If Deere and GM prevail, then we need to change the laws to recognize that these vehicles aren't being purchased, but leased. There are accounting and tax implications for the lessor and the lessee that need to be resolved.
Also, due to the notion that is being put forward that the reason for this distinction is for safety then all maintenance liabilities for the life-span of the vehicle should rest with the manufacturer. That means all fluids, wipers, brake pads, tires, emissions equipment...I'd like to see that condition tacked on.
Okay, but when's the last time a piece of real estate ran over a child? I'm being a bit drastic, sure, but we're talking about a mobile, several thousand pound object. As your link shows, the notion of casaulty with respect to liability still engages the owner / lessor with obligations with respect to legal standards. The NNN lease may exist, but it's not a very palatable notion, IMO, especially when applied to something like a vehicle.
A running over a child equivalent would be falling down unexpectedly or a small portion caving in.
When I was 7, all the bricks in one corner of the kitchen fell down. Just randomly (probably decaying, but unnoticed because of the paint) The lady taking care of me was less than 5 feet away.
