Here a few more facts regarding this particular issue and it sounds like
Nissan is getting sued for their headlights being enticing to theives in
addition to being very expensive to replace.
http://www.wnbc.com/money/2968643/detail.html

Are You In Headlight Hell?
Xenon Lights More Popular Than Ever With Thieves
The new xenon headlights are clearly brighter and more efficient than the
old style. They've also proven quite popular to both car owners and thieves.

We did early reports on the theft problem nearly two years ago. Since then,
xenon headlights have continued to frustrate carmakers, lawmakers, and most
of all people like Erica Swanson.

It took less than a year for Swanson to go from loving her car to resenting
it.

"They've been stolen three times and I've had my car less than a year. April
10 will make it a year," Swanson said.

Swanson is not the worst case the New Jersey Attorney General's Office has
seen.

"The winner so far is the poor person who has had this happen to them five
times," said Reni Erdos of the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs.

Headlights stolen from 2002 and 2003 Nissan Maximas make up the majority of
the 750 theft reports filed in New Jersey. That's enough to prompt a lawsuit
against the carmaker.

"What we're seeking there is restitution and out-of-pocket loss that
customers had suffered," New Jersey Attorney General Peter C. Harvey said.

With replacement costs at $1,500 to $2,000, those pockets are pretty empty.
Many consumers have paid outright and those who filed insurance claims still
paid deductibles.

"I had to pay a $500 deductible," Swanson said.

Don't forget to multiply that $500 by the three times her lights were
stolen.

Nissan responded by distributing antitheft kits. Some people bought them and
others thought they were supposed to be free. Car owners found the solution
offered puzzling at best. That's one of the reasons New York consumer
authorities have decided to join in the legal action.

"We are urging people to contact the consumer protection board because we
are negotiating with attorneys to help people get their money back," said
Teresa A. Santiago of the New York State Consumer Protection Board.

In Connecticut, the attorney general's office tells us they haven't received
any calls from consumers complaining about headlight thefts but are
interested if there are any.

A Nissan spokesperson told us the company would not comment on issues that
will be settled in court later. It is interesting to note the company
acknowledges it redesigned the headlights in its 2004-2005 models.

Our legal system provides a way for "victims" of injudicious and frivolous
lawsuits to seek redress.  It is equally as flawed as the original lawsuit
itself in that it shares the problem of a seeking redress against damages
from a defendant with empty or shallow pocket.  It is still better than the
uncivilized alternative which tort reformers in their shallow view fail to
adress.  It isn't perfect, but people that share your hopeless view of the
tort system do so usually because they were either forced to pay a high
price for what a jury deemed a wrong they did that they do not recognize as
a wrong, or one of the mob that stimulates their adrenals by listening to a
talk radio show that exites the sedentary personality into a minor proactive
one---that is to say the radio voice is capable of moving the couch potato
from the couch to the phone to call in a radio show, write an article for a
newsgroup, or discuss it agitatedly over church or beer!

The former has had his day in court; the jury has spoken.  The later usually
makes up his "judicial mind" from ten minutes of detail and fact as recited
to him by a talk radio jock.  The later has not the same quality of fact to
deal with as the jury they are second guessing.  I am sickened by the
superficial readiness of both of these growing types of people to do away
with the flawed system we have without thinking of the consequences.  The
flawed system of common law we have was developed over hundreds of years to
prevent the injured from enforcing his own standards of redress.  Cherokee,
one of my many American cultures, did not have common law.  The ancient
Cherokee relied upon Blood Law for redress.  Revenge might be the better
word.  Without a flawed tort system with juries to decide....the alternative
would be man to man where might makes right.  I promise you it is far a
better thing to be on the wrong side of a tort court decision than to be on
the wrong side of a Blood Law obligation.  Under Blood Law your entire
family would have to answer to the perceived victim's entire family for as
long as it took to get justice..........or revenge....whichever word you
prefer!

Laws and systems of laws don't just appear out of a vaccuum.  They are
compromises made over time by process as decided by the whole where the
individual surrenders some of his personal perogative for action in exchange
for the contract to live among the group.

Many in Texas think as you do....but they are mistaken.  Many in Texas think
the high cost of medicine is due to the cost of mal practise lawsuit awards.
98% of all medical-malpractise lawsuits in Texas end with a judgment for the
defendant.  That means all those insane suits that you talk about are funded
by lawyers who have to try 100 cases to win two.  The cost of a medical
malpractise lawsuit for a plantiff runs from $50,000 to $350,000 dollars.  I
know of a couple of established attorneys who were wiped out completely
funding a case they thought would win............but did not.  These were
cases that had every right to win, but the jury pool was made up of people
likeminded to yourself that just could not believe that a friendly Doctor
could really sew up someone's chest with gauge still inside to leave
infections that caused three more operations to no avail until the patient
finally went to a third doctor who found the infected gauze.  The plaintiff
lost and the attorney, you will be pleased to know, went into domestic law
helping people get divorces.

You are quite smug in your quick statement of the facts.  Can you admit that
such a quick statement calls for a quick judgment without the real facts.
Any judgment made upon your statement would indicate the shallow mind that
is inadequate to examine such issues at all.  Virtually everyone that reads
this post will know that the above is not the only facts of this case.
Therefore, your statement is meaningless and belongs on talk
radio...........or right here on the newsgroup, but has no merit worth
consideration by serious people.

Go ahead, make it virtually impossible for one man to sue another.  That is
a step back to the old west.  We knew how to handle these things here in
Texas.  My wife's great grandfather had a long running dispute with his
French neighbor.  One day as he was choping the head off a chicken the
neighbor came out to gripe as he did often.  (They had no small claims court
in those days).  The Frenchman had his hand on the fence post and was
steadily giving my wife's grandfather a dressing down.  He didn't talk much.
He didn't say a word.  When he had heard all he wanted to hear, he just took
the hand axe he used on the chicken and chopped of two of the Frenchman's
fingers.  The dispute was settled........no lawyers........no judge.....no
jury!

I'm with you!  The tort system is only a fence that keeps us apart.  I don't
like the fence and neither do you.  As soon as I finish killing this
chicken.........I'll deal with it my own way.  Go ahead and stand there with
your hand on the post :-)

Just kidding........offered as something to think about.  It really is just
as simple as you present it...........and me.  If you don't like the tort
system we can go back to the old Blood Law ways if you want to.  That is
where we are headed, but don't say I didn't warn you!  You might not like
what you get.

Bin Laden didn't feel he could get a fair hearing in a court of law in the
United States.  The WTC is just an magnified example of what happens when
people decide to settle things in their own way.  People who perceive
themselves as injured do not just walk away.  Either they have a day in
court or they find another way to get even.  It is the nature of man  that
he will do these things.  A flawed tort system is better than the
alternative.

Randy R. Cox

As a lifelong citizen of the US, I am concerned about the
deteriorating trend that is destroying the dignity and integrity of
the American people. Among the inevitable crime, overpopulation and
every day social issues that contribute to the ongoing problems that
we face, there is a much deeper and darker influence that has been
quickly evolving into a social "plague". I have closely observed the
ethical decline of this country's government and I am sickened by the
warped values of our legal system. We now live in a country that
solicits injudicious and frivolous lawsuits, encourages people to
destroy honest businesses and their reputations, and rewards this
sadistic behavior with a monetary payoff.

The lawyers and judges in this country (with the exception of a very
few who are courageous enough to stand strong on their convictions),
have sold their concern of humanity for greed and personal gain.
The government has been reduced to nothing more than organized crime
as they over tax us and force the honest businesses to pay them
exorbitant amounts of money under the pretense of litigation. Of
coarse, on occasion, there are legitimate causes, but the epidemic of
sue happy litigators has reached a level of pure insanity.

For example, NJ State Attorney General, Peter Harvey's is suing Nissan
for producing cars with headlights that thieves find enticing to
steal.
Or how about a federal judge ordering WalMart to pay $16 million for
selling a shotgun that was used in a murder. I may be crazy, but
wouldn't the man who pulled the trigger be responsible for that?
Then there's the lawfirm who pressed and then settled a class action
against Microsoft supposedly on behalf of 14 million California
consumers, demanding legal fees of $300 million. These insane class
action lawsuits might dress well in the media, but who makes out? $300
million for the lawyers and maybe the consumer will get back a portion
of what ever he paid for a product that he consciously chose and
evaluated before making the purchase. Just another blatant case of
legal extortion. The list goes on and on, and the most twisted part of
it all is that the victim in these unfair legal attacks must pay to
defend themselves whether right, wrong, win or lose. Where is the
justice in this? Have we evolved into a breed of humans that are too
stupid to be responsible for our own choices and actions?

As the avalanche of lawsuits grows stronger and stronger the concern
for humanity becomes less and less. Do these subhumans that call
themselves lawyers and judges realize that these businesses they are
destroying are run by people with families? This is not just
paperwork, this is mothers and fathers who are proud of their hard
work and success until the vultures pick apart their livelihood with
legal brutality and slander their names with media manipulation. What
has happened to our sense of humanity?
Are we now just a nation of self serving cut-throats with no
consciences? What will become of us if this self-destructing trend
continues?