Volkswagen Warranty Query

Gryffindor

Hi there,
So I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, and it's on someone else's behalf, but a friend recently had his fuel tank punctured by a stone while driving on the motorway.
The car is a passat, 4 months old and with a two year volkswagen warranty. They're saying it's not covered under the warranty because "it's not a manufacturing defect."
We can't seem to find a copy of the warranty, but surely it is reasonably forseeable that there would be stones on the road and therefore it is a manufacturing issue if this is not protected against?
Would he have recourse under the sale of goods act 1980.
An thoughts would be appreciated!

Mr. Incognito

Eh No.

How is it the manufacturers fault if a stone flies up and punctures it.

It's a car not a tank.

You could seek to raise an argument that its design is not fit for purpose but you'd need an automotive engineers report to ground that and probably have to take them to Court.

Gryffindor

Fair enough, thank you!
I have very limited knowledge in the area/ legal knowledge.
I just thought it would be so common for there to be stones on the road, it would seem like a defect if reasonable care wasn't taken by the manufacturer to prevent against damage.

Gryffindor

Much appreciated thanks!

Samuel T. Cogley

You're conflating a couple of issues. It may be that there is a design flaw in the entire fleet of cars but given there is no press on it, you're either right at the start of it or you were just unlucky. 'Reasonably-foreseeable' relates to negligence rather than a warranty issue.

Incidentally I love the fact that the ad for me in the bottom right is a solicitors firm that looks like they've set up a VM emissions claim hotline!

Pat Mustard

ellobee wrote: »

definitely not covered, stones can do all sort of damage to a car, windscreen, headlights, radiator are all susceptible to damage from flying stones, unfortunately its just bad luck

You have not seen the car or the extent of the damage but you comment that it is 'just bad luck'. You may be right or you may be wrong but you have nothing to support your argument.

The car would have to be examined by an appropriate expert before it could be ascertained whether there was a defect or not.

What you are doing is surmising.

Gryffindor

Yes, I should have clarified it is not a minor/superficial issue. He was lucky in that it was a diesel car. Had it been petrol it would have combusted if punctured and he would probably died.

With regard to conflating the issues I believe he is going to break it down as a) there may be a negligence issue with having the tank exposed in the first place, given the seriousness of the consequences, and b) that if the tank was exposed in such a manner that driving on a motorway with stones would puncture it, the car was not fit for purpose and therefore it would be a manufacturing/warranty issue.

GM228

Gryffindor wrote: »

Yes, I should have clarified it is not a minor/superficial issue. He was lucky in that it was a diesel car. Had it been petrol it would have combusted if punctured and he would probably died.

With regard to conflating the issues I believe he is going to break it down as a) there may be a negligence issue with having the tank exposed in the first place, given the seriousness of the consequences, and b) that if the tank was exposed in such a manner that driving on a motorway with stones would puncture it, the car was not fit for purpose and therefore it would be a manufacturing/warranty issue.

Simply puncturing a petrol fuel tank would be near impossible to ignite the tank unless sparks ignite it, a stone puncturing the tank would not create a spark, now if it was say a sheet of metal on the road which was then draged that would be potentially a diffent issue. Even the film myth of shooting a bullet at a fuel tank won't ignite the tank - it's actually very difficult to do as you need a source of ignition.

Aren't all fuel tanks exposed? I'm pretty certain that is standard accepted design in most vehicle types. Before holding that a car manufacturers standard of care has fallen below the objective standard expected and so finding that they acted negligently, a court would need to be satisfied that a reasonable person in the position of the manufacturert (i.e other car manufacturers - reasonable forseeability is an objective test) would contemplate that injury is likely to follow from their acts or omissions - an exposed fuel tank is an industry standard eaccepted safety validated feature.

The purpose of a car is not to be bullet proof or rather stone proof, a stone moving at high velocity can in fact impact at a higher velocity and force than a bullet. What if the stone went through the window or put a dent in the panel, where does one draw the line?

ED E

GM228 wrote: »

Simply puncturing a petrol fuel tank would be near impossible to ignite the tank unless sparks ignite it, a stone puncturing the tank would not create a spark, now if it was say a sheet of metal on the road which was then draged that would be potentially a diffent issue. Even the film myth of shooting a bullet at a fuel tank won't ignite the tank - it's actually very difficult to do as you need a source of ignition.

Just to add to this, even with tracer rounds (essentially a bullet that is on fire) have a hard time causing an explosion of a fuel tank.

Petrol Vapour
1.2% volume in air -> 8.0% volume in air
560 ?C

A stone hitting a tank from the underside would have to hit an empty tank so as to spark in gas and not fluid, and then only have 8% despite being an empty tank in a moving car thats agitating the fuel likely to create a much richer mix. Extremely unlikely.

Victor

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

It's a car not a tank.

But it is a tank!

One would expect a fuel tank to be resistant to a stone.

Realistically, tanks are probably safer being exposed than not exposed - you don't want a leaking petrol tank inside the vehicle.

Samuel T. Cogley

ellobee wrote: »

so what would you call it if a stone hits your car on a motorway?

I know you were asking Pat but as Victor has started the jokes, what I'd call it is not something I'm going to commit to writing.

Pat Mustard

ellobee wrote: »

so what would you call it if a stone hits your car on a motorway?

Nobody is arguing about the stone hitting the car. I am making an issue of you surmising that there can be no liability, based on inadequate information.

What you posted:

ellobee wrote: »

definitely not covered

You have nothing to support this. You are surmising.

Pat Mustard

It's not for you to comment on liability, especially when you haven't even seen the damage, so if you want to give your opinion to that effect, you can expect to be pulled up over it, in this forum.

There is a rule against offering legal advice in the forum charter, so your opinion on liability is not welcome.