slcsubaru.com

I had a harrowing experience tonight. A homeless man was stalking me and a group of friends, got really aggressive when we told him we didn't have cash and he shadowed us all the way back to my car.

There would not have been a problem if not for the fact that my keyless entry does not seem to work downtown.

Earlier in the evening, knowing of the issue with keyless entry downtown, I locked the door manually from the inside. Upon hastily attempting to open the car with aggressive homeless man in tow, the car alarm went off when I tried to open the door with the key.

Basically, I am wondering if anyone else has had issues using the keyless entry downtown SLC. I will be contacting my dealership, and SOA if necessary, tomorrow. This is an unacceptable situation that exposes customers to undue danger.

It looks like other people have experienced the same issue in areas with high amounts of radio interference.

It's only a matter of time before someone gets stabbed by some homeless guy (because their keyless entry didn't function) and a lawsuit is brought for the design flaw.

I live downtown, and yes it can be a problem. However, you should see New York City. I know several people who had to get tow truck to come to disable their aftermarket alarms.
The transmitters use RF, and there is RF interference in cities. Just a fact of life in the city. You need to know how to disable the alarm if needed, and quickly in some cases. You also need a little common sense. If someone is following you, going to your car is probably not the best idea. A crowded area, preferable police patrolled, is better.

Too many variables to hold subaru liable for you getting stabbed. Why were you in that part of town? Too tall of buildings with too much interference? There is no way any lawsuit brought against an auto manufacturer for a homeless person stabbing you will ever hold up. Just playing the devils advocate here, because it sounds a little unreasonable to me.

As a third-year law student (taking the Bar in February), that works in tort litigation, I can comfortably assert that a cause of action based on the failure of the keyless entry to function would definitely surpass Summary Judgment.

Causation, as per Brian's statement, would be an issue, but would not be insurmountable: But for Subaru's failure to provide a keyless entry system that functions in downtown settings, I would not have been faced with the danger at all. Further, if Subaru would not have indicated that it provided a keyless entry system with my car, I would not have expected it to function and would have been certain to lock/unlock my door with a key at all times.

Any time you insert a product into the stream of commerce, you open yourself up to liability. In fact, Utah holds companies strictly liable for any injury done by its product in the State of Utah. Subaru has inserted products into the stream of commerce. One of those products has been purchased in Utah, and if it were shown that the product caused injury by its function or non-function, Subaru would be held strictly liable for the damage caused.

And as for "common sense," I have plenty. I've lived in some big cities (including London), made it through the dangerous areas of Spain without issue, traveled extensively on the Paris metro, and survived four years of college. I consider myself quite the worry-wart and would never put myself in a dangerous position. And yes, perhaps a busy area would have been the better option, but doubling back, forcing a confrontation rather than attempting to make it to my car without an interaction, would have been the worse option. What's more, Wednesday night downtown isn't exactly bustling, especially once you have gone west of Main street.

The gist of all of this: I have a right to rely on Subaru to provide a keyless entry system that functions, especially when Subaru indicates that my car includes the same. What good is a keyless unlock/panic button that only works in select areas? If anything, a panic button is more necessary in downtown areas.

All said, I will not be relying on Subaru's stock keyless entry system, or alarm system, and will be purchasing an aftermarket system. The Viper system that I had on my previous Subaru never had issues, downtown or otherwise--that may be the route I have to take with my new car too.

The thing I worry about the most is the thought of female Subaru drivers, who live outside of downtown, going downtown for a night out, being followed back to their car, and the unlock function doesn't work. Beyond that, if the unlock function isn't working, the panic function isn't working either.

Everyone has a duty to look out for their own safety, but some people look out for their own safety by purchasing keyless entry cars. Subaru has seen fit to provide a panic function on their keyless entry systems, leading people to rely on the panic function as a means of drawing attention to a dangerous situation.

See the problem here?

I don't see how ANYONE can suggest that Subaru should not be held responsible for failure to design a product that functions.

dude i had this same damn problem. but at the time i didnt know you could disable it with the actual key. long story short i pretty much ended up driving home with it on.

Nonsense. Subaru built in a system that is not stand-alone. It is meant to be used as a secondary, or auxiliray, system allows you to enter the vehicle. The key is primary. If you enter the car with the key due to the keyless not working, the alarm sounds, thereby giving you the "panic" feature.
The keyless is a feature, if it doesn't work the car can still run, and it's failure does not put you in any danger unless you don't know how to use a key.

Aside from the litigious aspect of the issue there is the moral problem of people holding "someone else" responsible for their actions. Grow up, take responsibility for you actions, or lack thereof, and learn from your mistakes. If you can't, tough. There are too many stupid people on this planet already.
Now if a company makes an unsafe product, that fails and causes pain/injury due to an inherent design flaw, than they should be held liable. Firestone designed a tire that blew due to a design flaw. They are liable, and rightfully so. McDonalds didn't put a "Warning, Hot Liquid" stamp on their lid, dumbass got burned. They are liable, but should they have been?

I have never seen a statement by Subaru that the keyless entry is an auxiliary function. Technology has advanced, Subaru has indicated that it is on board with a device that allows you to sound the alarm when you are in a dangerous situation, without the need for direct contact with the vehicle. That device does not truly work, as addressed above.

As you indicated with your Firestone reference, litigation is a mode through which the public can hold corporations responsible. If not for litigation, Ford's Pinto would have continued to roll off the line, killing people in rear-end accidents. At some point, consumers should bear the brunt of their respective decisions. However, the litigation system is in a place for a reason. It has been well thought-out. (Trust me, after years at law school, I have come to understand how much thought goes into all of the decisions that have left us with the present "litigious" system.)

Personally, I feel it is the responsibility of consumers to speak up about issues like this in hopes of getting corporations to remedy the problem. What I find reprehensible is the fact that corporations see potential issues and make determinations on whether to fix the issue based on a Cost-Benefit calculus (whether the costs of fixing the problem outweigh the benefits provided by the same fix). Ford, with the Pinto, got NAILED for this.

Subaru knows, or should know: (1) that radio frequencies hinder or completely impede the functionality of the remote; (2) that there is a proliferation of radio frequencies in urban/metro areas; (3) that there is a higher rate of crime (for the most part) in urban areas; (4) that people use the remote exclusively; and (5), that the non-function of the remote in an urgent situation can expose people relying on the remote to elevated risk.

Now, as to the "morality" of tort suits: You made the McDonald's reference, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc. These are the facts:

The woman who brought the lawsuit was 79 years old at the time. She purchased a cup of coffee and was pulling the far side of the lid off in order to pour cream and sugar into the coffee, which was being held between her knees, when the coffee spilled into her lap. She was wearing sweatpants at the time, so the coffee soaked into the material and was held against her skin for approximately 90 seconds, causing third-degree burns on her upper legs, genitals, and buttocks. The jury eventually decided that the woman was 20% at fault in the incident, but required McDonald's to pay a huge penalty (later reduced by the judge, and never paid because the parties settled out of court). The jury placed 80% fault on McDonald's because McDonald's Corporation required its franchises to serve the coffee at 180–190 °F; at that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. McDonald's attempted to argue that it served the coffee at such a hot temperature because people would usually drive for a period before consuming the coffee, studies indicated the opposite, that individuals usually begin consuming the coffee immediately upon receipt.

Torts are highly debated, obviously. (And yes, the McDonald's case is usually the first case referenced.) But that said, there is usually a pretty good reason for the judicial system to allow lawsuits to be maintained based upon a duty to ensure that products are not failing to serve their respective purposes. In this case, I might have been some degree at fault (as a grown man) for failing to run down the city street, screaming to attract attention, away from a homeless man wielding a bottle. However, I am certainly not 100% at fault for any attendant injury that comes from the non-operation of the keyless entry.

I definitely believe the system is well thought out, it needs to be with the complexity of today's life. However, people use it to divert the blame they ought to be placing upon themselves. It certainly doesn't happen all the time, but it has become a crutch that has become increasingly popular to use.
How many times have you heard someone say "I'll sue the crap outta that guy." It's becomes a tool of vengeance when one feels slighted, and that's what bugs me.
Sure, the keyless entry system has it's faults. So does black plastic. When I get into my car and the sun has been shining on my seats they can be painful to sit on. Time to sue. Or, was it time for me to use some (not so) common sense and perhaps open a window, or put something between me and the seat.
Using your arguments:
Subaru knows, or should know: (1) that seats using black materials can get hot in the sun when left out for extended periods of time; (2) that there is a abundance of solar heat that can build on summer days, especially in the summer; (3) that there is a higher rate of heat in the summer; (4) that people use seats exclusively to sit in the car; and (5), that the build-up of heat can lead to and elevated risk of burns or distraction while driving causing an accident and possible loss of life and/or limb.

I'm not attacking you, or your choice to go back to your vehicle. I'm simply saying that it is not the manufacturer's responsibility that you use common sense and you use the key to open the car when the keyless entry doesn't work. Even if it is a primary device for you, you still have the key, and Subaru has provided you with a way to enter the vehicle whether or not the FOB works.


And no, you wouldn't be at fault if you got attacked by a crazy guy wielding a bottle. The crazy homeless guy would be.

Black seats are not safety devices. The analogy doesn't work.

Subaru is not under a duty to prevent the sun from warming your seats up. However, it may be possible that some material holds heat at an unsafe level--at such point I would expect Subaru to avoid using that material.

With regard to the potential issue with the keyless entry, Subaru would be responsible for exposing drivers/passengers to undue danger owing to the non-operation of the system. They are in the best position to alleviate the danger: either provide a warning that the system may not work in areas of high amounts of radio frequency, or only sell keyed-entry systems.

But you're right, it is unfair for me to expect Subaru to have provided a keyless entry system, replete with panic function, that actually works. (Even though I paid $30k for a Subaru, rather than a Kia Rio that may not have keyless entry.)

Keyless entry systems are not safety devices either. It's a convenience feature that is meant to make life easier. If it doesn't work to your liking, simply stop using it.

And Subaru is not the only manufacturer that has a keyless entry that doesn't work in cities. My close friend's Merceded SL had the same problem. My old Viper system was even worse, it couldn't be disabled and left me stranded. ANY RF system is vulnerable to interference. There's always the cell phone system, if it's that much of a priority.

I still don't see how this is a safety issue at all. You still get into the car, the alarm even sounds to alert people of the possible problem. So, where's the safety problem?

If you aren't close enough to the car to use the key, you can't set the alarm off. What is the panic button for?

^ To draw attention.

Winner!