In a twist on the "unintended acceleration" debate raging here and elsewhere, a jury has found Chrysler liable for $5m in damages in a case of park-to-reverse transmission malfunction. The Saint Bernards Parish (LA) jury decided that a defect in a Grand Cherokee's automatic transmission caused the Guillot family's SUV to reverse suddenly, trapping the pregnant Mrs Guillot against a carport column, rupturing her uterus and fatally injuring their unborn (en route to a hospital for delivery). The police had considered charging Mr Guillot, who was driving at the time, with criminal negligence. Although Chrysler had sent an investigator to look into the incident, the Guillots found out about the Chrokee's long-standing park-to-reverse transmission defect when contacted by the L.A. Times– more than two years after the accident. "We suffered the worst loss any parent can experience," Mr. and Mrs. Guillot told reporters. "When we learned that Chrysler knew for years that its vehicles had a defective transmission, we were outraged and determined to hold the corporation accountable. We thank the jury for its careful review of the evidence and verdict against DaimlerChrysler."
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Maybe now Chrysler will take transmission design and testing seriously? Or at the very least, buy transmissions from companies that can make a decent transmission.
-ted
Is this the same as the brake-shift interlock problems that Chrysler vehicles used to have? We had a Voyager that would go from park to reverse without the brake being engaged, and Dateline ran a special on that years ago… Basically, the nudge of the gearshift from a small child, dog, etc. could send the car into gear if someone had the keys in the ACC/ON position. That was in 1997- wouldn’t surprise me if they haven’t fixed it yet.
So a defect in a 1999 vehicle is worthy of making it on 2008 TTAC news?
According to the story it took place on May 21, 1999, so the newest the GC could be was a ’99 model. If this is a real defect then the award is justified. But the problem could have been long since fixed also. Does anyone know?
Addendum. I visited the website at the bottom of the article, the aptly named http://www.vehicle-injuries.com. Maybe a better name would be we-can-make-you-(and-us)-rich.com. It’s a law firms website. On the website they describe the problem with the transmission which they also call “false park” or “illusory park.” They then tell of two cases including the one in this story that they sucessfully litigated.
Then they say “While we are interested in learning of park to reverse and transmission issues in vehicles of any make, model or year, we have profiled and have extensive experience litigating park-to-reverse cases involving the following DaimlerChrysler vehicles:
Dodge Dakota
Dodge Durango
Dodge Ram
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Dodge Neon
Dodge Grand Caravan”
The list of vehicles above are all hyprlinks. Since I own one of these vehicles (not the Jeep) I click on the link for that vehicle – what horror stories am I about to read? Um.. none, because the web page repeats everything on the previous page, except now it says vehicle ____ instead of Jeep Grand Cherokee. They also go thru the same two cases again – even though it’s not about the vehicle I clicked on. So much for the “extensive experience” they touted.
There is a sidebar to the right that lists recall notices for transmissions from DaimlerChrysler. The links open up three PDF docs: one each for the Dakota, the Jeep GC, and the Ram. The one for the Dakota is for 91 & 92 models! The recall for the Jeep is for 93 – 98 models to install a secondary detent system for the floor mounted gear selector. the recall for the Ram is for 2003- 05 models to install an “out-of-park alarm system”. Again nothing on my vehicle.
Below the recall notices is the heading “Top Park-to-Reverse News Articles and Press Reports” with two stories, “LA Jury Returns Verdict Against DaimlerChrysler” and “$50M punitive award sidesteps High Court ruling”, each listed as having come from two different sources. Both stories are exactly the same, word for word of one of the stories they already told on the first page.
On the left side of the page is a list category links for all kinds of vehicle problems, seat belts, fires, etc. Seems to me they are trolling for cases by listing as many vehicles as possible under the guise of providing information. But I guess that’s what you’d expect from a law firm.
Addendum. I visited the website at the bottom of the article, the aptly named http://www.vehicle-injuries.com. Maybe a better name would be we-can-make-you-(and-us)-rich.com. It ‘s a law firms website. On the website they describe the problem with the transmission which they also call “false park” or “illusory park.” They then tell of two cases including the one in this story that they sucessfully litigated.
Then they say “While we are interested in learning of park to reverse and transmission issues in vehicles of any make, model or year, we have profiled and have extensive experience litigating park-to-reverse cases involving the following DaimlerChrysler vehicles:
Dodge Dakota
Dodge Durango
Dodge Ram
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Dodge Neon
Dodge Grand Caravan”
The list of vehicles above are all hyprlinks. Since I own one of these vehicles (not the Jeep) I click on the link for that vehicle – what horror stories am about to read? Um.. none, because the web page repeats verything on the previous page, except now it says vehicle ____ instead of Jeep Grand Cherokee. They also go thru the same two cases again – even though it’s not about the vehicle I clicked on. So much for the “extensive experience” they touted.
There is a sidebar to the right that lists recall notices for transmissions from DaimlerChrysler. The links open up three PDF docs: one each for the Dakota, the Jeep GC, and the Ram. The one for the Dakota is for 91 & 92 models! The recall for the Jeep is for 93 – 98 models to install a secondary detent system for the floor mounted gear selector. the recall for the Ram is for 2003- 05 models to install an “out-of-park alarm system”. Again nothing on my vehicle.
Below the recall notices is the heading “Top Park-to-Reverse News Articles and Press Reports” with two stories, “LA Jury Returns Verdict Against DaimlerChrysler” and “$50M punitive award sidesteps High Court ruling”, each listed as having come from two different sources. Both stories are exactly the same, word for word of one of the stories they already told on the first page.
On the left side of the page is a list category links for all kinds of vehicle problems, seat belts, fires, etc. Seems to me they are trolling for cases by lsiting as many vehicles as possible under the guise of providing information. But I guess that’s what you’d expect from a law firm.
I can’t speak for the issue at hand, since I know nothing about the actual defect, but in RE: to ‘peoplewatching,’ it’s crazy to hear of defects like that… at least on a manual transmission, worst case is grinding gears (and a really p****d off owner/expensive repair bill). Trying to get a manual into R even intentionally is sometimes a matter of brute force..
Autos, OTOH, will gladly throw into reverse without question… with today’s electronic nannies in place, and the fact that most transmissions are computer-controlled in some fashion, it’s hard to believe that the R would be allowed to do anything besides send an electrionic “request.” After the car reaches speeds above 3-4MPH, it should just be ignored, much like cruise control (and the typical limit of >20-25MPH).
Hell, with how computerized cars are, I still find it funny to see shifters on automatics at all. Besides a physical N mode, the only thing really needed are D, P, and R buttons. Throw the optional paddle shifters on the steering wheel if you want to manually shift. Stick an LED that flashes on the R and P buttons if you aren’t at a complete stop. Problem solved, and in all reality, it would cost less to install buttons than an actual shifter anyway..
(ideally, this could be placed to the left of the steering wheel on a small dial or something… that way, the “kids” wouldn’t be able to mess with it, and more space would be freed for storage or seating… hey, I can dream…)
offroadinfrontier :
That sounds somewhat like the “typwriter-flite” pushbutton style transmissions from old 60’s era Chryslers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TorqueFlite
Bancho:
Interesting read, had no idea. Modernize it (don’t need the seperate gear buttons anymore, of course), make it look nice, and that would be pretty cool.
After catching up my TTAC reading, I stumbled across the latest Jaguar review – THAT’S my idea of a perfect shifter! Just throw it off to the left of the steering wheel, shrink it a bit, and bingo!
Don’t get me wrong, I love my 5-speed. I’ve just never understood the point of a shift-stick on an electronically-controlled automatic… by definition, it’s meant to shift itself.
To be completely honest, getting rid of the center console mounted transmission stalk would free up some usable space and you’re right offroadinfrontier, it’s not really necessary anymore.
All manual shift functions (of automatics) of the transmission should be relocated to the steering wheel while drive/park/reverse/neutral should be a dial or set of buttons on the dash in a spot where they won’t get hit by accident. A simpler solution would be to just return to column shifters for some applications. Sure it’s less sporty, but it works fine and keeps the shifter in easy reach.
Ford had the ‘slips out of park and into reverse’ before this.
http://www.autosafety.org/srr/FP-R.pdf
Wha’d Chrysler do, hire one of their tranny design specialists?
How difficult is it to design something properly and correct deficiencies? Obviously their bean counters calculated the lawsuit payouts wouldn’t exceed the design mods cost in the long run. Thanks guys.
My parents’ ’97 Voyager doesn’t have a park to brake interlock. I don’t find it dangerous, I find it convenient. The ’92 Cutlass Supreme I learned how to drive in didn’t have one either. Having a button or having to pull the columnn shifter a certain way should be enough, no? Now if these things are popping out of park on their own, yeah, that’s a safety issue, but if it takes a deliberate yank, what’s the problem?
From what I recall of past incidents, the “park-to-reverse” issue stems not from a mechanical defect, but rather a design that’s overly conducive to operator error. That is, the Chrysler transmission allows careless drivers to position the shift lever somewhere between reverse and park. Believing her vehicle to be fully in park, the driver exits, only to have the lever snap back into reverse. The negative publicity surrounding Chrysler’s transmission has been amplified by the lack of a brake-park interlock, which enables unattended children and pets to wreak havoc with idling vehicles.
There is another alternative to poor automatic transmission design: drive a manual car. In the unlikely event of failure the engine will stall and car won’t continue to drive into the victim.
I’ve seen the park-into-reverse problem on an old car that suddenly took off and mangled a BBQ. Good thing no one was standing behind it.
Cry-sler and automatic transmissions, not a match made in heaven.
Michal :
That may be an alternative, but have you noticed that most vehicles now sold in the US don’t even have an option for a manual transmission?
That may be an alternative, but have you noticed that most vehicles now sold in the US don’t even have an option for a manual transmission?
Chrysler is [rightly] embarking on new DSG-style trannies for all its products. (P.S. the manual is dead)
Despite what the naysayers say (nay?), Chryslers have been known for defective transmissions for a good two decades. Anecdotal evidence: in working at the rental car location here (Hertz), I get plenty of people who break down on the highway due to transmission troubles – we are the only show in town that does unlimited one-way rentals – and literally half of the transmission troubles are sub-100,000 mile Chrysler products.
http://www.mychryslersucks.com is an interesting read, even if many of the stories submitted include grammar and spelling worthy of a fair amount of suspicion.
Also, before I’m flamed, I realize Mitsubishis are perhaps in second place for failed transmissions.
Doesn’t seem surprising that Chrysler and Mitsubishi have shared engineering teams and transmission designs (also, the super-expensive non-synthetic trans fluid).
Robert Farago:(P.S. the manual is dead)
I won’t buy an auto car for myself. I keep seeing all these new cars that look cool, and then see that they have a C/V transmission or a automatic clutch transmission.
I had better get my act together and buy a Honda soon before the manual is gone forever.
1960’s Fords had a similar problem, long before electronics. Our next door neighbor had a 1965 Fairlane that jumped into reverse while he was closing the garage door. Fortunately, it didnt hit anyone and stopped against a telephone pole across the street. There were some bad cases of kids getting run over.