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

Sunny

Sunny

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,739
Location
Colorado
Country
United States
Dash Cam
More than I can review. ;)
There are zillion types of lawsuits, from hot coffee to beef in McDonalds sandwich to matchsticks not having dumb-proof 'Match can ignite' labels...
So let's say someone buys a dashcam and involves in an accident.
It's not his fault but the other driver blames him.
He checks the footage and for some reason, dashcam has no video.
It froze or video was corrupted on impact etc...
Insurance company also decides on the other at fault driver's side and this driver has to pay deductible, increased insurance rate etc...
Now he is furious that the dashcam that could have easily decided case on his side didn't work and sues the dashcam manufacturer/retailer for all the damages.

Is that possible?
Should dashcam retailers put warning label on the product similar to GPS units that says 'It is only for guidance, not 100% reliable' or something???
What say you?

Edit: Just remembered this thread where innovv c3 didn't record the impact.
This is exactly the situation of this thread except the at fault part.
https://dashcamtalk.com/forum/threads/almost-gone-in-6s-recorded-by-innovv-c3.10872/
 
Last edited:
In the US you can sue anyone, anytime for anything - that's why we have so (too?) many lawyers.

That said, in order to win such a suit the plaintiff would have to prove that having the video would have shown him not at fault - tough to do without the video or other supporting evidence. And if there was other supporting evidence then he would not have been found at fault to begin with.

Just my opinion based on a few semesters of business law when in school.
 
Maybe in California you'd get away with it, but all the Manufacturer would have to do is trot out the kid from Guangxi province who assembled the camera in the Shenzhen sweatshop, and have him tell about his unhappy childhood, and you'd lose.(And the worker would get a scholarship to Berkeley)
 
Let us say you bought the camera at a USA store and it could be a Chinese made unit.
Who will you sue? The store, The factory.
If you bought it in EU, good luck, because you gonna need it. You might get a new cam.
How much does a law sue cost and how much do you think you gonna get back.
How much energy does it mental take to run case like that vs the energy you might get back if you win.
Sometime its best to swear all the bad energy out and get on with the life. Yes it sucks.

Sunny said:
Should dashcam retailers put warning label on the product similar to GPS units that says 'It is only for guidance, not 100% reliable' or something
Click to expand...
Should there be a big red label on the front of dish washer, microwave, oven and so on or should it still be allowed to use commend sense.
Not for live animals and kids!

My dad told me this as kid "The last Idiot is not born yet."
 
Everything sold in the USA has an implied warranty of merchantability. That simply means the thing sold has to be able to be used for what it was sold to do. As an example a tire has to hold air and support the load it is rated for.

However, there is a serious problem you need to be aware of. If a manufacturer does not sell the product from a USA retailer they have no legal footprint in the country and can not be sued. The example I remember was a japanese motorcycle was sold with japanese tires (no shock) in the USA. When one of those tires blew out the tire manufacturer had zero legal liability. The reason was that tire was never sold in the USA. The person who was injured because of a defective tire could only sue the motorcycle manufacturer or perhaps the local dealership (I forget which).

As many dash cams are sold online from outside the country there is no implied warranty. However, if someone in the country is an authorized reseller then legal presence arrives.

Even then you have to prove something almost impossible. Did your separately purchased sd card or wiring cause the cam to fail? Can you prove what failed and why?
 
Last edited:
Sunny said:
Edit: Just remembered this thread where innovv c3 didn't record the impact.
This is exactly the situation of this thread except the at fault part.
https://dashcamtalk.com/forum/threads/almost-gone-in-6s-recorded-by-innovv-c3.10872/
Click to expand...
In that link, Rock goes from saying that 'the card was full of locked files' (long journey/ bumpy roads) to 'knocked the plug out of the power socket'.
I know this doesn't help with Sunny's question per se, but that can also be added into the mix for a manufacturer looking to make improvements.
Forget G-sensors locking files. It's a flaky add-on & every cam seems to react differently. On some, the minimum setting can still be a PITA. If there are to be locked files, the cam should only allow for a number of files to be locked OR a % of the card (e.g. 10 files OR 10% of the card's capacity).
Start/end chimes - OK, definitely some sort of sound to announce power disconnected - at least give the driver some sort of warning so they can maybe twiddle with the plug (or pull over to sort it out)?
And when a capacitor is used - it should hold enough power to carry on recording for up to, for example, 5 minutes (again, giving time to pull over to check the connections?).
 
Most products sold in the US have a disclaimer regarding fitness for any purpose, individual product usage, and loss of use limiting your ability to sue to a stated level which is normally only repair or replacement of the product while under warranty. Clearly stated is that you agree to this upon purchase which legally makes this part of the contract made between buyer and seller upon your purchase.

Can you still sue? Yes, but here it gets tough. You have to prove that they intentionally and knowingly marketed a product which they knew was defective or unfit for the purpose they stated it was to be used for. That intent and knowledge is the key and it is very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and both aspects must be present and proven by you at the first part of the hearing. This is called "piercing the Corporate veil", and without completing this step successfully your case will legally fold up right there. Once beyond this it gets no easier for now you will have to prove your point(s) with expert testimony versus their experts, sometimes with you being required to prove exactly who or what it was that failed while showing how a reasonable person would have clearly known prior to the failure that it would likely occur and how they could have reasonably prevented that from happening.

Yes, sometimes there are insane verdicts like the $3M McCoffee spill, but for each of those their are thousands where the plaintiff loses, sometimes over a technical point of law, sometimes over poor legal representation, and sometimes because of their own culpability in the matter. Nobody promised that your cam would always work, or that it would always capture what you wanted it to, and with you supplying the SD card you'll get nowhere with this as both the Cam maker/seller and the card maker/seller will point to the other one as having erred. Both will have solid arguments, and you'll have to more solidly prove which one is at fault to go any further yourself.

If you truly must not miss your cam footage, you better get 2 cams, maybe 3, because that's the only way you're going to come out ahead in the game. CYOA is the reliable way ;)

Phil
 
IMHO the tire analogy doesn't hold air for a dashcam. A tire failure causes injury. How can a dashcam cause injury? Can you argue you suffered because liability could not be established? Since the dashcam only records and doesn't cause suffering, I think not. What happens in a plane crash when the black box doesn't survive? Even if the manufacturer provided unrealistic warranty, the owner would still need to establish proper use. Sound to me like shooting a dead guy.
 
Years ago a japanese motorcycle was imported into the USA. The rider was injured when a tire blew. Because the tires were not sold in this country a suit against the tire maker failed.

A legal injury is a strange thing. The state claims it was injured when you went 10 mph over the limit even though no one was actually hurt. It has to do with rights and expectations not just physical hurts. It might be possible to argue that you were injured because the dash cam did not provide the recording it was purchased to provide. On the other hand if you bought the sd card separately good luck winning which requires which one is responsible. There is an implied warranty of merchantability for all products sold in the USA. A dash cam that does not work is in violation of that warrantee. Of course if you bough the dash cam direct from China they may not have a legal presence in the USA so they may not be liable anyway.
 
country_hick said:
It might be possible to argue that you were injured because the dash cam did not provide the recording it was purchased to provide.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.

Commonwealth v. Sebelius, Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2012
To establish standing to sue, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing an "injury in fact": a harm that is both concrete and particularized, either actual or imminent, and not conjectural or hypothetical.

Below is an example of this legal concept from a court case.

Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Sebelius, 674 F. 3d 139 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2012

"[t]he Federal Register Act was intended to confer upon the general public rights of access to agency rulings," and this was clearly intended to benefit a "practicing attorney, who by virtue of his profession must advise others about their legal rights." Id. at 1172. Therefore, we found that the lawyer's "inability to retrieve information from the Federal Register" was an injury-in-fact. Id.
As a result, the state was injured because it was "deprived of information" that Congress intended it to have. Id.

If my dash cam failed would it deprive me of information that it was intended to provide for me thus causing an injury? Maybe. I am no lawyer. I just spent 3-5 thousand hours looking at statutes, constitutions, and court cases. The procedural and legal definition stuff still can confuse me. Legal words have different meanings than normal words that look identical.
 
Last edited:
I could be wrong. I tried to provide a possible answer.
Lawyers can come up with really screwy legal ideas for cases that sometimes work out for their clients.

I do not think it should apply. I am just not positive that it would not apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D Dashcam Dilemma: Legal or Not in Portugal? Legal Questions 24
jfsoto1988 Why would I want to sell a dashcam video? Legal Questions 7
Kremmen UK Police dashcam requests Legal Questions 4
badbob001 Legal to put black vinyl over windscreen dot-matrix area to shade dashcam? Legal Questions 1
SummerFun Question about copyrighted material being captured in the audio of the dashcam Legal Questions 5
Similar threads
Dashcam Dilemma: Legal or Not in Portugal?
Why would I want to sell a dashcam video?
UK Police dashcam requests
Legal to put black vinyl over windscreen dot-matrix area to shade dashcam?
Question about copyrighted material being captured in the audio of the dashcam
Back
Top