ffr crash

[Danr55]

To my knowledge, Arizona law requires seat belts for the passenger in the front seat only. There is no mention of rollover protection that I am aware of. Subsequently, I don't believe that argument would have any standing in a court of law as regards the manufacturer. A good prosecutor will hang the driver for being under the influence and for being unable to keep his vehicle "under sufficient control to avoid endangering or damaging, persons or property", which is required by Arizona statute.

[mikeinatlanta]

Originally Posted by Danr55

To my knowledge, Arizona law requires seat belts for the passenger in the front seat only. There is no mention of rollover protection that I am aware of. Subsequently, I don't believe that argument would have any standing in a court of law as regards the manufacturer. A good prosecutor will hang the driver for being under the influence and for being unable to keep his vehicle "under sufficient control to avoid endangering or damaging, persons or property", which is required by Arizona statute.

Did Arizona pass some sort of tort reform that I was unaware of? Are you contending that civil liability requires some sort of code violation to have standing?

Wile one could legitimately contend that the passenger shares some liability with the driver in regards to the driver's criminal behavior, alleging the same for faulty design and construction would be a much taller order.

[cycleguy55]

Originally Posted by Danr55

To my knowledge, Arizona law requires seat belts for the passenger in the front seat only. There is no mention of rollover protection that I am aware of.

Legislation and regulations here (Saskatchewan) require no more than lap belts for 'convertibles', and is completely silent on rollover protection.