Consumer Complaint Detail

DODGE / INTREPID / 1996

Recalls
1 Injured
Investigations
0 Death
Complaints
No Fire
Components - Details
NHTSA Complaint Number: 005030850 Incident Date: May, 17 2005
Consumer's City: MOBERLY Consumer's State: MO
Vehicle Transmission Type: AUTO Manufacturers Name: Chrysler (FCA US, LLC)
Model Name: INTREPID Model Year: 1996
Vehicle Involved in a Crash: No Component's Description: Structure:body:door
Vehicle Involved in a Fire: No Persons Injured: 1
Vehicle's VIN#: 1B3HD46F3TF Date added to File: May, 23 2021
Date Complaint Received: Jul, 26 2005 Complaint Type: EVOQ
Incident Reported To Police: No Purchase Date: Apr, 28 2002
Was Original Owner: No Anti-lock Brakes: Yes
Number of Cylinders: 6 Date of Manufacturer: -
Was Vehicle Towed: - Description of the Complaints: Dt: consumer stated that 1996 , dodge, intrepid had a bolt sticking out on both back doors. this was a manufacturing safety device to keep the door closed in case of a collision. consumer was in the back seat getting groceries out when her shoe string became entangled around the bolt and consumer fell on concrete and broke her hip. consumer did not realize that string was entangled around the bolt. consumer was rushed to the hospital, then she taken into surgery, she had to have 3 screws placed into her hip. consumer was in the hospital for 5 days . then, consumer was confined to a walker for several weeks until the bone healed. consumer continued with physical therapy. the accident happened on may 18, 2005. consumer had to be taken care of by someone else for quite a while. consumer was in contact with chrysler in june 2005. they sent an inspector to inspect the vehicle and take pictures. consumer received a letter from chrysler on july 5, 2005 stating that her claim was denied. consumer had not filed any claim with chrysler. all consumer wanted was the vehicle to be recalled so that the bolt could be removed. consumer had not taken anyone to chrysler. she just wanted to inform other people that the bolt was dangerous and could injure others more severely. also, consumer had not done anything with the vehicle, and vehicle was still being driven. *ak