News

Kia Wants Out of a Carnival Door Lawsuit—and Says the Danger Is Only Theoretical

Kia’s Carnival minivan is supposed to be the sensible choice—the sliding-door Swiss Army knife of modern family transport. But now the automaker is trying to convince a federal judge that a class-action lawsuit over those very doors shouldn’t even get a foot in the courtroom.

In a motion filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Kia is asking for the dismissal of a lawsuit targeting 2022 and 2023 Carnival models. The reason? According to Kia, the case is built less on real-world damage and more on what might happen, someday, if everything goes wrong at once.

The lawsuit was brought by Rachael and Andrew Langerhans, owners of a 2022 Carnival SX. They allege that the power sliding doors on their van stopped responding properly to people or objects while closing, a problem they say first appeared in late 2021. Their complaint echoes years of consumer reports describing similar behavior—doors that don’t seem eager to stop when something’s in the way.

That concern isn’t entirely theoretical. The issue gained wider attention after multiple complaints and at least nine reported injuries connected to Carnival sliding doors. Kia responded in early 2023 with a recall covering 2022–2023 models, rolling out a software update that adds warning chimes when the doors begin to open or close.

The plaintiffs, however, argue that this fix is more bandaid than cure. Their lawsuit claims Kia failed to address what they see as the core issue: the amount of force required to activate the doors’ pinch sensors. Without lowering that threshold, they argue, the doors may still pose a risk—particularly to children.

They’re asking for more than $5 million in damages. Kia, unsurprisingly, disagrees with just about every part of that.

In its motion to dismiss, Kia characterizes the lawsuit as speculative, emphasizing that neither the Langerhans nor their children have reported any injuries caused by the doors. In Kia’s words, the couple simply “have concerns about the possibility of the doors closing on them or their children.”

The automaker goes further, arguing that the plaintiffs haven’t even shown that the alleged defect still exists after the recall. Until they can plausibly explain why the fix didn’t work—or demonstrate an ongoing problem—Kia says the dispute is hypothetical at best.

Kia also questions what, exactly, the plaintiffs are seeking compensation for. According to the filing, the lawsuit doesn’t clearly allege any current damages, making it unclear what the court would be expected to remedy.

And then there’s the legal kill switch. Kia notes that when the Langerhans bought their Carnival, they agreed to binding arbitration. If that agreement is enforced, the case wouldn’t just lose momentum—it would be barred from court entirely.

For now, the Carnival’s sliding doors remain open in the court of public opinion, even as Kia tries to close them firmly in federal court. Whether the judge agrees that this lawsuit is all noise and no pinch remains to be seen.

Source: Carcomplaints, Pacemonitor

News

Tesla’s Door Handle Problem, Explained

Door handles used to be simple. You grabbed, you pulled, you exited. Today, they’re software-adjacent components tied into power networks, sensors, and sleek design briefs—and when they fail, the consequences can be far more serious than a broken fingernail. A new investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration into the 2022 Tesla Model 3 is a sobering reminder of what happens when modern convenience collides with old-fashioned physics.

The probe stems from a single but chilling complaint filed with NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation. One report was enough to open the door—pun unavoidable—on a potential issue affecting 179,071 Model 3 sedans from the 2022 model year, with the possibility that more vehicles could be added later.

According to the complaint, the driver was involved in a head-on collision in Georgia. The crash knocked out the car’s electrical system, rendering the Model 3’s electronic door releases inoperative. As the interior began to burn, the driver found himself trapped.

His escape was desperate and damaging. He climbed into the back seat and kicked out a rear passenger window to get free, suffering a broken hip, a broken arm, and ultimately requiring a full hip replacement. It’s a horrifying scenario, and one that understandably grabbed NHTSA’s attention.

Still, an investigation does not equal a recall. At this stage, the agency is simply trying to determine whether the incident points to a genuine design defect, insufficient labeling or owner education, or an unfortunate convergence of panic, unfamiliarity, and extreme circumstances. That distinction matters—legally, financially, and philosophically.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: the driver was likely inches from an easier escape.

Tesla, like many manufacturers using electronic door latches, includes a manual mechanical release. In the Model 3, it’s integrated into the door armrest and requires no tools, no panel removal, and no extraordinary strength. Pull up on the forward portion of the armrest, and the door opens—power or no power.

The complainant, however, says he didn’t know it existed. He describes the release as “hidden,” not visibly labeled, not explained during delivery, and not intuitive in an emergency. That claim cuts straight to the heart of the issue: where does responsibility lie?

Is it on the automaker to make emergency systems unmistakably obvious, even at the expense of clean interior design? Or does some of the burden fall on owners to understand how their vehicle works—especially when it comes to basic safety features?

Tesla will point out, correctly, that the emergency door release is described in the owner’s manual. Critics will counter, also correctly, that very few people read manuals cover to cover, and even fewer recall fine-print details while sitting in a burning car.

The situation becomes even more complicated once you look beyond the driver’s door. According to Tesla’s own documentation for the 2017–2022 Model 3, there are no mechanical emergency door releases for rear-seat occupants. That means passengers in the back are entirely dependent on electrical power or on breaking glass to escape—a fact that could widen the scope of this investigation significantly.

For now, it’s unclear whether NHTSA will conclude that this setup violates federal safety standards. Tesla was almost certainly compliant at the time these cars were built; if not, this issue would’ve surfaced years ago. But compliance doesn’t always equal best practice, and regulators have a habit of re-evaluating what’s “acceptable” after real-world incidents expose the cracks.

Tesla has been here before. Earlier versions of the Model S famously hid rear-seat emergency releases under the carpet—an arrangement that looked clever on a CAD screen and less so when tested by actual humans in actual emergencies.

The broader question goes beyond Tesla. Automakers across the industry are rushing toward electronic latches in the name of packaging efficiency, aerodynamic gains, and futuristic feel. The problem is that electricity, by definition, can stop. Fires burn wires. Crashes sever connections. And when that happens, a door should still open the same way doors have opened for more than a century.

Plenty of manufacturers already hedge their bets by integrating mechanical backups directly into the door handle itself. It’s not glamorous, and it doesn’t photograph well for marketing decks, but it works—and in moments like this, “works” is the only metric that matters.

The NHTSA investigation may or may not end with a recall. But regardless of the outcome, it shines a harsh light on a trend that deserves reconsideration. When a car’s most basic function—letting people get out—depends on electrons behaving perfectly after a violent crash, something has gone wrong.

Maybe it’s time we admit that the best door handle is still the boring one.

Source: NHTSA

News

Rezvani Teases the Next-Gen Tank, Because Apparently the Current One Isn’t Intimidating Enough

Rezvani has never been shy about its brand identity. This is, after all, a company that took one look at a Jeep Wrangler and thought, Nice, but what if it looked like it escaped from a classified military program and cost six figures? The Rezvani Tank has spent the better part of a decade catering to buyers who want exclusivity, excess, and optional armor plating—all wrapped around familiar Jeep bones. Now, a new generation is on the way, and Rezvani is promising more of everything.

The next-generation Tank has been teased ahead of a full reveal scheduled for January 2026. True to form, Rezvani isn’t giving away much, but the shadowy preview images confirm that subtlety is still not part of the mission brief. The overall silhouette remains unmistakably Tank, but the bodywork looks to have gone on a stricter diet of angles and aggression.

Up front, the new model appears to adopt redesigned LED headlights flanking a beefier grille that looks ready to inhale smaller crossovers. A massive hood bulge suggests there’s something worth bragging about underneath, while the reshaped fenders are more sculpted than before, emphasizing the Tank’s already cartoonish width. A flat windshield keeps things unapologetically upright, and the roof-mounted LED light bar reinforces the idea that this thing is happiest when the sun has gone down—or when you want it to look like it is.

Around back, high-set taillights peek out from above the oversized rear shoulders, a design trick that makes the Tank look even wider and more planted. It’s not elegant, but elegance has never been the point. The Tank’s visual language continues to scream don’t ask questions, and the new generation seems determined to shout it louder.

Rezvani hasn’t released technical details yet, but history gives us a pretty good idea of what to expect. The Tank has always relied on Wrangler-derived ladder-frame underpinnings, and there’s little reason to believe that formula will change. The real curiosity lies under the hood. Official powertrain options remain unconfirmed, but Rezvani is already hinting at serious output. Translation: expect at least one supercharged Hemi V8, and don’t be surprised if the number attached to it starts with a one and has three more digits following. Yes, four figures. Because of course.

Reservations for the new Tank are already open, with a refundable $500 deposit securing an early production slot. Final pricing hasn’t been announced, but if previous Tanks are any indication, this will be one of the most expensive ways to start with a Wrangler-shaped foundation. Between bespoke bodywork, extreme powertrain options, and a menu of tactical-themed extras, the Tank has always lived in a financial neighborhood where rationality doesn’t apply.

For context, the original Rezvani Tank debuted in 2017, followed by a second generation in 2019. The current model offers a wide range of powertrains, including V6, plug-in hybrid, and multiple V8 options—up to and including Hellcat and Demon-derived setups. Buyers can also spec optional armor plating, night vision systems, upgraded suspension components, and lavish interior packages that clash delightfully with the vehicle’s militaristic exterior.

The Tank is just one piece of Rezvani’s growing catalog of excess. The lineup also includes the Beast roadster, the Porsche 911–based RR1, the Jeep Gladiator–derived Hercules pickup, the Lamborghini Urus–based Knight, and the Cadillac Escalade–based Arsenal. The common thread is simple: take something familiar, turn the volume knob past eleven, and charge accordingly.

Will the next-generation Tank be objectively sensible? Absolutely not. But for buyers who want supercar power, apocalypse-ready aesthetics, and the ability to say their SUV might have optional armor, the new Rezvani Tank looks ready to continue doing exactly what it’s always done—stand out, scare pedestrians, and make subtlety someone else’s problem.

Source: Rezvani

Cars and catalogues