david@tekig.UUCP (David Hayes) (04/26/84)
The Donohue and Porche 930 incidents accurately speak of the state of our legal system. Unfortunately, the people to blame are the jurors. As long as Company X is portrayed as some large uncaring monster, it is easy to soak them for a few million because, they can afford it. Clearly, the woman trying to operate the 930 had no business in the car. Her husband bought the car on speculation out of Canada for resale in the U.S. One of the most damaging points brought by the prosecution was evidence of a weak brake pedal. Never mind the fact that the force of the accident broke the actuating arm, or that the direction of the weakness was at a right angle to the force applied by the foot of the driver. If a jury claims a 930 is dangerous, just go down to your local Kawasaki shop and for $5000 (not $40000) you can get a machine that will suck the headlights out of a 930. The only problem with a bike is that you usually only kill yourself. As an aside, where does the total figure of 1.5 million come from? Seems like a generous sum to take care of the guys wife and children, since the children are nearly out of the house. That statement seems cold hearted, but we know that NO amount of cash will bring the guy back. dave
richard@sequent.UUCP (04/27/84)
Well, Keith, I don't think you'll need your suit. I, at least, am disgusted with the litigation mentality this country has acquired. Many people have somehow decided that they are not responsible for their own lives, and that there should be no risks inherant in living. I'd prefer to see companies sued heavily when they really are negligent, but the huge amounts of punutive damages awarded are obscene. The company should get zapped, but giving all that money to the plaintiff reinforces a bad attitude. Maybe if "excess" punative damages were applied against the national debt, people would calm down :-)? ___________________________________________________________________________ The preceding should not to be construed as the statement or opinion of the employers or associates of the author. It is solely the belief... from the confused and bleeding fingertips of ...!sequent!(No one ever told me knives were sharp!)richard
scw@cepu.UUCP (04/27/84)
Jim Shankland just discribed what is known as the 'deep pocket' theory
of law.
--
Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology)
uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw
ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-locus location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"emma@uw-june.UUCP (04/30/84)
Aren't these marvelous times we live in? You realize, of course, that there are other cases, such as the famous Ford transmission, in which the sequence that has gotten people killed involves leaving the engine running, not putting on the parking brake, and walking behind the car. Ford also lost a liability suit involving a drunk driver who lost control of his car. Seems the car's top speed was higher than the speed rating of the tires. GM paid out recently in a case in which a kid ran his Firebird off the road. They were encouraging people to drive irresponsibly by building a car like that. The theory is called 'deep pockets'. The idea is, somebody has to pay all those hospital bills. So you look around and see who has the deepest pockets, and sue them. The question of whether or not they had anything to do with the outcome is irrelevant. "If a town has one lawyer, he drives an old Ford. If there are two, they both drive new Lincolns." -Joe P.
roger@felix.UUCP (05/02/84)
[]
Regarding the Mark Donohue case .....
As several of you have stated, race drivers generally assume the
risks involved in racing area fairly high, especially at the
level at which Donohue was driving. Donohue himself is on record
as having stated to his own press agent the following if he ever
had a fatal crash:
"If the engine failed, don't blame the engine, blame me
for revving the engine too much."
"If the car fails, blame me for going off the track."
"And if the tire fails, blame me for going over a curb
or hitting a curb."
His press agent then asked, "Suppose you're coming down a
straightaway and a tire blows, how can I say you hit a curb
or hit debris?"
He said Donohue replied: "The risk of tire failure or
equipment failure is one of the risks we drivers assume.
Even if the tire is defective, we assume that risk."
The above quotes are from the April 30, 1984 issue of AutoWeek
(reprinted without permission, of course). This is an excellent
source for information about the trial, though it might be just
a bit one-sided in its opinions.
By the way, the above exchange was ruled as inadmissible as it
was "Prejudicial and irrelevant," and was never heard by the jury
in the Donohue case.
Goodyear is confident that they will win on appeal. So confident
in fact, that although they felt they might lose the trial, they
went ahead, rather than settle for 5.6 Million out-of-court.
Roger Websterhu@sdcsvax.UUCP (05/02/84)
but I hope you guys don't mind. About the deep pockets theory, I recently read of case where it backfired. In a malpractice suit, the patient, at the bidding of his lawyer, sued everyone in sight, including several physicians who weren't involved in the case or who were only slightly involved. The lawyer, operating on a contingency, was hoping sympathetic, anti-MD juries would award him lots of money (which would be payed by the huge malpractice insurance companies). One physician, fed up with all this cr*p, counter-sued the lawyer (for causing him so much trouble and damaging his reputation) and got a judgement for $85,000 plus legal fees. I wish things like that happened more often. --Alan Hu sdcsvax!hu
tron@fluke.UUCP (05/04/84)
First of all I apologize slightly for the lateness of this reply, but I just had to respond after finally reading the news. NO, you are not wrong to think that too many idiots are winning lawsuits of the type you mention. My concern is what to do about it. Do we begin to purge lawyers? Perhaps we could push for legislation that would require a losing petitioner to pay the defendant the same damages they were asking for. This should discourage lawsuits in general. This discussion probably belongs in another newsgroup but I get so riled about this subject I couldn't help typing away. Peter Barbee (I haven't thought of anything cute to include here yet)
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (05/08/84)
> His press agent then asked, "Suppose you're coming down a > straightaway and a tire blows, how can I say you hit a curb > or hit debris?" > > He said Donohue replied: "The risk of tire failure or > equipment failure is one of the risks we drivers assume. > Even if the tire is defective, we assume that risk." > > By the way, the above exchange was ruled as inadmissible as it > was "Prejudicial and irrelevant," and was never heard by the jury > in the Donohue case. Anyone know *why* this is "Prejudicial and irrelevant" ??? Sounds to me like excluding it is prejudicial. If Donohue is sane/competent/etc and makes this statement, looks like Goodyear is off the hook. (Barring some written agreement between Donohue and Goodyear (doubtful) or a warranty on the tire - and I suspect racing tires don't come with much, of a warranty, if any.) -- _____ /_____\ That auto-crossing beagle, /_______\ Snoopy |___| BMWCCA, Windy City Chapter ____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
mikey@trsvax.UUCP (05/15/84)
#R:alice:-272900:trsvax:55200057:000:516 trsvax!mikey May 15 09:28:00 1984 In response to the losing petitioner paying the defendant, I heard of a malpractice case in Florida around 1978 where the jury recommended that the doctor be awarded a ridiculous sum from the patient and the lawyer when they found him not guilty. It could set an interesting precedent. I also read somewhere that in Saudi Arabia if you accuse somebody of a crime, for example drinking, and it turns out to be false, you will be punished for the same penalty as if you had commited the crime Mikey at trsvax
berry@zinfandel.UUCP (05/16/84)
#R:alice:-272900:zinfandel:3200063:000:638 zinfandel!berry May 14 15:57:00 1984 Here is a typical racing tire "warranty": There is no warranty of merchantability nor any warranty of fitness for a particular purpose nor any other warranty, either express or implied, as to the accuracy of the enclosed materials or as to their suitability for any particular purpose. Accordingly, the Goodyear Rubber Company assumes no responsibility for their use by the recipient. Further, the Company assumes no obligation to furnish any assistance of any kind whatsoever, or to furnish any additional information or documentation. Sound familiar? Berry Kercheval Zehntel Inc. (ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!berry) (415)932-6900
lepreau@utah-cs.UUCP (Jay Lepreau) (05/20/84)
In ridiculing certain liability decisions, uw-june!emma includes this one: You realize, of course, that there are other cases, such as the famous Ford transmission, in which the sequence that has gotten people killed involves leaving the engine running, not putting on the parking brake, and walking behind the car. While I agree that some are ridiculous, that is certainly NOT one of them. If I put an auto-transmission into Park on the *flat*, get out and get something out of the trunk, I damn well will sue and rightfully win if the %@*^# car pops into reverse by itself and runs me over!
emma@uw-june.UUCP (05/23/84)
Regarding the Ford automatic transmission-- 1) You've left a running car unattended 2) You've failed to make use of existing backup systems I'd say your contributory negligence is at least as great as any errors Ford may have made! (Let's carry on any further discussion in private, shall we?) -Joe P.
opus@drutx.UUCP (ShanklandJA) (05/24/84)
> Regarding the Ford automatic transmission-- > 1) You've left a running car unattended > 2) You've failed to make use of existing backup systems > I'd say your contributory negligence is at least as great as > any errors Ford may have made! Sorry, but it's not quite that simple. First of all, leaving a running car unattended is perfectly justifiable under some circumstances. (I'll get more specific in just a second.) Second, an emergency brake (I assume that's the "existing backup system" referred to) may well not be enough to stop a Detroitmobile that decides to shift itself into reverse. Case 1: A woman is about to drive off to work, and realizes she has left her lunch sitting on her front stoop. She puts her car in park, jumps out, gets her lunch, and finds that her car is now a block down the road, having caused substantial property damage, but fortunately injured no-one. Case 2: A retired Florida Supreme Court judge is driving his Ford pickup truck, and sees some people whose car is stuck in mud. He backs his truck up to near the stuck car, puts it into park, and gets out with a chain. As he is attaching the chain to the stuck car, his truck shifts itself into reverse, running into him and killing him. I maintain that these people were not irresponsible, and could reasonably have expected their cars to stay put when they shifted them into park. If you insist they were irresponsible, well, you have a right to your own opinion. It's one of those "bug/feature" arguments. What is truly shocking is that Ford KNEW that these accidents were occurring frequently, and knew of a fix that would cost them approximately 3 cents per car to implement. An engineer's memo from (I believe) the mid-60's stated, in striking corporate doublespeak, that this feature :-( was resulting in "actual high accident incidence". In English, that means that lots of people were being injured and killed because of it. Last I heard, around 80 or 90 people had lost their lives because of this feature. Personally, I think it's Ford's fault, and not the victims'. I guess we all have to decide for ourselves, but it will be a cold day in hell when I buy a Ford. Jim Shankland ..!ihnp4!druxy!opus