Comment by shagie

Comment by shagie 6 hours ago

12 replies

As long as the manufacturer isn't on the hook for a violation of the EPA when the owner modifies their vehicle to be out of spec.

For automobiles, this has been the case - that the owner is responsible the vehicle goes out of spec... and the owner can also do a lot of customization of their vehicle.

For heavy machinery (which tractors fall into), the manufacture is almost always on the hook for any modification that the owner makes.

https://www.farm-equipment.com/articles/18110-what-you-need-...

> Here’s one real-life scenario that Natalie Higgins, vice president of government relations and general counsel for EDA, shared during a recent presentation for the United Equipment Dealers Assn. “An Ohio equipment owner purchased a tractor and then installed a turbocharger on the engine. The tractor owner sustained injuries and then sued both the manufacturer and the equipment dealer, alleging that his injuries were the result of negligence on the part of the manufacturer and dealer. Remember, neither the dealer nor the manufacturer were involved in the turbochargers installation.”

> ...

> And, if you service equipment that has been chipped, the warranty will most likely be denied and you will not be paid for your work. “That can also put your dealership in a sticky situation if technicians in the shop are not conveying to the rest of the dealership what is going in,” says Wareham. F

> Financial consequences can be harsh for not following the law. Under federal law 40 CFR § 89.1006, the penalty for a dealer who removes or renders inoperative emissions controls is subject to a penalty of $32,500 for each violation. Wareham says that one manufacturer of chipping software was initially fined $300,000 by the EPA and then $6 million to ensure future compliance with the Clean Air Act. “The EPA has stated that their intent is to crack down on defeat devices in 2020,” says Wareham.

> A dealer may face liability issues when customers tamper with the equipment they purchased, even if a dealer had nothing to do with the modification. For example, in instances in Ohio and Oregon, customers were injured as a result of modifications and dealers were sued.

jtbayly 5 hours ago

But did the tractor owner win the lawsuit? Anybody can sue anybody. Winning is what matters. That anecdote doesn't tell me anything, and the whole article reads as FUD. I wonder if it is paid for by John Deere?

  • shiroiuma 3 minutes ago

    >But did the tractor owner win the lawsuit? Anybody can sue anybody.

    Yes, but this requires the accused to pay for legal counsel and go through an expensive trial.

    Maybe the US should fix this.

  • shagie 5 hours ago

    Not 100% sure about that one - though even that they were sued is an issue.

    Note that part of this is also that worker's comp excludes farm labor. So you can't get compensated through workers comp.

    https://nationalaglawcenter.org/workers-compensation-for-agr...

    > Whether or not someone is eligible for workers’ compensation depends on their state and the industry they work in. There are no requirements at the federal level that mandate states to have workers’ compensation laws. Nevertheless, every state, except for Texas, requires most employers to carry workers’ compensation insurance. However, the majority of state workers’ compensation laws specifically exclude or limit agricultural employers from the workers’ compensation requirement.

    Product Liability in the Farm Equipment Industry - https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY

    Take note of 42:23 where it goes to who is at fault and the liability for it (the case study starts at 21:21 - jumping to 42:23 you can get the "who is paying for it" in two minutes). The entire video is interesting (if you're interested in product liability for industrial (farm) equipment ... but I can understand someone not wanting to watch an hour long video about it). It boils down to "every piece of farm equipment is dangerous from the insurance perspective and a manufacture allowing unapproved modifications to the equipment is still at fault, even if the modification was made by another party."

  • [removed] 5 hours ago
    [deleted]
aqme28 5 hours ago

I can see why that regulation would be in place though. I don't want heavy industrial machinery coming with "here's how to make it run faster and stronger but ruin the environment, which you definitely should not do wink wink."

  • bigstrat2003 4 hours ago

    It's a reasonable goal, but I think that one can find better ways to meet that goal than making manufacturers responsible for what the owner of the equipment does with it. That method is just insanely unfair to the manufacturer.

    • idiotsecant 3 hours ago

      Can you point to a single case where a manufacturer was held responsible for what the owner of the equipment did with it?

      • cucumber3732842 2 hours ago

        It'll be hard to do because it's like the more restrictive gun laws. It'll never stick so they never take it though court, but they threaten it to get the conduct they want. OEMs have spent huge sums locking down computer systems "because emissions".

        The EPA has a ton of ways to expensively scrutinize (heavy on the "screw") oems at their discretion so it doesn't really need to be a serious threat, just a warning.

        Same dynamic as local business vs local code enforcers basically.

        • mothballed 2 hours ago

          The CAA allows parties with no standing to sue, to magically have standing to sue, and then have their victims pay lawyers fees (or otherwise go to jail[0]). So there's no need for the EPA to get involved. You can just be sued by, say " Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment" and end up paying unlimited lawyers fees because some guy 300 miles away says you dropped a particle of carbon on them.

          [0] https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2025/10/24/after-die...

idiotsecant 3 hours ago

> Here’s one real-life scenario that Natalie Higgins, vice president of government relations and general counsel for EDA, shared during a recent presentation for the United Equipment Dealers Assn. “An Ohio equipment owner purchased a tractor and then installed a turbocharger on the engine. The tractor owner sustained injuries and then sued both the manufacturer and the equipment dealer, alleging that his injuries were the result of negligence on the part of the manufacturer and dealer. Remember, neither the dealer nor the manufacturer were involved in the turbochargers installation.”

-----------------------

This is such a weasley disingenuous argument. First of all, it was a guy's insurance company that sued the tractor manufacturer and the supercharger manufacturer. The guy filed an insurance claim, the insurance company is just suing anyone they can possibly imagine to try to make the quarterly results better.

It was also dismissed under summary judgement because the case is ridiculous on it's face. This was not a case where restricting the right to modify things you own based on possible harm to a corporation was justified.

Quite the opposite, this is a case where a greedy insurance company made a really stupid hail-mary lawsuit to try and recover from a legitimate insurance claim.

The fact that we're repeating this blatant corporate propaganda is frankly embarrassing.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01...

  • mindslight 3 hours ago

    The rest of that farm-equipment.com article is full of FUD as well - the kind that should be easily recognizable by technologists.