, right? If the emissions met the fed regulations, then any state suit is probably preempted. (Free legal advice, worth what you paid for it.)

By: tom

tom — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:18:32 +0000

Heck, it is the owners of the vehicles who are generating the emissions. What would be the likelihood of Lockyer suing the voters of California, especially during an election year?

"California filed suit against Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp. and three other carmakers on Wednesday, charging that greenhouse gases from their vehicles have cost the state millions of dollars."

I didn't know that when I bought my Toyota it was still their [Toyota's] vehicle and it didn't belong to me.

By: madmatt

madmatt — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:35:30 +0000

Hell I think they should be sued just to recoup all the tax breaks they've been given to improve emissions and fuel efficiency which obviously they have been pocketing for the last several years (couldn't have anything to do with board members who are on oil and automotive boards of directors making sure prices stay up)
The fact that they didn't use those funds intelligently is why the us auto industry is failing miserable...

By: charles austin

charles austin — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:28:05 +0000

Why aren't they suing the oil companies instead? It is the burning of oil products that causes the pollution. Besides, the oil companies have a lot more money than the auto manufacturers at this point in time.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:16:27 +0000

Stormy,

That would be an interesting reaction by the car makers being sued. Further, if they held out for a law permanently excluding them from liability and say a five year tax holiday on new car sales (to cover their costs in defending this), they could come out of it quite nicely.

But do you notice the the dog that didn't bark in this story? Lockyer is a democrat running for State Treasurer. So he won't be around to clean up the mess. He can tap into the democratic left as a "champion against global warming", the next best thing to being against the Iraq war for the left. Now how could Reuters have missed such an important part of the story? Couldn't be bias could it?

By: Herb Ely

Herb Ely — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:15:53 +0000

Norman Augustine's book Augusitines Laws puts it this way: dogs win dog fights; people win bull fights; and lawyers win people fights.