In early 2014, GM issued a recall of the following vehicles:
- Chevy Cobalt, Pontiac G5, and Pontiac Pursuit (2005-2007)
- Chevy HHR, Pontiac Solstice, Saturn Sky, and Saturn Ion (2006-2007)
- Saturn Ion (2003-2007)
The reason for the recall? The ignition switch behind the steering wheel did not comply with the industry standard torque specifications, meaning that the ignition could fall out of place and disengage under certain conditions – bearing the weight of a heavy set of keys, for instance, or a jarring event like an accident. When you consider the fact that disengaging the ignition in the models affected also deactivates the car’s airbag deployment system, it is easy to see why a faulty ignition switch justifies the total recall that GM issued.
What isn’t clear, however, is why GM waited nearly 10 years before recalling the 2.6 million vehicles while consumers were largely kept in the dark. In 2005, GM learned that their cars were coming off of the assembly line with faulty ignition switches. The auto manufacturer responded with a technical service bulletin (TSB) alerting dealers that the ignition switches needed to receive special attention, as well as how to modify the ignition framework to make the cars safe again.
Technical service bulletins are different from a full product recall because use primarily suggestive language. With a full product recall, the auto manufacturer is required by law to notify consumers of the situation and cover the cost of making the vehicles safe to drive again. A TSB, on the other hand, leaves it to the car dealer to tell consumers about the defect at the time of sale and recommend the consumer to pay for the repair out of their own pocket.
The auto-industry generally uses a TSB in favor of a product recall to address something that occurs to auto manufacturers after production has started and that is NOT safety related; easily chipped paint or an under-performing A/C would fall under this category. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expects that any defect directly impacting the safety of the vehicle be fully and publicly recalled. In contributing to 47 auto accidents and 13 deaths, the faulty ignitions being investigated clearly merit a recall and not merely a TSB.
With liability resting with GM in at least those cases recorded by internal documents, the NHTSA has imposed a mandate against GM requiring them to set aside enough money to pay each case up to $30,000,000 in damages to prepare for the court’s findings. This figure does not take into account how much General Motors did to obscure facts and endanger consumers at the time that each particular accident occurred. The court may well find, for instance, that the auto manufacturer had not exhibited as much negligence when one victim was injured in 2008 as the company had in 2012, when the last victim was injured; GM may have done much more to cover up their mistake by then, and may therefore be met with a larger claim against them.
More recently, members of the legislative branch have brought up the topic of criminal charges against offices in General Motors. The U.S. Department of Justice is already in the midst of a criminal investigation against GM to see if the company wrongly withheld information from the NHTSA as it inquired into the circumstances of the recall. Now, legislators want to know why Michael Millikin, the head of GM’s litigations department, has not yet faced punitive measures in light of new documents. These documents demonstrate that Millikin did, in fact, know that GM was releasing dangerous model designs, but he neither took action to warn the public nor fix the problem at the production line.
On the other hand, politicians are also looking to vacate positions in the NHTSA as well. In 2000, Congress passed the Tread Act, requiring auto manufacturers to report all claims blaming defects to regulators like the NHTSA. Several senators have expressed outrage that not only has GM seemed to have excused itself from the requirements of this law, but administration in the NHTSA also abandoned their responsibility to pursue the full disclosure of such claims more readily. In several case files acquired by the New York Times, the NHTSA regulator communicating with lawyers representing GM permit refusals to provide such information that the NHTSA is entitled – and expected – to obtain.
The people victimized by the corporate culture of immorality at General Motors deserve justice. If you or a friend or family member have been injured by a defective product, let us help you find compensation. Feel free to also share your thoughts on the GM case or just tell us your story in the comments section below.
