| Author | Message | ||
| Tony Fuisz (Fuiszt)
Junior Member Username: Fuiszt Post Number: 144 Registered: 10-2002 |
Not meant to be a dig on the Volvo John-I'm partial to them myself and I figured it was a diplomat model.I had an 1800e a long time ago that I wish I'd never sold. That comment was meant to be an olive branch. I don't want to keep this up with you John. I agree there are lots of problems with medical malpractice as it is-I've been asked to be an "expert" witness (for free by my choice) until it became clear to the attorney that my testimony was not going to help the client. I'm sure they found someone else to say what they wanted to say. The system stinks as it is. Not to say good things can't come out of it or that good people can't work within it. Both my brothers are lawyers so I'm sure there are at least 3 good ones out there (I'll give John the benefit of the doubt) | ||
| john w. houghtaling, II (Johnhoughtaling)
Junior Member Username: Johnhoughtaling Post Number: 223 Registered: 11-2002 |
As I've stated before, I do not think Ferrari need fear any liability if someone runs off the road speeding in an Enzo. But I do object people who make sweeping conclusions about our legal system based upon spreading what amount to urban myths. Mark: Not sure how Tony's dig about the Volvo has anything to do with the sweeping statements he makes about our legal system that I object to,(other than he's run out of credible responses to being unmasked) but Mark, the volvo is not a stretch or conversion. The volvo factory makes a few limosines every year called "diplomats" It is not an obnoxious aftermarket, but a small (two small benches facing each other) factory limo. It is pretty neat because, unlike most conversions, it is very safe, having all of innovative safety features found in Volvo's other vehicles. Is also nice for dinning out in the French Quarter when you want to responsibly have a few glasses of wine with friends, and avoid drinking and driving. Tony: You crack me up. Dont worry Tony, I'll check your facts on the whammo case. And, Yeah I'd agree most med mal cases are baseless. sure. Most states like my state have both caps and medical review panels that a lawyer must go through even before they can file suit. The minimum you can try a med mal case for is about $75,000 (you need to hire out of town doctors as experts to work with you to testify and support your case. They cost $350-$1,000 per hour.) So EVERY time a doctor in our state causes up to $75,000 to someone, they have practical immunity. What about catestrophic cases? Ok. A surgeon shows up drunk and cuts the spinal cord and paralyzes someone. That case will cost the plaintiff laywer about $200,000.00 to work up. You need to hire an out of town nuersurgeon, a life car planner (because there is a life time of meds. to prove, and you need to hire an economist). So you make it through trying your case in front of the medical review panel, (in front of the doctor's buddies) then spend your money and win. What do you win? Well in our state the med mal cap is $500K. So take a frivolous med mal case for under 75k? So Tony, how many lawyers to you think there are lining up to risk 75k and thier time to potentially win 25k, on the bet that they will wool over the eyes of a jury? How about risk $200,000 of your hard earned money to potentially win $150,000??? I think you have better odds in Vegas. Do the math, think about it Tony. Often times, reality is a lot more complicated that you think, and most things are not as black and white as many would have us to believe. Oh, and the drunk doctor, who gets hit, what's his maximum exposure? $100,000, max. No matter how bad the surgeon messes up, the most he is personally liable for is $100,000. Becuase the other is picked up by the state fund. The practical consiquence is that most smart lawyers simply do not do medical malpractice law. So most good lawyers will not represent any victims of malpractice. Does wonders for the talent pool of med mal lawyers. Oh, and what does it do for the talents of the doctors? Do we have better doctors in Louisiana that anywhere else in the country? No. Infact total idiots can floursih here with immunity. No supply in demand in our state at work because the bad doctors practice for the same amount as the good ones. Oh and does this practical immunity produce cheaper healthcare. Actually, No. Tony, got any other examples that prove that our entire civil system of justice disgusting? | ||
| Tony Fuisz (Fuiszt)
Junior Member Username: Fuiszt Post Number: 142 Registered: 10-2002 |
It seems to me that most of the posts agree with the basic idea that you alone should be responsible if you crash your enzo into something-not Ferrari for making something that requires common sense and some talent to drive. Medical malpractice is another topic-as I'm sure John knows most malpractice cases brought are without basis, but only a small number of real mistakes ever wind up in court or are even caught. I think the current situation will find a balance point somewhere as doctors simply decide not to practice in states that have outrageous rates. People who are sick will make sure the system is fixed, but will want to reserve some ability to be compensated for gross errors. I don't think anyone has any problem with suing a company that accidently mixed cyanide in with blood pressure medicine-I'm talking about bad outcomes where the person who is injured was the major factor in the eventual outcome. I don't want everything idiot-proof because I'm not an idiot. John, I'm not going to find your slip'n'slide quad guy-it took 5 minutes on google to get the case if your interested, and I'm sorry your friend missed out on the implant pay-off. I've also lost all interest in trying to get you to admit some of the people in your profession are less interested in the public good than you apparently are. Anyone who would list a volvo limo as a car owned can't be all bad | ||
| MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Member Username: Markpdx Post Number: 429 Registered: 4-2003 |
john houghtaling Your statement about "...the title to my three exotic cars..." made me interested enough to click your profile where I see that you own a 1998 Volvo Factory Limosine. Now I have seen Volvos and I have seen strange limos, but I never imagined that there was such a thing as a Volvo limousine. Was it a specially commissioned car? Are there many around? Have any pictures? | ||
| James Lee (Aventino)
Junior Member Username: Aventino Post Number: 98 Registered: 6-2003 |
Tony F. The lawyers did kill the light aircraft market, Cessna abandoned it a while ago and has only just come back. Pitts stopped making the aerobatic Special because lawsuits put them out of business. Unfortunately IMHO, Joe Public cannot buy something that requires skill but doesn't stipulate it. | ||
| mike550 (Mikeg)
Junior Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 70 Registered: 8-2003 |
Frank- I think I would enjoy your posts even more if I could read them easier. Don't be afraid to have a paragraph break now and again. Or bust it up into more posts if your return key is broken.  | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 1380 Registered: 1-2002 |
Wow, this sure did explode. I don't understand why we've got to pit two, fundamental, pillars of our society against each other (i.e., medicine v. law)? What' s the utility in laying blame there, when the factual, empirical, problem is an operator lack of cohesion in thought, lack of common sense, general irreverence for prudent forethough, or simple stupidity? Sure, we live in a society where "... I'll sue you..." has become an menacing charicature , but it's a part of living under the presumed pretense that "justice prevails." It's an avenue of recourse, and while some unfounded "servings of justice" have transpired via either lack of morality on the lawyers part, the same "involuntary" abstaining of competence can be levied against the physician; like the physician that misdiagnosed my mothers cancer, or my heart valve defect. I think lawyer v. doctor is especially caustic b/c at one time or another , a doctor will get sued (i.e. , my colleuges wife). Let's just leave it be; any public service you provide risks your exposure to a malicious loss (legal , bodily, finacial, or otherwise), so let's get back to the point: people who die in sports cars (operating without defect) have recourse only against themselves, because they didn't excercise care, respect, and common sense when operating said vehicle, thusly they paid the price. You don't , voluntarily, get into a bull ring, shake a red rag and the expect to sue the colliseum owner because you've sustained injury, do you? | ||
| john w. houghtaling, II (Johnhoughtaling)
Junior Member Username: Johnhoughtaling Post Number: 222 Registered: 11-2002 |
Tony: whats the cite for that case. Maybe you could give me the name of it. Lets check it and see how neutral your reporting is. (forgive me if I dont take your word for it. You see you've made false statements already that make me doubt the accuracy of your statements) Oh and Tony, there were several studies that show that silicone breast implants are harmful. Each and every study that suggested they were not were funded, or supported by the manufacters of those devices. Your claims about how the lawyers that got rich off of Breast implant litigations. Wrong again big boy. A my firm was the central firm in the major breast implant class action ligitations, I can tell you first hand that our costs in the case have met or exceeded any fees. Many, many plaintiff lawfirms went broke in that fighting the army of defense lawyers pitted against them, after fronting the costs for thier clients to have revision surgeries. I'm sure you'd recomend to your patients to find someone making silicone breast implants, wouldnt you? Tony, would you like to hear about some terrible mischariages of justice where deserving victims of negligence were zeroed by juries? I'd bet you probably would not, and that your outrage at the system you so little understand only runs one way, and that you'd have no empathy whatsoever for someone wronged on the opposite side. Or, I'd bet that in your warped world that you probably dont think that exists. Oh and Tony, after I recieve that cite, please act on your statement that "I'll make a note to have my will changed to disinherit anyone who sues the maker of some device I am using when I die" I think your patients should be aware that you as their doctor does not believe that the manufacters of the medicine you prescrible to them should have responsibility if that medicine is negligently manufactered and kills them. I'm sure it would give your patients a great level of comfort to know that you do not believe that manufacters can be negligent. I'd bet you'd like to repeal medical malpractice law too, and make doctors immune from tort liability. Come on, admit it, you would, wouldnt you. | ||
| Frank Wiedmann (Frankieferrari)
Junior Member Username: Frankieferrari Post Number: 230 Registered: 8-2003 |
Agree with Gordy's comment on "natural selection". Our society DOES protect dummies WAY TOO MUCH. I'm not talking about retarded people(have a retarded brother in law,Down's syndrome)or "slow" people. I am talking about people who have NO common sense! This INCLUDES "educated",and "highly educated" people,ESPECIALLY, who,SHOULD know better. But,all of society in general. "Well,nobody told ME that the ice was slippery!". "Nobody told ME that the coffee was hot!". "Nobody told ME that the car was that powerful!". You get my drift. It's just not common,everyday folk. It's worse when it's a supposedly, "educated" person who makes a claim like this. "Book smart,but no common sense!" I agree that mankind and civilization has thrived because of natural selection.Thinned out all the dumbasses!Survival of the fittest. In those days,it was strictly common sense and brawn that kept you alive. Not Shakspeare,or algebra. In the "prehistoric days" if you slipped on ice,and fell,and broke your leg,but,doctors,ambulances and lawyers weren't invented yet,and you couldn't get up, You were gonna die! And,in a few thousand years,be on The Discovery Channel,being dug up and theorized as to the cause of your demise. Or eaten by a sabre toothed tiger while you gazed at the skies,theorizing about the universe. Same for today. No more, "Do not try this at home", or,"professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt",disclaimers. Yeah,I want to see the footage on one of the video TV shows,showing some moron attaching wings to his Camry and trying to jump the Grand Canyon.(And,no one able to sue the automaker,the wing manufacturer,or the Grand Canyon!,for his own stupidity) And...as long as one of these idiots didn't hurt one of my friends or family. Or,I'd hunt 'em down like Charles Bronson in that vigilante movie,Death Wish.(wasn't that the name of that movie? haven't seen it in a while) Anyway. nobody wants to take the blame for their own stupidity anymore. And,as long as society lets them get away with it,they'll be able to continue being stupid,AND get rich off of it! (Hey,more tax dollars being generated here. The guys gonna blow all of that settlement in a month!) But,I did also agree with the other post,I believe it was from a lawyer. That they DO help keep some companies "in line", by suing a company if it makes a defective product that hurts or kills somebody.(dangerous baby cribs and stuff like that) Why were "lawn darts" banned? Not because of what they are,but because of the way SOME morons used them.(" Hee Hee Hee-I'm gonna get real drunk,and hurl one of these at uncle Leroy! He'll get a big kick out of it!" Yeah,and a big settlement,too!) 3- wheeled ATV's. Propane Tanks for your grill. Had to change them because a select FEW idiots didn't read the directions and blew themselves up! But,in general,even though more and more people go on and obtain higher education,society is getting dumber,as a whole. What the hell ever happened to basic common sense? They should teach THAT in school,as long as parents aren't passing it along to their own kids anymore.Instead of "question everything",or,"why?". Why?","WHY?".Ask,"How?" a little more often. Common sense,or,"more degree's than a thermometer"...Take the common sense! | ||
| Tony Fuisz (Fuiszt)
Junior Member Username: Fuiszt Post Number: 141 Registered: 10-2002 |
Or how about silicone breat implants? NEVER been shown to be harmful by peer-reviewed science, but a big money maker for lawyers. Where would the ferrari bikini thread be without them? | ||
| Frank Parker (Parkerfe)
Advanced Member Username: Parkerfe Post Number: 2961 Registered: 9-2001 |
For all of those anecdotal cases which look like juries gone wild, there are tens of thousands of other cases where justice was served. Kinda like the Ferrari cam belt fears we all love to hate. You always hear of the one that broke but think of all the cars out there where they didn't break after many years and thousands of miles. When you hear of a lot of money being awarded by a jury for a death or serious injury caused by someone's negligence, think about how much it would be worth to you or your loved ones if the death or serious injury was to one of your loved ones....or you. | ||
| Tony Fuisz (Fuiszt)
Junior Member Username: Fuiszt Post Number: 140 Registered: 10-2002 |
Does Gary Schwartz count? I don't think a Ferrati 575 is that much different than a small plane in terms of price, number of people who own them or ability to get killed using one. Why shouldn't they be next? | ||
| Tony Fuisz (Fuiszt)
Junior Member Username: Fuiszt Post Number: 139 Registered: 10-2002 |
I did get the facts slightly wrong-the 12 million dollar judgment for the wisconsin quadriplegic man was later reduced to 7.5 million. I assume I can hold you to the promise about your cars though. When can I take delivery? Or maybe you know some detail of how the slip'n'slide was designed and marketed with such utter negligence that allowed a drunk adult to be injured using it incorrectly? I think most americans would object to the concept of somebody being rewarded with 7.5 million dollars or 4 million after lawyer's expenses for doing something so stupid. And thank you and all the others for trying to protect me from a slip'n'slide. You're right-I was ignorant of the grave danger I had been facing | ||
| john w. houghtaling, II (Johnhoughtaling)
Junior Member Username: Johnhoughtaling Post Number: 221 Registered: 11-2002 |
Tony, if those were the facts of the Whammo case, I would sign over the title to my three exotic cars to you today. You are the poster child of the ignorant american, who has not a clue about why he enjoys the freedoms he does. You are completely ignorant about how our judicial system works, but seem very entertained by bashing it. You have not one clue about the cases you cite. You think anyone can bring a frivolous lawsuit and recover millions? I find that pretty scary that a well educated person such as yourself thinks this way. I hope no one ever injurs, maims or kills you or any member of your family. But, if it ever happens I'd be you'll be pretty shocked about how the judicial system works in the real world. Like if your child was run dont by a drunk driver and you find out how much our legal system values your childs life. You'd be shocked. I have people like you who walk into my office weekly and first proclaim how they hate our judicial system because of frivolous suits, explain that unlike most people THEY are a REAL victim, and then are shocked and outraged by how little the civil justice system protects them. Tony, I challenge you to find anyone with any legal background in any state in this nation that shares your extreme views. You are ignorant, and your spread of misinformation is dangerous to victims in our society. | ||
| Tony Fuisz (Fuiszt)
Junior Member Username: Fuiszt Post Number: 137 Registered: 10-2002 |
If Whammo can get sued and lose 12 million because a drunk adult tries to dive on a dry slip and slide and gets paralyzed, your ferrari is next on the list. Just like the 60's, once high performance cars get labeled as dangerous, and you can't get liability coverage auto insurance any more, these cars will die out. If your rich enough to own an enzo, you're rich enough to make Mr Houghtaling's mouth water. | ||
| Dale W Spradling (Drtax)
Member Username: Drtax Post Number: 365 Registered: 4-2003 |
>>Dale: Elected judges are not in the best interests of justice. My reason for that is percisely that they are accountable<< Art, I suspect that "Big Brother" Rob is gonna boot this thread to someplace where the sun don't shine. But, until then... Are you saying that appointing a judge is not a policital process? Last time I looked at an ABA list of "recommended appointments," the recommendations certaintly seemed a little left of center to me. If I were you, I'd be careful on this one. True, we have seen almost 50 years of judical activtism, most of it by federal judges with lifetime appointments. (Someday, maybe, I'll tell the tale of Judge William Wayne Justice. He was an East Texas federal judge appointed by LBJ. At one point, I thought ole William Wayne was gonna put the entire state of Texas in jail for contempt, but I digress...) However, the pendulum always swings. And some day you might find yourself on the other side of the fence. So be careful what you wish for. Personally, I find that contributing $1,000 to each judge's campaign a worthwhile local endeavor. You never know when you might need a little help. BTW, don't think that I didn't notice that you dodged the tobacco lawsuit bullet. Not exactly the legal profession's finest day, eh? From a CPA in Texas who is insanely jealous of a SF lawyer who got to see the Airplane in 1968. Just remember to keep on waving that freak flag high... and play on drummer... | ||
| Dave White (Dwhite)
Junior Member Username: Dwhite Post Number: 69 Registered: 5-2003 |
We live in a litigious society . . . let's keep letting those lawyers advertise. They put restrictor plates on NASCAR engines and groves in F-1 tires, surly they know how to drive, don't they? Before all the lawyers jump in I am a proponent of litigation, it keeps corporate America somewhat ligitimate and ascertains a level of safety for us all. However these jokes are becoming reality - When the victim was asked at the accident scene �do you need help?� the reply � I don�t know, let me first speak with my attorney�. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 1364 Registered: 1-2002 |
The myth of "traction control" is to blame. That and bruised/dead egos. People never think the problem with the car is the "unit" sitting behind the wheel. Oh darn. | ||
| jeff ryerson (Atheyg)
Member Username: Atheyg Post Number: 446 Registered: 8-2002 |
My example does not single out Ferrari, it could happen to any other high HP car maker, Ferrari's seem to have a tendency to burn easy in crashes probably due to the mid engine design and its positioning of the fuel tanks which makes them more risky, if it happens to one maker it will effect all. I am not anti-lawyer many have helped me and saved me money but times are changing, there are more Law Students right now than lawyers,and they will need to be more creative with law suits to support themselves in the future, right now your chance of being sued is 1 in 4 people. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3025 Registered: 2-2001 |
One day we may all haev to put our nice cars on a ship & go to Argentina where you can pretty much do whatever the Helll you want, as long as you grease a few palms Now thats freedom Baby | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2563 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dale: Elected judges are not in the best interests of justice. My reason for that is percisely that they are accountable. When you get a popular issue that requires that the Judge follow the law, not what the majority urges, the Judge is torn between following the law, and ensuring that he survives. To that end California has elected Judges, but makes their term 10 years, giving the electorate time to cool off on unpopular, but legally correct decision. Examples of this might be: the ten commandments in the court house in Alabama, which is clearly improper, but has tremondous public support. Other examples might be rulings on various allegations of impropriety, etc. Voting for Judges in my humble opinion can cause us to deviate from the rule of law, which I think is very important, and crucial to the republic. Art | ||
| Joe Brosseau (Joe2)
New member Username: Joe2 Post Number: 4 Registered: 9-2003 |
it could happen. i have a 01' suzuki hayabusa and when kawasaki came out with the zx12r to compete for top speed king, both bikes from the factory made over 150hp at the wheel and could top 190mph with a sub 10 1/4 mile. all that for only $11k. some countries threatened to take action by not importing the bikes as well as taking legal action to limit the speed and power these bikes made. japan agreed on a 300kph/186mph limit on their bikes and began to restrict them in 01. this restriction was easily overcome by simply tricking the computer that it was in 5th gear when you were at redline in 6th. a resister did this. now they are building the ignition retard into the ECU and will become almost impossable to de-restrict. but anyway, i digress. so in some form the law could limit the top speeds of cars sold to the public, but it will never happen. | ||
| Modified348ts (Modman)
Member Username: Modman Post Number: 685 Registered: 11-2001 |
 | ||
| Don Norton (Litig8r)
Junior Member Username: Litig8r Post Number: 228 Registered: 6-2001 |
. | ||
| Steven J. Solomon (Solly)
Member Username: Solly Post Number: 585 Registered: 6-2001 |
This whole idea is ridiculous. Any kid can get his hands on a Subaru WRX turbo or Mitsu Evo VII for $25k and get into the same trouble you can with an F-car. In fact the WRX is much more dangerous when the turbos spool up if you don't know what you are doing (I have one). Every manufacturer is coming out with high hp/low weight cars. To single out Ferrari as the one marque that did not properly "vet" its buyers is just not feasible. Any car can be driven in an idiotic manner that causes harm to others. Like Clint Eastwood said "A man has got to know his limits". Could Ferrari become the unfortunate poster boy for the "do-gooders"? Highly unlikely, just due to the relative scarcity of these cars on the road every day. It's much more likely that a more common marque produced in much higher numbers and driven daily (Corvette?) will be involved in a terrible tragedy, and the lawyers will blame GM for allowing any dope with a big wallet to buy one of these rockets. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 931 Registered: 11-2002 |
Actually an interesting fact is that Enzo did not sell the 250GTO to just anybody (apparently)because he thought it was too fast ... Pete | ||
| jeff ryerson (Atheyg)
Member Username: Atheyg Post Number: 445 Registered: 8-2002 |
It really bothers me to see all these so called do gooders who try and protect us from ourselves today Sooner or later some guy who decides to go and buy a Ferrari for the first time who knows nothing about driving is gonna take it out and crash it in some grotesque way injuring innocent people or maybe cause a huge pile up or some other high drama media event at 100+ mph The poor family members will exclaim he was never warned about the car, its a Ferrari of course and is made for high speed and on and on Ferrari gets sued, they build their case on how its a dangerous product and they should have showed restraint on selling to just anyone and need to qualify or train the owners on the car, or at least offer a disclaimer to the leathalness of it, its sad but their are much dumber lawsuits today such as people suing Fast Food companies for making them fat. I brought this thread up as something for Ferrari to watch for and hopefully it will not happen | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 930 Registered: 11-2002 |
In the end sorry to say this but the manufacturer has to take some responsibility for creating such potentially illegal road vehicles. Eventually the manufacture of these sort of vehicles will cause some do gooder to propose speed limiters on ALL vehicles and we will have no fun any more. After all the naive traffic law enforcers think just about ALL accidents are caused by speeding ... and ignore the fact that the decision to speed in the wrong place was the actual cause, or lack of driver ability. Many years ago Australia used to produce awesome v8 powered road cars, basically made to win Bathurst ... and they stopped producing them because of the negative press, etc. DAMN. I believe there are politions (sp?) working very hard to ban motorcycles to save ourselves from ourselves. In German they have top speed limiters, as they do in Japan ... thus it is coming! Like I said before they should produce these cars with an external switch that limits HP and torque to the driving wheels ... and if stopped with this switch deactivated the driver should loose their license permanently. Thus on the closed race track you can flip this switch and safety enjoy the performance. Saying that the it is the drivers fault does not take into the fact that driving is a skill that takes time to learn ... but anyone can buy a Ferrari, and thus that car becomes a weapon. Plus even Stirling Moss and Fangio made mistakes sometimes ... and a mistake in a speeding Ferrari causes more damage than a slowly crusing Toyota as it slams into pedestrians. Bring in the switch and show responsibility like the German car makers BEFORE the do gooders enforce it I say. Pete | ||
| Dale W Spradling (Drtax)
Member Username: Drtax Post Number: 361 Registered: 4-2003 |
Hey guys, can you turn down the volume a little bit? Geeze don't you people ever go to bed? First a disclamier -- I am not now a lawyer, nor have I even been a lawyer, nor do I ever plan on being a lawyer. I'm just a lowly bean counter... But before we kill all the lawyers, let's talk about the following: 1. My minor was Economics. One of the first things you learn in theoretical economics is that the rights to property must be defensible. Without the rule of law, capitalism doesn't work. What you have instead is the rule of the jungle. In the US today, we have achieved a rule of law that our founding fathers would have never dreamed possible. Indeed, it is one of the miracles of our system that a little ole widder lady with no money could even sue a giant like Exxon, should Exxon take her property. Even in England this probably would never happen. What is even more stunning is to realize that it is at least possible that our widder lady could even win her case! The icing on the cake is to realize that not only can an old widder lady who lives in a shoe sue Exxon, she could possibly win, and she could force Exxon to pay. Never before in the history of the human race have we seen such a shift in power. Bottom line is we would not be where we are today without our legal system and, dare I say it, our lawyers. If you don't believe this, ask someone who has done bidness south of the border. 2. Keep in mind that it is the jury (in the case of a jury trial) that decides the facts, not the judge, not the lawyers. In a past life, I used to do expert witness work (man, I'm glad I don't do that no mo)and was able to get a bird's eye view of how the system works. Trust me, there is not a lawyer in the world who doesn't have stomach cramps when a jury leaves the room. So if you really want to make a difference, don't pitch that jury summons the next time you get one. Remember the jury holds the true power in our system. (BTW, in Texas, we elect our judges, which is something that the lawyers hate. I love it. The accountability is worth the occasional loser.) 3. So having praised Caesar, let's now go ahead and do him in. There is no doubt that the tobacco lawsuits have unleased an unparalled amount of greed by certain members of the bar, and jealousy by most of the rest of the lawyers. Folks, some lawyers took home a Billion dollar paycheck. That's Billion with a "B." Let's say that the IRS takes half (which they don't). This leaves $500,000,000. If you buy muni bonds paying 3% tax-free interest, the result is over $40,000 a day! I don't smoke, never have, and hate the tobacco companies. I also have no doubt that the tobacco companies are meaner than the devil himself. However, the tobacco settlements truly represent the extreme excesses of our legal system because, despite billions of dollars changing hands, very little to this money went to treat the victims of tobacco smoking. Even less has gone to stop kids from smoking. The final straw, is that it is business, more or less, as usual for big tobacco. Greed with a capital G. Big tobacco paid off our policitians and a few lawyers. So what's the answer? We have to get people like you and me on juries. If juries stop handling out ridiculous judgments, we will not need tort reform. Want one last example? Forbes several years ago did a man in the street poll. They asked, "How much net income do big companies make as a percentage of their total sales?" Guess what the typical answer was... 50%. People honestly thought that most companies net 50% of gross. Truth is that many companies are very happy to net 5% after taxes. These are the people sitting on juries who are deciding these cases. You can make a difference. Thanks for your patience if you made it this far, Dale | ||
| Tony Fuisz (Fuiszt)
Junior Member Username: Fuiszt Post Number: 136 Registered: 10-2002 |
Gee John, you act like you've been through this before. I personally know of no doctors making 2 million a year. I make about the same as the local elementary school principal (course thats for 11 years of training post college). If your Mom needs a pacemaker in the middle of the night, medicare pays me $40 for putting it in. I could kill her 3 or 4 different ways if I do it wrong, but thats the job. Medicaid might pay $6. How much does your plumber charge for fixing a leak in the middle of the night? If I don't charge her as a favor to my fellow fchatter, medicare lawyers will come after me, wanting to know why I don't always do it for free. I'm sure there are some lawyers out there doing the right thing (other than those in a Grisham novel), but I hate to think somebody might use the fact that the cars I love are a potential lottery ticket for someone who can prove to a jury of camry-driving noodle heads they are dangerous death traps and were made that way on purpose. | ||
| Gordy (Gwat)
New member Username: Gwat Post Number: 36 Registered: 7-2003 |
John, After your mail I now understand that there was a clear case of negligence in the coffee case against McDonalds� policy and also understand that an award for pain and suffering was justified. But I do not agree with the monetary value of this or many other settlements. The fact that the McDonalds� had a flawed policy and someone was seriously hurt does not justify the nearly $7 million payout to a single individual and/or legal team. I will argue this point time and time again that if the corporate policy shows intent to harm and it is proven to be so, the settlement does not entitle a single individual to reap the benefits of corporate greed. I believe the system has a serious flaw and this BS that occurs time and time again where lawyers and their firms benefit as much or more than the individual that is said to be the victim. A system that allows law firms to speak on behalf of victims and make millions off these settlements is FLAWED! There are lawyers and huge firms out there that are in business to make money off other person�s pain and suffering. Not because they concerned with the individual�s well being, but because it is lucrative. If this was not the case then more settlements would be dispersed among others suffering the same pain as the victim and less to the lawyers. For instance, awards to burn units that treat multiple persons, not just a single individual. You know what? It comes down to right and wrong. Living has always and will always be risky. Life is not fair and individuals should not benefit from trying to making it so. No individual should be treated better (or worse) because a lawyer sees profit in it, and that is more often than not, the case. Bottom line: if corporations or industries are really found guilty of intentionally and knowingly harming people and payouts awarded. These payouts should go to help the population of like sufferers, not individuals and lawyers. In other words, instate a cap on legal representative and individual benefits. | ||
| john w. houghtaling, II (Johnhoughtaling)
Junior Member Username: Johnhoughtaling Post Number: 219 Registered: 11-2002 |
Gordy: As I stated, I believe the coffee case was an unusual product of our system. It made national news for two reasons: First it make news because it was unusual, and not representive of our tort system. Because it was an unusual, and a suspect plaintiff verdict, the insurance industry used it as the poster child for tort "reform." In so doing they changed the facts and left out facts. This made it more sensational, and it was an even better story for the news media. Now a large portion of our public, even very well educated individuals have a very misinformed view of our legal system. That you file a frivolous suit and can hit the jackpot. What poeple don't care to understand is that for every frivolous lawsuit, jackpot verdict, there are 10 frivolous defenses and insurance companies with an army of lawyers who "zero" ligitimate claimaints. And many a plaintiff lawyers have gone broke financing a just cause. That said, even though the coffee case was unusual and not representative of they way it works, the acutal case was much different than what was portrayed by the media. The fact that I will now recite some of the facts by no means means I wish to debate the merits of the outcome. (I frankly think it probably should have been a looser) And I'm doing this from memory: 1. Prior to the injury, McDonalds did a study that determined that if they scalded the beans of there coffee, and exposed them to very very high temperatures, that they could generate about 7 million dollars a month more in revenue, 2. After putting this policy into action, McDonalds recieved notice of over 400 serious injuries to people from the scalding temperature of their coffee, which required hospitalization. McDonalds decided that it was cheaper to pay the claims in light of the amount of money they were making by scorching the beans. 3. The attendent who handed the cup of coffee to the plaintiff, did not secure the top on the cup; 4. Upon handing the cup over the top came off and the scalding coffee was poured on the plaintiff's lap; 5. The coffee was so hot that it melted the plaintiffs cloths, and caused third degree burns to the plaintiff genitals. She was in the hospital for several months, and had to have skin grafts to her genitals; Her doctor bills were hundreds of thousands of dollars; 6. The jury found that the attendent was negligent in the manner in which the coffee was handed and that the tempurature was undreasonable hot. The jury also determined from internal documents that the company knew that the intense heat policy of their company caused over 400 injuries, but made a decision not to correct it because of the money they were making. 8. The jury awarded the plaintiff nearly 7 million in damages. They came to this figure by determining how much more profit McDolands made in coffee sales by virtue of thier tempurature policy of their coffee. The jury then awarded her those profits made durign the time she was in the hospital. 9. On appeal the verdict was overturned, and an out of court settlement was reached in the ballpark of $300,000, which after the plaintiffs costs was nearly not enouph to pay for her medicals. | ||
| James Lee (Aventino)
Junior Member Username: Aventino Post Number: 96 Registered: 6-2003 |
Art, I have to ask as you're a Baron owner. Beechcraft/Cessna/Piper were hammered by lawsuits so badly once upon a time that it killed light aircraft production in the US. Do you feel that, given the lack of vices and general docility of, say, the Cessna 172 it wasn't a case of the legal profession going overboard? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2560 Registered: 6-2001 |
Everybody is talkingt about what they believe are frivlous suits. Let's take an example: Company makes coffee, serves it at their drive in window to people they know will drive away with the coffee, expected that those purchasers will attempt to drink the coffee on their way womewhere. Only an idiot would claim that it wasn't forseeable that on occassion, the driver would spill the coffee on themselves. Additional facts: Industry standard for such coffee was 140F. This vendor served their coffee at 180F. This vendor had approximately 24 claims from their customers that when they (the customers) spilled the coffee, it caused 3rd degree burns. Not the 1st or 2nd degree burns they would have gotten from the 140F coffee which was industry standard. The injuried old lady, when she spilled the coffee, received 3rd degree burns over her legs, and had approximately 300k in medical bills as a direct and proximate result of this spill. She'd have had no such bills with 140F coffee had it spilled on her. She sued the vendor, and the jury, after hearing about the prior cases, and the refusal of the vendor to modify the temperature, and the refusal of the vendor to post specific warnings for their customers, decided to make an award that would get the attention of the vendor: $110 million. Sound familiar? You bet: Those are the essential facts in the McDonald case. By the way: McDonalds now serves 140F coffee at their drive through windows. Nobody elese is getting these servere burns. Lawyers didn't help society about that did they. Another example of lawyers: Woman works for a large law firm, world's largest. The guy she works with sexually harasses her. She complains, they ignore her, force her out. When she makes a claim against the firm, they call her "a golddigger" and deny any prior knowledge of his prior behavior towards other woman. Case gets filed, admissions start to flow, and before its over, it can be proven that at leat 20 women have been harassed by this guy, and the firm has treated them badly, firing most of them. A San Francisco jury decides that enough is enough, and awards about 5.8 Million to her. Within the next month, literally every large company has started the process to make a sexual harassment policy. That case changed the work place for women in our society, they no longer got fired when they complaint when their boss grabbed their butt. Lawyers didn't improve society with that piece of work (I had a litte to do with that case). As to those that believe their bullet proof, and think that society doesn't need lawyers, Shakespear said it best: "If we want to start a revolution, the first thing we need to do is to kill all the lawyers". You may remember that quote, without the 1st half. Lawyers maintain the law, we keep people honest, and we make sure that the rich don't take too big of an advantage against those who can't defend themselves. Art | ||
| john w. houghtaling, II (Johnhoughtaling)
Junior Member Username: Johnhoughtaling Post Number: 218 Registered: 11-2002 |
Tony, Wait, you mean that you charge people for healthcare??????? You mean we live in a world were doctors will save someones life and then bill for it???? How disgusting. The government caps your fees in the private sector? I think not. Medicare and Madicaid cap your fees, because healthcare providers, like yourself, do not treat sick and dying people for free. They insist on charging them. Luckily our government thinks that poor people should have access to a doctor, and pays when they cannot(the trade off is that if you treat poor uninsured people, your fees are then capped). As you point out in our society if poor people are hurt by other uninsured people, they are out of luck. As for me taking a case where there is not insurance, or potential for recovery? Tony think, your smart, if the person causing damage has no way to pay, then you have no case. As for taking cases pro bono, I actually do it alot, and hope you as a doctor do the same. Do you? Tony, should a surgeon who brings in 2 million a year feel bad for getting paid to save people's lives. That brings up another point. If doctors made as much as our "Tony world lawyers" (who got paid the same as garbage men,) then our heathcare system would be alot cheaper. Oh but I imagine in your world, doctors provide a valuable service and help thier patients, and they should get paid hansomely for it. Whereas, Lawyers, like me, do nothing to help our clients, we sit and wait and collect the money and take a fee, feeding off of a set amount of money which will be willingly given to our clients. And Tony, it was the insurance company that refused to pay, not a bastard lawyer. Think this is unusual? I bet you think HMOs are unfair. Is it only HMOs that are unfair? In your fantasy world, are insurance companies only unfair when their dollars are spent to pay doctors? Or could it possilbly be that people (read corporations, insurance companies, rich doctors) who hurt other people often have different views of compensation from the victims. When this happens, as it always does, whould you forgo it being decided by a third party system? Tony, I think it is wonderful to preach that you live by the motto that if you do something wrong you take full responsiblity. Funny that that is the foundation of tort law! Only Tort law allows you to go after those that refuse to take responsibity and makes them do so. It may shock you but those that cause damage to another person do not always live by your honorable motto. What about those that do not repair damage they cause. Is is possible we live in such a world??? Or in Tonyland rich doctors are always fair? Is it possible that if you hurt me, that we might disagree on the amount of my damage, or whether it was your fault at all? Is that possible? And what are we to do when we kill all the lawyers. Are we to pull out our swords? | ||
| Gordy (Gwat)
New member Username: Gwat Post Number: 35 Registered: 7-2003 |
John, How many factors could be involved in a drive through, hot coffee, burnt lap scenario? And if the facts are so skewed, why no statement of fact from the McDonalds Corp? Just seems to simple for such a large settlement. | ||
| martin j weiner,M.D. (Mw575)
Intermediate Member Username: Mw575 Post Number: 1191 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'm glad I watch court TV otherwise I would never understand this "FERRARI" thread. | ||
| john w. houghtaling, II (Johnhoughtaling)
Junior Member Username: Johnhoughtaling Post Number: 217 Registered: 11-2002 |
Gordy: There is such a law. Judges have the power to throw theses case out immediately. And many cases are thrown out. The reason why case are not thrown out is because often times the facts are in dispute. Ad for the coffee case, the reason that was not thrown out is because the facts of the case were different than what the media and insurance industry told you. - and on that note, this one case, which has been distorted beyond all recognition, has been said to be famous because it was an unusual outcome, not a usual one. | ||
| Tony Fuisz (Fuiszt)
Junior Member Username: Fuiszt Post Number: 135 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jim, I guess a lawyer is representing the bastard cable company. Taking responsibility for yourself means if you kill or maim someone you do your best to make it right. As a doctor, my fees are capped. In fact the goverment decides each year to pay me less if they want to. So what. Would you have taken the case if it was an illegal mexican driver with no possible deep pocket to latch on to? What happens then? Is it just too bad? I don't think I would feel good about taking my 40% of that widow's settlement. But I'm not a lawyer. And this is way off topic now. | ||
| john w. houghtaling, II (Johnhoughtaling)
Junior Member Username: Johnhoughtaling Post Number: 216 Registered: 11-2002 |
Sean: No sean, you'd be excused for being close minded, biased, and ignorant. If I had a good products case that I believed in, and I thought my expert was right, and he could explain it to you then I'd want you on. The defense, who may be wrong, may wish to strike you because you'd see through their phony defense. Oh, but I forgot the wisdom of my friend Tony. No plaintiff or plaintiff lawyer could be legitimate, they are all crooks and liers and they there cases are always smoke and mirrors. Big buisness is always right. Oops. I forgot. Since I forgot my premise, and that I'm going from the premise that My case is phony, then I'd have to strike you for knowing the premise that I was wrong. Thanks. | ||
| john w. houghtaling, II (Johnhoughtaling)
Junior Member Username: Johnhoughtaling Post Number: 215 Registered: 11-2002 |
Tony: You're right. Lets ••••-can our legal system. Screw the lawyers, they are blood sucking pigs who are better left for dead. Truely the enemy of the common man. Tony, you are on to something. First, lets outlaw contingency fees. It makes lawsuits too easy to file. Make people pay set hourly fees, and penalties if they loose. Let them front all of the costs for the case. A Gas tank exploded and burn your child? Well if mother has the money to hire me at $250 an hour and can front the $300,000 in expenses to take her case, then OK. If not, hit the road. Drunk driver killed your husband and children, and the insurance company wants to pay you .002 cents on the dollar? Tough luck, hire a shmuck who graduated last in his class at $25 an hour, if you can afford $25 an hour. That $25 lawyer is poor himself and will have no money to fight? Too bad. Maybe He will do just fine against a multi-billion dollor corporation with an army of lawyers. I mean this is America, if you want the best you need to pay for it mam. Sorry if you have no money, justice costs money. This is a capitalism. You need to pay for what you get Mrs. Widow. Or maybe this is a bad idea because then the best lawyers in the country could still get rich. This we dont want because lawyers are the enemy. So lets Socialize the law. And socialize medicine while we are at it. Oh, wait, maybe I dont want the doctor who graduated last in his class to make the same as a the most renowned doctor in the world. Yikes. Forget that, Tony. Remember, Tony, we want this only to apply to lawyers not doctors. We need to drive them from the earth. Or at least starve out the good ones. Because Tony and I will never need a lawyer. No one will ever take advantage of us, and our children will never be killed or maimed by the fault of someone else because we are careful. And if something does happen and it was someone elses fault, our insurance company would treat us fairly. You see only the poor have a misguided sense of justice. They want something for nothing. You see if Tony and I sustain a loss, we are insured, as all people should be, and our insurance company, who is rich like us, has the same concept of justiced, and will pay our claim without question because insurance companies always pay legitimate claims. Tony is right. The rich lawyers are the problem. Think about it Attorneys make as much money as doctors or buisness men!!!! You mean really good lawyer can become rich in our society??? The horror the horror!!! I mean its ok for a wall street trader to make 5 million a year, I mean, he is making us rich and able to buy more Ferraris. We're not capatialists are we? And Micheal Jordon, or Micheal S. I'm fine with them making 50 million a year, I mean that entertainment!!. But a lawyer who represents a paralized child, an orphon or widow, or has the ability to take on a multi-billion dollor corporation, we should outlaw this!!!! The thought of paying those lawyers is totally obsurd. I mean think about it. I'm with Tony, lets put caps on there fees like we do with . . . . . . . , well I cannot think of anyone, but we should put caps on their fees, because, because, . . . . well just because. Because if we dont cap thier fees then they could have the ability to sue a multi-billion dollar corporation. And if we allow contingency fees, that would mean any poor widow, of her case was good enouph, and her damages severe enouph, could hire the best legal mind in the country, a lawyer who has the ability to take on that corporation. No that will just not do. That wouldn't be capitalistic. Lets pay the CEO of Ford 20 milllion a year AND protect his pocket book from burned children who are maimed in the cars he manufacters with exploding gas tanks. I mean if he can hide the problem and make more money with his Pinto by failing to correct the detail, lets reward him, this is American capitalism isnt it. Lets deal with it in the market place. After enouph people burn alive, after a while, the market will find out about it. We may have to sacrifice a wife, a child or a husband or two or three or a hundred, but thats the way the system should work. As for the company that knew it was a problem, well hiding it was just good sound buisness. And think of the outcome. With no contingent fees, only those who are rich will be able to hire a lawyer. Thats good for everyone because we all know that if they are poor already, they are likely stupid and lazy, and are out to just lay on the leg of society anyway. And lets do away with pain and suffering. If my Ferrari's bumper gets damaged, or you prevent me from taking home my doctors wages, I should be compensated, but take off my son's legs and well, they cannot be replaced. The bumper of my Ferrari can, so that should be allowed. And look what our poor system has done just today in my office: Today, I worked on a case where a drunk drive ran into killed a family of four. One of deceased was a 7 year old boy who lived in the hospital with his legs severed for two days before dying. The defendants, (a multi-billion dollar cable company), has fought the case for a year now (hid insurance policies, evidence and important facts in the case) and have refused to admit liability or negotiate a settlement. The surviving widow has no income (her husband was killed), and the defendants continue thier games, because they have more time and money that she does. Fighting for the rights of these people really makes me sick, too bad the civil justice system wasn't different. I mean the insurance company could srew this poor widow and it would trickle down to Tony and I in savings!! Oh But wait, that was a legitimate claim. Forget what I said about legitimate claims. "I Proclaim that what I just said does not apply to legitimate claims" O.K. That works. | ||
| Augustine J. Staino (Azzuro328)
Member Username: Azzuro328 Post Number: 262 Registered: 4-2003 |
Gordy, I coudn't agree with you more! Darwin would have had a field day with the town I work in! | ||
| Gordy (Gwat)
New member Username: Gwat Post Number: 33 Registered: 7-2003 |
I must add my .02 to this one. I think the way the average person in this country drives is a joke. When we are young (16-18 years old) we are expecting to get a drivers license by reading a book and having someone show us where to enter, sit, start and operate the car. This in no way gives one the ability to be a 'good' driver. The way traffic laws and lawsuits are enforced and awarded in this country of ours is a practice in bureaucratic B***S***. They are not effective in reducing deaths or keeping machines from those who cannot or should not operate them. They are used to generate revenue, period. The day I start seeing stupid people taking responsibility for their own stupidity, instead of blaming a manufacturer for allowing them to buy, drive, and kill themselves or others in a 400hp car; instead of blaming a tobacco company for making them smoke and giving them cancer; instead of blaming their parent for verbally abusing them as a child and causing them to shoot someone, will be the day that my faith in this counties legal system will be renewed. I am so sick of protecting people from themselves, what ever happened to natural selection. There should also be a stupidity clause appended to each lawsuit filed in this country, allowing a judge to throw out stupid claims. Sorry, coffee is made by boiling water and pouring it through ground coffee beans. Boiling water occurs at 220 degrees F; that makes it hot. If that is hard for a person to comprehend, then they deserve to have their genitalia burnt, thus limiting further reproduction from that gene pool�natural selection. Instead of putting limits on manufacturing of vehicles, why don�t we put limits on operation of those vehicles? Instead of learning how to operate a car, why can�t we have instruction on driving the car, and limit access accordingly? | ||
| Tony Fuisz (Fuiszt)
Junior Member Username: Fuiszt Post Number: 134 Registered: 10-2002 |
New addition to all ferraris Sticker on the steering wheel that says "this is a ferrari. It is not for pussies. It goes fast enough to kill you 3 times over. If you wish to continue, turn the key" followed of course by the italian translation... | ||
| Frank Parker (Parkerfe)
Advanced Member Username: Parkerfe Post Number: 2941 Registered: 9-2001 |
Sean, and if you were a relative of a victim of a plane or auto accident you would be excused by the defense attorney. Both sides get to strike a certain number off a jury pool to get a trial jury. However, in a case involving a product defect or something that requires scientific knowledge BOTH sides hire experts who always seem to have different opinions . So who's the bad guy there ? One of the experts is either wrong or lying....not the lawyer. | ||
| Richard Ward (Lomotpk)
Junior Member Username: Lomotpk Post Number: 94 Registered: 5-2003 |
Yes, but as soon as you up the requirements the failure rate will increase and then another set of lawsuits will be launched claiming that the new regulations are unfair to the inept and stupid. They keep trying the same thing in education, and fail. Raise the graduation standards for high school (i.e. get at least a....50% on a test), but then some people fail (what a shock considering the bar was raised because people were un-happy too many stupid people were graduating) and out come the plaintiffs. | ||
| Sean F (Agracer)
Member Username: Agracer Post Number: 371 Registered: 2-2003 |
"These "freedoms of" and "freedoms from" were all made possible by LAWYERS." Nice reach. "So any complaints should be directed toward uneducated juries, not the lawyers. That being said, guess who always gets out of jury duty ? College educated working Americans." Which is exactly how trial lawyers want it. I'm and engineer and I GUARANTEE if I were part of a jury pool for any lawsuit that involved, well almost anything, especially if it were mechanical/electrical related (cars, planes) I'd be excused by the plantif lawyer faster than you can blink. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3018 Registered: 2-2001 |
If anybody is liable here it is the state for liscencing people who have no business behind the wheel of a car Drivers Ed in the US needs a serious overhaul | ||
| Tony Fuisz (Fuiszt)
Junior Member Username: Fuiszt Post Number: 133 Registered: 10-2002 |
I would bet that if the founding fathers charged $500/hour for their work we'd still be celebrating the queens birthday. Let OJ thank the lawyers when he meets them. Back to the original point of this thread... high performance=higher skill needed high performance=more potential for injury if you screw up, you have no one to thank but yourself. | ||
| Richard Ward (Lomotpk)
Junior Member Username: Lomotpk Post Number: 93 Registered: 5-2003 |
Driving is a PRIVELEGE,NOT A RIGHT! HAHAHAHAHAHahahaha I'm literally about to piss in my pants!!! [1] As soon as anyone starts talking about modifying any element of driving (size, speed, fuel consumption, etc) the talk immediatly shifts to rights. The right of personal choice, the right to pollute, etc. etc. etc. [2] Too much of the US economy depends upon the very idea that each person over what? 16, 18, 21? not only can, but really SHOULD have a car. Cars, gasoline, gasoline taxes, roads, placement and cost of housing (in turn construction industry and suppliers), clustering of retail, insurance industry, revenues from inspections, tickets, registrations, etc. almost all of these things depend upon an automotive society, and plan upon growth rates. It may not be an actual right enshrined in the constitution, but there are significant forces at play to make sure that you can engage in the priviledge despite egregious behavior. For example, what do you REALLY have to do lose the 'privelege'? Kill someone with a car? nope, vehicular manslaughter (we'll assume negligent behavior not lethal intent) isn't enough to lose the privelege in some states. Destroy a couple of cars? nope, your insurance may go up, but you'll still have a license. How about the great driving crime, driving drunk? well, I'm pretty sure we all know a convicted DWI or two currently stuck in rush hour traffic with a post-work beer under his belt. (in fact there may be one reading this diatribe on his wireless PDA instead of watching the road) The point, the point, to the point quickly! Only the most egregious excesses will be curbed, and if history is any guide it will not be the hand of government (especially a republican government) that will single out speed, or horsepower for censure rather other forces, insurance rates, price of gasoline, a pollution tax will come to bear. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Advanced Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 2545 Registered: 10-2002 |
Frank Is my statement about gross negligence correct? | ||
| Frank Parker (Parkerfe)
Advanced Member Username: Parkerfe Post Number: 2940 Registered: 9-2001 |
denied, a lawyer can only present a theory of liability. It is the jury that determines if that theory is valid or not and reaches a verdict in favor of or against . So any complaints should be directed toward uneducated juries, not the lawyers. That being said, guess who always gets out of jury duty ? College educated working Americans. So, most juries end up being made up of the underclass who are the worst equipped to serve in a case. So next time you get a jury summons, be proud to serve rather than do every thing you can to get out of serving. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Advanced Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 2544 Registered: 10-2002 |
Rag While I agree with much of what you say you can not absolve someone of their duty not to commit gross negligence. Anything that you sign to that effect has no standing in law. (At least in the US) | ||
| denied (Ragtop)
Junior Member Username: Ragtop Post Number: 53 Registered: 2-2003 |
James, I don't think anyone is talking about absolving gross negligence. Brakes shouldn't fail. Airbags should inflate when needed. I am just talking about placing the burden on the appropriate party. Don't try to sue if you put your Ferrari under a dump truck on the basis that the designers should have forseen that possibility and designed the Ferrari to be much larger (or something equally absurd). The question at hand is whether or not creating high performance street cars is negligent or not and if that will affect future Ferrari products. A contract signed between the dealer (as a representative of the factory) and the buyer wherein the buyer agrees to operate the vehicle within certain parameters would serve very nicely to accomplish what is being debated here, freeing up manufacturers to produce ever faster vehicles. Oh, and you can absolve someone of gross negligence. Sign a heavy enough contract and you can absolve anyone of anything. Not on behalf of everyone that might be affected, sure, but you will certainly limit your ability to pursue a claim. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Advanced Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 2543 Registered: 10-2002 |
Tony The cause was determined. I believe that inspite of warnings from one of their engineers Boeing placed the valve in a very hard spot to inspect. In addition because of the design older, worn valves could reverse themselves when exposed to sub zero temps. Inspite of warnings Boeing didn't fix the valve until after the crash. The valves have now been changed. Unfortuneatly not before many were killed. (I'm remembering this from a book I read a while ago on this crash and may have details wrong BUT the point is IMHO if some sells something that is Grossly defective they should be held accountable.) | ||
| P. Thomas (Ferrari_fanatic)
Member Username: Ferrari_fanatic Post Number: 594 Registered: 4-2003 |
I have yet to see any prevailing law suit againts the manufacturuers of these "crotch rockets" (ie Kawasaki, Suzuki, etc.) These mortorcylce better known as "donor cycles" are capable of 190 MPH+. The acident and death rate of occurance for the donorcylces is certainly MUCH higher than any automobile. By the mere fact that they are producing a high performance product, certainely would not increase the manufacturers libility. Also, look at how many jet ski accidents occour resulting in death and dismemberment. No headline news of any lawsuits. Now, produce a 81 MPH, 2300 pound, 100 HP, 3 speed automatic, with 13 inch wheels, (that just happens to blow up when rear eneded) AKA the Ford Pinto, and now you have got your balls in a sling. | ||
| Frank Parker (Parkerfe)
Advanced Member Username: Parkerfe Post Number: 2938 Registered: 9-2001 |
Tony, we would also be driving exploding Pintos and GMC side mounted gas tank trucks, seeing cigarette ads in teen magazines, not being told our constitutional rights at the time of arrest, having our homes searched without a warrant, being stopped on the highway without probable cause and thousands of other intrusions and dangers to our lives that we Americans all take for granted. These "freedoms of" and "freedoms from" were all made possible by LAWYERS. In fact, if you will study history you will find that most all of our founding fathers were lawyers including the ones that penned our wonderful Constitution. Lawyers are the watchdogs of a free society without whom we would have no real freedoms. Just think what corporate American would do if it could sell any product it could produce with no fear of being held accountable if the product was unreasonably dangerous to use.So, next time you see a lawyer, thank him or her. You owe a lot to them. | ||
| Frank Wiedmann (Frankieferrari)
Junior Member Username: Frankieferrari Post Number: 216 Registered: 8-2003 |
In my opinion. It's WAY too easy for people to get a Drivers License,in the first place. All too soon, society(blame society-and I don't mean those rich,old ladies who sip tea in the afternoon)forgets that Driving is a PRIVELEGE,NOT A RIGHT! Just because you turn 16,SHOULDN'T be an automatic "qualification" to operate a high speed,2-3,000 lb.,potentially lethal machine! We NEED to make it more difficult,more involved,more experience,in order to get a license. But... Driving,and everything associated with driving,generates precious TAX DOLLARS. EVERY TIME the Government-National,or Local,need extra money-there goes a few more cents a gallon for gas. Auto repair bills,Tires,New cars,used cars,gas,oil,autoparts,wages for the employees at all of these places,tolls,license fees,vehicle tags,lawyer fees,court costs,fines,tickets,...dozens of revenue generating "things" that our Government RELIES on. And,the more,the merrier!(in THEIR eyes). So,if they made it harder for people to get a license,they could lose millions and billions of precious dollars. At a cost of thousands of lives a year,and,billions of dollars in Insurance payments! The Insurance Industry COULD totally regulate this whole automobile and driving industry by refusing to insure any cars that they wanted to,or,for that matter,any drivers that thay wanted to. All they have to do,is to band together and say that,for example,they aren't going to insure anyone under 18. But,they aren't going to do that. Too much MONEY lost.Or,say that they will only insure drivers over,say,75,IF they get a drivers test and doctors exam,every year. Or,another example. Not insure any drivers under 21 (say) in any motor vehicle that has over 200 horsepower. They SHOULD offer incentives to people,(like,lower rates) if they successfully complete an in depth driving class. THEY HAVE THE POWER to control the make up of the driving public. The government does,too. But,you know whats more valuable than life and property? MONEY!!!! | ||
| Tony Fuisz (Fuiszt)
Junior Member Username: Fuiszt Post Number: 132 Registered: 10-2002 |
I think that was the 737 widow's crash right? As far as I know, the exact cause was never determined, only the potential problems with the rudder design. Lots of those in the air though that never had that problem-in fact its one of the safest planes there is in terms of a crash record. I'm not saying that there aren't grossly negligent people out there, but if a part you make for an airplane fails once out of a billion times it's used, are you grossly negligent? Those people get payed because of lawyers, not because they deserve something. And they don't get all the money, just whats left after his percentage and the fees. When you get on a plane, or zip around in your ferrari, or spill coffee on yorself, rest assured you may get hurt or worse. If we let lawyers loose, we'll all be drinking cool coffee, driving pedal powered 10mph pillow cars and strapping on fool-prrof parachutes before every flight. Make them earn there money honestly, and if they can't, learn a new job-most of them are pretty smart or they wouldn't have gotten into law school | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Advanced Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 2541 Registered: 10-2002 |
Tony The story of the US AIR crash at I believe Pittsburgh is relevant. When you push on a rudder pedal the rudder should go one way. On that sad day the pilot stepped on the pedal and the rudder went in the opposite direction. He was too close to do anything about it and a lot of people died. IMHO the rudder control valve had a grossly neglient design. The families got paid but they unlike their loved ones got to spend the money. | ||
| Tony Fuisz (Fuiszt)
Junior Member Username: Fuiszt Post Number: 131 Registered: 10-2002 |
I don't own a car that moves when the brakes and throttle are floored at the same time James, do you? I've driven cars that had brakes fail and throttles stick open-if you drive you need to know what to do next or ITS YOUR FAULT! I think Ferrari does pretty well with repaet customers...what would the point be in letting these people die before they could buy another? And how about the lawyers suing ford over the 65 mustangs problem of showering the interior with gas in a rear end collision? A model A is pretty unsafe too-crappy brakes and weird controls. I know lawyers need to feed their children too, but they shouldn't make outrageous money from others misfortune. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Advanced Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 2540 Registered: 10-2002 |
Tony Sorry but that won't work. Once again you can't give someone the right to be grossly neglient. Going too fast for a functioning traction control is your fault. Having a traction control that malfunctions due to gross neglience is something else. Think of it this way. Let's say a poor design causes the throttle to come on when you depress the brakes would that be ok with you? | ||
| philip (Fanatic1)
Member Username: Fanatic1 Post Number: 405 Registered: 2-2003 |
Also, one thing a lot of people don't think about is the way a defense, really ruins people's lives........I may sue someone, my lawyer may not charge me anything, he may take his compensation from any settlement received....but the poor sap defending himself/herself will spend thousands....I've known people who had to defend themselves against silly lawsuits...one friend had to sell everything he owned, mortgaged his house, filed bankruptcy and eventually it cost him his marriage.....he was "triumphant" he won the case in court....but it should never have gone that far.......the plaintiff was just counting on him settling out of court. When he wouldn't settle, it went to trial.....it cost him thousands and thousands....he lost everything...but he won the case and it was terrible to see it all happen....he owned a resteraunt and the case involved a patron "slipping".......the gentlemen I know was 29 and doing well...now he's 32, divorced, has no house and can't get a loan to open another business because of the bankruptcy on his record. Tragic.I'm not lawyer bashing at all.....I know there are great attorneys out there, and when you need one, you'd better get a good one...but I don't think there are as many attorneys who lose their livlihood because they are prosocuting a case, as there are as many defendents losing their livlihood, even if they won the case.....it's sad...... | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Advanced Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 2539 Registered: 10-2002 |
Sean I'm not a lawyer. I believe the coffee was close to boiling. When you buy a cup of coffee do you think it's reasonable to assume that it's safe to drink? When you drive a car do you expect that the wheels won't come off at the speed it's capable of going? | ||
| Tony Fuisz (Fuiszt)
Junior Member Username: Fuiszt Post Number: 130 Registered: 10-2002 |
Thanks James-I'll make a note to have my will changed to disinherit anyone who sues the maker of some device I am using when I die. Any of us who drive Ferraris as intended are risking our lives. Its ridiculous to even think of suing if your traction control didn't keep the car from sliding of the road. If you can't handle that concept buy a prius or stay home. What a bunch of babies! Yes coffe is hot, yes eating too much makes you fat, yes smoking causes cancer Life is dangerous and lawyers aren't going to make it safer-just richer for themselves. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Advanced Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 2538 Registered: 10-2002 |
Fred "Donor Bikes" are no prob. Drivers rarely kill the people they crash into and the value of these young lives in a court of law is easily covered by the insurance premium's... | ||
| David Feinberg (Fastradio2)
Member Username: Fastradio2 Post Number: 316 Registered: 4-2002 |
Wouldn't life be so much simpler if..."people just took accountability and responsibility for their own actions...?" | ||
| Sean F (Agracer)
Member Username: Agracer Post Number: 370 Registered: 2-2003 |
" Lawsuits are expensive to bring and fund, both in terms of time and money" Big ones, yes, but what about all those $20-50K suits that never get to court. They get settled b/c it's cheaper for the defense. Why are their so many of those? It all adds up. The consumer gets little and the lawyer gets $$. Great system. "Well, that certainly has no clear answer in the law" And that right their IS the problem. "The temp was in violation of the law." Oh brother, I've heard lots of defense by lawyers about the merits of the McD suit, this takes the cake. | ||
| philip (Fanatic1)
Member Username: Fanatic1 Post Number: 404 Registered: 2-2003 |
John, you've raised very good, practical, and well thought out points....however, I agree on some level, but let me propose a true capitalists and freedom of choice counterview.......You're argument is that the government, and civil cases essentially protect us from ourselves....we as a public are too dumb, fat, lazy, and irresponsible to make good choices, so the gov't and lawyers will make them for us, or defend us if we do make a bad decision..... Now, I'm not talking about food and drugs....obviously, things we ingest need regulation....however, let's take it one step further and say crumple zones should not be mandatory, seatbelts should not be mandatory....no one can argue that seat belts aren't safe, but I don't think the gov't should tell me that I have to wear one.......Even "exploding gas tanks"....in a true capitalistic society, if there was a car, that continually had problems, very bad problems, sooner or later people would get wise, and that car company would go out of business....or they would be forced to improve their product.....just like any business....resteraunts go under all the time, every business must make a product exceptable to society...same with the smoking lawsuits.....It's Bullshi!...no one can reasonably argue (if they were born in the past 25 years) that they had no clue, had never heard or were totally ignorant of the fact that smoking is unhealthy.....they wieghed the risk vs. enjoyment, and they decided to smoke....don't blame anyone else....now granted, I realize this is an over simplification......but you made the point of people bringing suit and it costing them money.....I don't think that it's nearly as expensive to bring a suit as a plaintiff as it is to defend yourself from one....I can file a suit against anyone for about 45.00 processing fee....in fact, on TV everyone has seen the commercials "come to our lawyers, we don't get paid, unless you collect"....I've yet to speak to a defense attorney that says, "OH, If I don't get you off, then you don't owe me anything".....I'm just trying to make a point....I believe the Federal Gov't should protect us from foreign enemies, and should protect our civil liberties....however, I don't think they should police every product ever made, and then give us (the general public) the right to sue and in todays society, so many people seem to just "throw the dice" in a lawsuit....if they don't win....no biggy, if they do CHA-CHING!!!! | ||
| Fred (I Luv 4REs) (Iluv4res)
Member Username: Iluv4res Post Number: 480 Registered: 8-2002 |
I think motorcycles would be first for the lawsuit before cars. Actually, before I post this, I should call my lawyer.....class action baby!!! | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Advanced Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 2537 Registered: 10-2002 |
Rag You cannot absolve someone who commits gross negliance. Anything that you sign to that effect has no standing. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Advanced Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 2536 Registered: 10-2002 |
Tony If you wrap an Enzo around a pole and kill yourself because something fails that shouldn't I suspect your estate will sue. I believe the temp of the coffee at McD was way too hot and the woman was seriously burned. I also think the temp was in violation of the law. She was right to sue and right to collect. | ||
| denied (Ragtop)
Junior Member Username: Ragtop Post Number: 52 Registered: 2-2003 |
Simple answer. Add verbiage to the buyers contract that absolves the manufacturer of liability in case of unskilled use. Basically, if you buy it, you accept the responsibility to learn to use it without causing anyone or anything injury. Would Ferrari sales suffer if all buyers had to agree not to sue Ferrari if they piled their 600hp supercar into a tree? Not in the least. It might drive a few people away from a company like Toyota (until the nation forgot about it) but there wouldn't be a blip on Ferrari's sales schedule. Hell, it might even make them more appealing. | ||
| Tony Fuisz (Fuiszt)
Junior Member Username: Fuiszt Post Number: 129 Registered: 10-2002 |
People have sued and won for being burned by McDonalds coffee. The only way to get reform of the system is for people to know how much these lawyers make per hour of work. Something over 100K/hour for the texas tobacco settlement. Thats criminal. If I should be lucky enough to have an enzo someday and I wrap it around a pole and kill myself, it will be MY fault. Please spare me the "I'm protecting the people of america stuff" its just as fake as the plastic surgeon who does boob jobs all day say he does reconstructive surgery on kids. | ||
| john w. houghtaling, II (Johnhoughtaling)
Junior Member Username: Johnhoughtaling Post Number: 214 Registered: 11-2002 |
I tend to agree with Jim G. I think the only way the responsible manf. is exposed is if the traction control malfunctions. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Advanced Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 2534 Registered: 10-2002 |
None of these cars are uncontrolable. As they default to traction control and anti skid and flash dire warnings if these systems are disabled IMHO I doubt a case could be made against the mfg. | ||
| john w. houghtaling, II (Johnhoughtaling)
Junior Member Username: Johnhoughtaling Post Number: 211 Registered: 11-2002 |
Andrew and DES: Seriously guys, I'd be pretty careful before you dismiss the Anerican civil justice system as "disgusting." I think that such a declaration is decidedly unamerican and irresponsible, and displays a complete lack of understanding of a system that is central to our civil liberties. The reality is that a serious products liability action costs the plaintiff and the plaintiff lawyer about $300,000.00 to fund, and about two years worth of work. If its a serious case against a manufactuer of a car, the client and his lawyer better be prepared to spend $500,000.00, and at least two years of time. Try to do one of these cases on a strick budget, (you could NEVER sustain one of these cases for less than $100,000.00) and you'll likely loose the case, and your investment, regardless of the merit of your claim. I dont know of any lawyer who has $300k-500k and about two years of ideal time that he would willingly throw in the trash can. Yes, I can sue you because I'm fat or I'm stupid, but that doesnt mean the lawsuit will be valid or go anywhere. Lawsuits are expensive to bring and fund, both in terms of time and money. If a lawyer brings a frivolous suit he will lose his time and money and can be sanctioned. The lawyer who sued McDonalds, filed and funded that lawsuit himself to gain publicity, which he did, then his lawsuit was immediately thrown out. To use this as an example of how are system doesn't work, is silly. (Oh and by the way, for every frivolous plaintiff action you know of, I can cite you a dozen frivolous defenses to valid claims.) The civil justice system in our country protects us. Why do you think we have seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, and have gas tanks that do not explode in a crash? In america we buy food, drugs, and products and "presume" that they are safe if used as intended. Why do you think that is? The reason is because our civil justice system makes it unprofitable to build a dangerous product. If you think that is terrible, and you'd like a different system, then you simply don't understand the process. And that is a shame. If you like you can lobby to nationally declare that there are no such thing as dangerous products, and anyone who gets hurt with a product is stupid and desevers what they get. As for the Supercar liability issue, it is an interesting topic and the legitimacy of such a lawsuit is questionable. Could you bring one?Yes. Does it have merit? Well, that certainly has no clear answer in the law. But it has been discussed intelligently on this board before, in answer to the question why Ferrari wishes to pick the customers of the new Enzo. | ||
| philip (Fanatic1)
Member Username: Fanatic1 Post Number: 403 Registered: 2-2003 |
Matt!!! LMAO!! You are toooooo funny.... You good lookin' son of bit##! | ||
| Matt (Matt_lamotte)
Member Username: Matt_lamotte Post Number: 545 Registered: 10-2002 |
Philip this wasn't the lady from Arkansas by chance???? | ||
| philip (Fanatic1)
Member Username: Fanatic1 Post Number: 402 Registered: 2-2003 |
Bill is exactly right.....it's absolutely sad, and disgusting........but absolutely correct.....I should sue Pizza Hut....the other day I was eating there.....I met a cute girl and gave her my number.....later when she called, my girlfriend answered the phone. Now I lost my girlfriend and I've suffered severe emotional distress. I'm depressed and have contemplated suicide. I think Pizza Hut should owe me millions of dollars, because all of this is their fault. If they hadn't made the pizza so delicious, then I wouldn't have been in their resteraunt and none of this would have happened....yep, it's all their fault... | ||
| Bill Sawyer (Wsawyer)
Member Username: Wsawyer Post Number: 935 Registered: 2-2002 |
History repeats itself. Lawsuits may not be the vehicle, but something will eventually be done to curb the horsepower race if it gets out of hand. It happened in the Seventies when insurance rates, the threat of legislation and ecological concerns killed muscle cars. It will happen again. With Bugatti building 250 mph cars and 0-60 times in the mid-to-low 3 seconds we are bound to attract attention. I believe this is why Montezemolo made a point of saying that the Enzo would not compete for top speed honors. He was being pragmatic and trying to deflect criticism before it hit. Look at the attention the Lambo driver in Pennsylvania got for his speeding arrest recently. One or two more high profile adventures and it could all go into a tail spin. Think of the public outrage that might have happened if JFK Jr. had died at the wheel of a Ferrari rather than in an airplane. The press would have a field day blaming the car rather than driver stupidity, and politicians looking for the limelight would be sponsoring bills to rid the roads of high powered cars forever. | ||
| Steven R. Rochlin (Enjoythemusic)
Member Username: Enjoythemusic Post Number: 741 Registered: 4-2002 |
Doody, Justice in America? That's like the President of the United States going directly against NATO and starting a war. Then after the war is over due to going against NATO policy saying NATO needs to follows their rules to help with the cleanup and aftermath. Heck with it... just hire Johnnie Cochran Jr., then you can get away with murder. Enjoy the Drive, Steven R. Rochlin PS: oops, i spilt a KNOWN very hot substance and burned myself. Sue vendor as how dare they serve coffee hot. | ||
| philip (Fanatic1)
Member Username: Fanatic1 Post Number: 401 Registered: 2-2003 |
Actually Doody, although the McD's lawsuit was thrown out, another Federal Judge just announced that lawsuits against the airlines can proceed, BLAMING them for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. WHAT THE FU!!? You mean it is American Airlines Fault that they were hijacked by suicidal terrorists....I'm sorry, I don't condone negligence by anyone, but some things you can't just BLAME on people...nothing would have stopped crazy, suicidal people.......But wait, it's America, let me sue.....give me more money!!! | ||
| Mr. Doody (Doody)
Intermediate Member Username: Doody Post Number: 1690 Registered: 11-2001 |
Lawsuits like that would only be possible in america where you can sue Mcdonalds for getting fat... in america's defense, those lawsuits have been getting thrown out with extreme prejudice. doody. | ||
| Taek-Ho Kwon (Stickanddice)
Intermediate Member Username: Stickanddice Post Number: 2077 Registered: 11-2002 |
I think the furthest it will go is MAYBE a mandatory type of traction control or skid control. It would be tough to gauge which cars get this too. HP might be deceiving. Heavy cars with high HP might not be as "dangerous" as lighter ones with mundane HP. At least these cars can handle high speeds (not ridiculous speeds, mind you). I'd rather be in a Ferrari going 150 than a Toyota Camry going 120. Testing people might not be feasible, but I'd like to see something similar to motrobikes. You can take a test with your own money and if you pass you get breaks on insurance and other stuff. With each successive level of testing you get bigger discounts. It wouldn't be racecar driving either. More along the lines of foul weather or poor conditions driving at speed and a little performance driving sprinkled in there. Cheers | ||
| Andrew Menasce (Amenasce)
Intermediate Member Username: Amenasce Post Number: 1243 Registered: 10-2001 |
Lawsuits like that would only be possible in america where you can sue Mcdonalds for getting fat... | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3016 Registered: 2-2001 |
I think the auto manufacturers lobby in the US is too strong to allow this. My cousin wanted to buy a ZR1 Vette years ago & I told him that car was a weapon & that I'd go to racing school with him before he got it. He ended up not buying it. My cousin is a great guy but he knows nothing about cars & cares nothing for their tradition or racing pedigree. He just wants a nice fast lawn ornament to impress the neighbors with LOL | ||
| Tom Bakowsky (Tbakowsky)
Member Username: Tbakowsky Post Number: 571 Registered: 9-2002 |
Viper is a perfect example of that senario. I did a saftey check on one earlier in the summer and the car needed rear tires. The guy wanted the car for the weekend, but I couldn't get the tires till monady. I told him he had to wait. Sure enough Wednesday rolls around(after I installed the new rubber) he wrote off the car. Belive it or not, I told him he would probably have an accident with the car with in the first month. These cars I think should only be sold to people with a certain classification of driver's licence. If they want the car then they must know how to operate it. | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Senior Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 6144 Registered: 8-2002 |
i'm with Rob on this; if someone buys a car and kills themself trying to drive it, that's their own fault... i can't believe crap like that is even possible... The system is disgusting... Ugh... i need a drink... | ||
| Rob Lay (Rob328gts)
Board Administrator Username: Rob328gts Post Number: 6208 Registered: 12-2000 |
Isn't this kinda like trying to sue a gun manufacturer for a murder? | ||
| jeff ryerson (Atheyg)
Member Username: Atheyg Post Number: 444 Registered: 8-2002 |
Here's my question: Ferraris and other performance cars are getting more and more horsepower, drivng a 400 Hp car fast requires skill and just because someone has the money doesn't mean they should be driving such a car, part of the reason Porsche discontinued the 930 in 1980 for the US was the threat of legal action as many owners killed themselves in a very fast car with tricky handling at speed. Lawsuits such as these put all the small plane makers out of business, each year the bar is raised with Ferraris and other makes getting higher HP, will Ferrari and others be brought down and dragged into the legal system for selling a potential lethal product to overconfident wealthy drivers? |