Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Be careful with using Wikipedia for law. If you follow to the original source[1], the "duty to rescue" law exists in most states as a duty to report rape and murder, not a duty to report car crashes. And the penalty in some states is as low as $100.

Second, even if the law were as you said it was, a class action would only be appropriate among people who have actually been in wrecks after the most recent change in terms and conditions --- people who have not crashed have suffered no harm from the alleged policy.

The short version is that Wikipedia is notoriously bad about law because it is largely written by non-lawyers; often it describes the law as Wiki editors _want_ it to be, rather than how it _is_.

[1] Usefully condensed here: http://volokh.com/2009/11/03/duty-to-rescuereport-statutes/




Of course, you're right and IANAL. Indeed, the quote I chose to include was from the "special circumstances" section, it may only apply to 10 states, and there are special requirements. Also, you are correct that a class would only include victims of wrecks whose OnStar systems were cancelled but active (and possibly any other people affected by the wreck -- e.g. the people in the other car).

Nevertheless, it seems unethical for OnStar to profit off human suffering when they are in a position to assist -- I suspect their crash statistics are among the most profitable data they collect.


it is largely written by non-lawyers; often it describes the law as Wiki editors _want_ it to be, rather than how it _is_

True, but lawyers do that too at times.


You might want to tell that to the DoJ.

They seems to have no issue broadly interpreting laws.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: