Can a dashcam buyer sue manufacturer/retailer if it doesn't record when needed?

[Rajagra]

Still don't see it

As I said in a different thread, the law often attaches different meanings to words than the public do.
Defining an "injury" as any generic loss or harm that diminishes your wellbeing would actually be a very modest example of this.

 

[jokiin]

As I said in a different thread, the law often attaches different meanings to words than the public do.
Defining an "injury" as any generic loss or harm that diminishes your wellbeing would actually be a very modest example of this.

I could see attempts at that definition being applied after the fact, perhaps some sort of loss due to inability to prove circumstance, I can't however seeing it being blamed as a cause of the loss to begin with

 

[Rajagra]

I could see attempts at that definition being applied after the fact, perhaps some sort of loss due to inability to prove circumstance, I can't however seeing it being blamed as a cause of the loss to begin with

Me neither, unless its battery exploded, causing a loss of concentration. They would have to go after consequential damages.
But the problem remains, how do you prove valuable footage in your favour was lost if you don't have that footage to evaluate?
Can you prove the camera was turned on at the time? Can you prove you didn't delete or corrupt the disk? How was the battery state and wiring? Can you prove the camera was properly mounted and hadn't fallen just before the incident (possibly causing the crash due to your not fitting it properly)?
Just too many unknowns.

 

[jokiin]

Just too many unknowns.

agree

 

[Deleted member 46308]

even with all the ridiculous liability claims that seem to happen in the USA I'd still struggle to imagine how it would be possible to argue that a dashcam not working could be the cause of an injury, got a scenario for that?

Agree

 

[DT MI]

The legal theory would probably be something like this.

I was injured legally (not factually). I had the right to have my purchased dash cam (still under warranty) record my accident to prove I was not at fault and I was injured when that dashcam failed to perform its duty. Because the dashcam did not function as required under the "implied warranty of merchantability" for the purpose it was designed for I was injured when I could not prove what really happened to cause the crash based solely on the dashcam failure....

In order for that argument to work you would have to prove that you were in fact not at fault and that the failure of the camera caused harm. If you could do that then you would not have been found to be at fault in the first place. It's a what came first, chicken or egg situation.