Airbags failing to deploy

Darragh29

He is also being economical with the truth, there isn't a barrister in the country who would touch this on the basis of the facts as they have been presented on this thread. I also doubt Audi are entertaining this nonsense, I'd say they'd see it coming from 5 miles away and laugh him back out the door when he turned up...

Savman

You go OP, you milk them greedy car people. Never mind that they can just as easily claim you were negligent and did not operate the vehicle to manufacturer standard, their counter-claim would probably wipe the floor with you so you'd end up paying them compensation for dragging their name thru the mud.

But you go right ahead, we're all behind you.

galwaytt

Savman wrote: »

You go OP, .........But you go right ahead, we're all behind you.

I'm with you, here.... pull up a seat and have some of mine.......

Gran Hermano

Can someone please clarify that the OP is looking for compensation from
Audi because he flipped his car (through no fault of Audi) and the air-bags did not go off nor was he injured.

However if during the same crash the airbags had deployed and even if he had lost several limbs he would not have considered looking for money from Audi.

Some people are never happy.. maybe it's PTSD

Me, I'd be happy knowing I survived.

Guy:Incognito

Dont forget to give details of court cases so we can get there early before the public gallery fills up.

Savman

Gran Hermano wrote: »

Can someone please clarify that the OP is looking for compensation from
Audi because he flipped his car (through no fault of Audi) and the air-bags did not go off nor was he injured.
.

Jesus christ get your facts straight. The airbags malfunctioned and somehow deployed underneath the engine, causing the vehicle to flip over onto it's roof and putting the OP's life in considerable danger. Audi should burn in hell.

javaboy

Let's assume for a moment that the airbags should have deployed.

So the expected operation of the car's safety systems would have been to deploy the airbags and potentially break or burn the OP's arms. So because they did not deploy, the OP is at least as safe as if they had. After all you can't come out of a crash and roll any better than unscathed.

So essentially the safety system operated incorrectly but by fluke/luck it had at least as good an outcome than if it had operated correctly. So the OP has suffered absolutely no damage as a result and is not imo entitled to compensation.


If you take the crash out of the equation things get a lot simpler:
You buy a car.
You drive the car.
You get the car serviced.
Diagnostic says your airbag is broken but can be fixed.
You expect compo for the earlier period of driving.

For me that's what it boils down to. The crash would have happened regardless of the airbags and the outcome would have been no better if they had deployed. So you may as well take the crash out of the equation.

Mr Benevolent

Jesus christ get your facts straight. The airbags malfunctioned and somehow deployed underneath the engine, causing the vehicle to flip over onto it's roof and putting the OP's life in considerable danger. Audi should burn in hell.

From the OP:

However, I am not too happy with the fact that I spent all of this money on a car with seven airbags and not one of them deployed. I could have had injuries a lot more serious, and I could have died due to the airbags not deploying.

No mention of the airbags deploying there.

(Yes yes, stupid post. Lesson learned.)

Guy:Incognito

Confab wrote: »

From the OP:



No mention of the airbags deploying there.

and

javaboy

Confab wrote: »

From the OP:



No mention of the airbags deploying there.

I could be wrong but I have a sneaking suspicion Savman was joking. Just a hunch.

Darragh29

Haha, Jasus I must have been asleep, the OP's game is sussed!

unkel

Confab, you really do not want to make more of a fool of yourself in this thread, believe me. Please do not post here anymore.

unkel

Ooh I was beaten to it by the less subtle crowd /::::<

javaboy

unkel wrote: »

Ooh I was beaten to it by the less subtle crowd /::::<

I thought it was obvious that subtle wasn't going to work.

Cunning

this is getting a bit silly
started out senseable and now is silly.

FACTS:
The circumstance surrounding the crash which are unknown:
(cause, weather, time of day, light, road condition, 3rd parties
car condition(tyres/brakes etc))

FACTS: known circumstances
speed, damage, airbag response.

QUOTE THE ORIGINAL POSTER:
"I was very interested to see this report, and have it corroborated, so Audi in Dublin had a look at it. They have confirmed that the airbags SHOULD have deployed due to the speed and angle of impact to front left hand side of car."



POINT:
the airbags may have been faulty
not important in this incident as driver escaped unharmed
HOWEVER!!
up untill the accident the driver was operating a vehicle which
he was lead to believe by either the Audi dealer or the audi car company itself, would deploy airbags in a crash.

if the airbag system was found to be faulty and he had been in a head on, he may have died unneccessarily.

ANALOGY:
you live in an apartment building,
one night there is a fire in an empty apartment.
no alarms sounds, and the fire burns itself out.
you and all other residents are unharmed.
QUESTION:
have the management company failed in their duty of care to you??
ANSWER:
YES absolutley they have, you have been placed in unnescessary/avoidable danger by virtue of faulty equiptment.

i believe audi, or the dealer have a case to answer here.
i would not begrudge the OP a "gesture" settlement.

but i think to accept the settlement in leiu of making the incident public would be shamefull.
i would advise all other audi drivers of similar model/year to have their
system tested.

-Chris-

I'd like to point out one quick thing to the OP before everyone gangs up on Confab...

AUDI IRELAND READ BOARDS!!

I know this because I got a call on the mobile one day from someone fairly high up in there asking "are you AudiChris?". He had read some of my posts and thought I sounded familiar...

Rest assured that this thread has been read by Audi Ireland and is more than likely printed for posterity.

Good luck with your legal action...

-Chris-

Cunning wrote: »

ANALOGY:
you live in an apartment building,
one night there is a fire in an empty apartment.
no alarms sounds, and the fire burns itself out.
you and all other residents are unharmed.
QUESTION:
have the management company failed in their duty of care to you??
ANSWER:
YES absolutley they have, you have been placed in unnescessary/avoidable danger by virtue of faulty equiptment.

This situation is actually more like:
-You accidentally set fire to your living room
-All your fire alarms operated successfully
-The sprinkler system didn't activate in your bedroom as the fire didn't spread that far before being extinguished
-You sue the management company because if you hadn't been awake setting fire to your living room, you could have easily been asleep in bed and burned to death

Darragh29

Folks, the OP's story is a myth/work of fiction. He posted here for a completely different purpose, the whole story as it has been presented is a work of fiction, there is another agenda at play here... Best thing now is that this thead is locked.

Savman

Darragh29 wrote: »

Folks, the OP's story is a myth/work of fiction. He posted here for a completely different purpose, the whole story as it has been presented is a work of fiction, there is another agenda at play here... Best thing now is that this thead is locked.

No way, it's too exciting and I'm hanging on every word :pac:

-Chris-

Darragh29 wrote: »

Folks, the OP's story is a myth/work of fiction. He posted here for a completely different purpose, the whole story as it has been presented is a work of fiction, there is another agenda at play here...

I would be of that opinion too.

Cunning

AudiChris wrote: »

This situation is actually more like:
-You accidentally set fire to your living room
-All your fire alarms operated successfully
-The sprinkler system didn't activate in your bedroom as the fire didn't spread that far before being extinguished
-You sue the management company because if you hadn't been awake setting fire to your living room, you could have easily been asleep in bed and burned to death

your right, my analogy is flawed, but i dont agree with yours,

you accidently set fire to your living room
you manage to put out the fire
no alarms sounded.

had you been asleep in bed and electrical fault caused fire
you could have burned to death.

according to the op the airbag should have deployed
i.e. alarm should have sounded

in other circumstances with the same car he may have been killed unnescessarily.



anyhoo,,, how do ppl know this is bogus??

javaboy

Really the accident itself clouds the issue imo. It was merely the diagnostic tool that revealed the airbag fault (if indeed it was an airbag fault). Would the OP be entitled to compensation if the airbags had been found to be non-functional during a routine service?

The thing is I know for a fact that people are seeking compensation for almost identical things. Some people's first reaction to a "recall for repair" notice is "if there was a safety issue with the car I should be compensated even though I never actually had any problems".

If it transpires that the airbags were at fault then I think Audi should be fined and the money put towards a charity or the fund for uninsured drivers but I don't think the OP deserves one cent of compensation. Compensation for what is the first question I would ask if I was the judge?

Owen

AudiChris wrote: »

AUDI IRELAND READ BOARDS!!

Most manufacturers do. And the Guards. And Insurance Companies.

maidhc

But if you are not injured (physically, mentally), then you can't really get anything... that is why the word compensation is used.

People often miss this point when wanting to "sue".

Courts are not the places for moral victories.

DublinDilbert

maidhc wrote: »

But if you are not injured (physically, mentally), then you can't really get anything... that is why the word compensation is used.

People often miss this point when wanting to "sue".

Courts are not the places for moral victories.

Yea it looks like there wasn't any "loss" or "harm" as a result of them not going off, so no basis for compensation.

I've heard of other cases like this one, where allegedly a car manufacture paid out after a non deployment of airbags. To be honest i can't see any car company paying out, as it would be admitting there was a problem and accepting liability. Say they did pay out to a few people here and there, then someone gets killed, they would be looking at a massive payout as the "knew" there was a problem...

ismynametoolong

This post has to be a wind-up just look at all the heated debate its caused .
There is no way Audi Ireland would consider looking at a car with a non deployed air bag that was flipped upside down ,they simply are not designed to deploy in such circumstances. If it is true and they have entertained the OP then I suspect that they have simply made a rod for their back which will be difficult to step back from and I know the techy people in Audi are not that naive so hence without a doubt its a wind-up

Darsad

ismynametoolong wrote: »

This post has to be a wind-up just look at all the heated debate its caused .
There is no way Audi Ireland would consider looking at a car with a non deployed air bag that was flipped upside down ,they simply are not designed to deploy in such circumstances. If it is true and they have entertained the OP then I suspect that they have simply made a rod for their back which will be difficult to step back from and I know the techy people in Audi are not that naive so hence without a doubt its a wind-up

+ 1 !! I bet Good Intentions is having a good laugh at this one !

javaboy

DublinDilbert wrote: »

I've heard of other cases like this one, where allegedly a car manufacture paid out after a non deployment of airbags. To be honest i can't see any car company paying out, as it would be admitting there was a problem and accepting liability. Say they did pay out to a few people here and there, then someone gets killed, they would be looking at a massive payout as the "knew" there was a problem...

But you just said you've heard of a case where they allegedly did pay out.

As for the use of past payouts to show that the company knew there was a fault and accept liability, I'm not sure that's the case. I imagine part of the clause in many out of court settlements is that the manafacturer admits no fault and the claimant basically drops the case altogether. If a case that ended in a payout is brought up in court subsequently, the manafacturer will simply argue that the payoff was to avoid bad publicity and a protracted legal battle and not any admission of liability.

DublinDilbert

javaboy wrote: »

But you just said you've heard of a case where they allegedly did pay out. .

I meant i heard of cases second / third hand, but never believe them...

The ford Pinto in the US was a famous case, where ford decided to pay out to people who were injured/died, rather than doing a re-call of the cars. As the cost of the individual claims would be much smaller than the cost of the recall on paper.

They were hit with massive punitive damages, cause they knew there was a problem, but decided it was cheaper to pay out to people effected than fix it.

javaboy

DublinDilbert wrote: »

I meant i heard of cases second / third hand, but never believe them...

The ford Pinto in the US was a famous case, where ford decided to pay out to people who were injured/died, rather than doing a re-call of the cars. As the cost of the individual claims would be much smaller than the cost of the recall on paper.

Yeah the Pinto story makes for fascinating reading. I've heard of a good few cases in which I know for a fact there was a payout where the manafacturer was technically in the right but paid out due to the cost of bad publicity or losing at court being greater than the cost of an out of court settlement.