Well here’s a question Jon: Does the bankruptcy court’s absolution of Chrysler and Fiat not just take the victim’s hands out of the deepest pockets? Take you Honda example. The car you buy is a Honda, but the airbag is assembled and supplied by a supplier. That supplier produced the airbag from parts from a handful of their suppliers. Thought the auto manufacturer might be immune, that is not to say that liability won’t attach to someone further down the supply chain.

From my years working as a quality supervisor with an MBUSA supplier, I would have to say that about the only thing most auto manufacturers actually build is the uni-body/chasis and most of the driveline components. Common practice in the auto industry is to have all of your “tier 1” suppliers within a 200 mile radius of the manufacturing facility. This mitigates the possibility of a line shutdown due to shipping complications. So, there is at least a fair chance that the next defendant down that line will be in the same region and it is near certain that they will at least be stateside.

Of course this is not to say that the consumer is not taking a hit. I am sure that a great deal of products liability cases involving cars deals with the crash worthiness of the body. However, this is certainly not always the case. It seems like the bankruptcy court has put the burden on the suppliers that was once on the manufacturer. This will increase the suppliers overhead, passing the cost on to the car makers, and of course resulting in a higher price for the end user.

Do you feel this is the case, or am I missing something? It just seems like if the bankruptcy court is able to deprive potential victims of a cause of action for product liability, they would also be absolving the manufacturers and suppliers of their primary motive for producing safe and reliable products.