| Author | Message | ||
| Gary Lucas (Froggie)
New member Username: Froggie Post Number: 1 Registered: 3-2003 |
i would like to have one of those | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Advanced Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 3120 Registered: 8-2002 |
After Bush was elected, i consulted my attorney as to whether it would be feasible if i could bring a suit against him for false advertising; being as how he promised certain things and never came through... He laughed...  | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 919 Registered: 5-2002 |
Mfennell: Some people have lost their unbiased objectivity because they have their profession and collegues to protect and justify. On the other hand, I have no ax to grind either way. I'm no lawyer and have no lawyer friends. Conversely, I have no lawyer chasing after me with lawsuits in hand for any reason. I have common sense, which the legal profession ran out of a long time ago. If an honest person can "do without" having to file an unnecessary lawsuit against his own family, why can't he "do without" filing an unnecessary lawsuit against a corporation? The corporation is just going to pass along the lawsuit costs to its customers, and everybody then has to pay the price for the big windfall judgement that ONE person obtained from the corporation. In the end, the average guy pays for it all, because the corporation will never fail to pass along the cost to the little guy in some form or another. Are there really naieve people who think that a giant corporation will NOT figure out a way to pass along lawsuit expenses to its customers in one form or another? If so, I've got a prototype 250GTO Ferrari parked in a barn that my rich uncle left me. Is it worth anything? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1194 Registered: 6-2001 |
Mfennell: Like I said little reasonability. Art | ||
| Mfennell70 (Mfennell70)
Junior Member Username: Mfennell70 Post Number: 108 Registered: 7-2001 |
"When your mother/wife/Uncle Henry spills hot coffee on YOU, who are you going to file a lawsuit against?" Do you really not see the difference between holding a corporation liable for employing a consistent, systemic process that they knew resulted in needless injuries and a simple accident? Or do you just like stirring the pot? The latter, I suspect. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1193 Registered: 6-2001 |
Martin: Sure, I just need a retainer of 650k to start. Art | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Advanced Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 3108 Registered: 8-2002 |
Me. | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 4203 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think Ferrari is addictive! Once you onw one you can never drive a "regular" car again. The cost of maintaining my addiction and furthering my addiction is prohibitive, which may lead me to crime to pay for my addiction. who will help me sue FNA for a new ENZO??? | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 917 Registered: 5-2002 |
"As you can tell from the other lawyers who responded to your comments about my post, there is substantial reason to have held McDonalds liable." Of course there is a reason,...to make some lawyers alot of MONEY!!! Of course Art failed to answer a simple question, which lawyers always fail to do. The simple question again is: When your mother/wife/Uncle Henry spills hot coffee on YOU, who are you going to file a lawsuit against? As a decent human being who would never think about filing lawsuits against your own family or friends for an accidental occurance, amazing how people throw common decency out the window when they think there is a chance to get rich off a lawsuit. And of course they have no problem obtaining a hired gun (lawyer) to help with the case. And Art, even though the government got most of that little old lady's lawsuit money, I'll bet the lawyers made sure that they got paid!!!! Once again, Art's words: This will be the last time I respond to one of your comments, because you clearly have an agenda, and, in my humble opinion, little reaoning capacity. I'm not the only one on this board who has said that, but I guess I'm the only one who has posted that comment, which I've received by email more than once." Congratulations Art. In typical attorney fashion, you have "forgotten" to mention the whole truth. MANY other people both on and off this board feel exactly as I do; that a vast majority of lawsuits are brought about because of money grubbing lawyers trolling for big buck lawsuits. I hear it every week from multiple people and see it in the media time after time. And I see it in the ever increasing size of the legal section of the local phone book. Why do you think there are so many jokes about lawyers? I'm sure there are entire web sites devoted to poking fun at money grubbing lawyers. Wake up and smell the 140 degree coffee. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1190 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave: As you can tell from the other lawyers who responded to your comments about my post, there is substantial reason to have held McDonalds liable. I do understand that there is a certain segment of the society that believes we should be stoic about being hurt, and that we should be quiet, absorb the pain, and don't ask for compensation. Unfortunately for that segment of society, the balance of us thing that when someone does something against the law, that if someone is injuried, they should pay adequate compensation, and in the instance of McDonalds, pay punishment damages if the trier of fact deems the behavior dispicable. None of us heard the evidence, and to a certain extent what we are doing is basing our opinions upon the facts that we have heard. It is clear to me that those who objected to the result had substantially less facts than those who felt the other way. More importantly those in favor seemed to believe in our jury system, while those that object apparently dont't. I offer the following as to the compentency of our fellow citizens to ultimately come to the right decision: 1. those on the panel are drawn from several sources: a. motor vehicle records, b. tax rolls, voter rolls. The panel then consists of those with a valid driver's license, those who vote, and those who own property. While not an all enclusive group, but surely a group that is mostly certainly a group of ones peers. If we included the homeless, those less fortuntely, we could have a more complete group, and I suggest to you, more far more liberal than what we get in the ordinary course of selecting a jury. Having said that, most jurors, in my short 30 year experience, with several hundred trials in that time, attempt to listen to the facts, listen to the law, and come up with a just decision. Is it perfect? Of course not, but overall, the results are good, providing justice to those who use the court system to obtain justice. On the other hand, the judges are generally appointed (depends upon the jurisdiction) or elected, and they can be more political than the jurors. While they take an oath to uphold the law, there are far more instances of the court following their own political opinions instead of the law, than juries. My ultimate point is that none of us heard the actual testimony, saw the exhibits, and listened to the final argument. In that regard, I put my faith in the system, and suspect that the jury got it right (from all the evidence I heard, they did). Just remember that those who got hurt by this pay millions a year in advertising dollars to newpapers. While editorial and business are susposed to be seperate in Newspapers, that isn't always the case. Art | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 384 Registered: 2-2003 |
I agree with your comments. You only have to look at the poor grubby senior citizens playing the casinos in Atlantic city with their social security checks to realize that there are a lot of predators out there. I just think Big Tobacco are the worst!! | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 3136 Registered: 9-2001 |
its all relative - lotteries have been shown to be targeted at the poorest in the population with promises of millions when chances of winning are nil - it is addictive, It all depends on where you draw the line | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 3135 Registered: 9-2001 |
I hear you and to the extent people did things illegal and withheld information I beleive they should be punished - don't get me wrong I actually beleive some of these corporate guys should get jail time. In the recent financial services scandal some of these guys should be doing hard time. For Jack Grubman to get off with a 20 mill fine (the guy made 20 million a year for 10 years) is crazy. | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 376 Registered: 2-2003 |
Tom, there is a vast difference between psychological addictions, which are really just feebs blaming anyone but themselves, and physiological addictions, such as heroin, and nicotine. Further, who has been harmed by the lottery? If you choose to drink yourself to death, that is just to f***ing bad. No one put heroin in your beer. And, beer itself poses no danger to human health. Cigarettes, on the other hand, are proven carcinogenic killers. | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 375 Registered: 2-2003 |
Tom, I'm saying that we shouldn't just sue the tobacco companies into bankruptcy, but rather that their corporate bigwigs deserve jail time, lots of it. I cannot overestimate what a horrible crime these parasites perpetrated in the service of the almighty bottom line. Lots of people, like yourself, independently came to the conclusion that cigarettes were dangerous; lots of people (MILLIONS) didn't. | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 3134 Registered: 9-2001 |
would you say people should also sue lottery officals, gaming companies, beer companies - all these have been shown to be addictive and predatory in nature | ||
| Frank Parker (Parkerfe)
Intermediate Member Username: Parkerfe Post Number: 2079 Registered: 9-2001 |
It is my understanding that in the McDonalds coffee case that the coffee was so hot that it melted the styrofoam cup which caused it to spill on the customer. And, that McDonalds had been cited by the county on more than one occassion for serving coffee which was hotter than county regulations . | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 3133 Registered: 9-2001 |
I was a teenager once and subjected to the same ads and temptations - even tried cigs for a few weeks - I was not a rocket scientist and I could tell it was not good for me. I do not condone deceptive and predetory tactics and believe they should be punished - I just beleive the consumer has to take some responsiblity. I was not comparing cigs to pot just pointing out that many of the folks in the legalize pot camp also are the ones taking what I consider extreme views when it comes to suing companies | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 373 Registered: 2-2003 |
"Should know better??" Who's using pot here? | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 372 Registered: 2-2003 |
Tom, I'm not sure how pot relates here. Big tobacco historically targeted pre-teens and adolescents with advertising that appealed to that age group, where ANYTHING that will make you cooler is okay. Cigarettes made adolescents look older to peers, and many never stopped smoking because of the addiction. How can you possibly have anything good to say about criminals who target children with an addictive, deadly product?? WAKE UP | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 3132 Registered: 9-2001 |
in the same regard, anyone who thinks inhaling smoke could never do you harm is nuts and should know better. Funny thing is many of these same folks want to legalize pot | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 371 Registered: 2-2003 |
You know, you fellas just don't get it. They don't need to put a warning on a knife, you can SEE that it is sharp. When handing a cup of coffee out the window, the person taking it cannot tell that the liquid inside just came off a rolling boil. THAT was the reasoning, not that the person spilled it on themselves. I agree with Art Chambers; you people are just not reasoning this out. Do you understand that the tobacco manufacturers put extra quantities of addictive substances into their product, despite knowing that tobacco is a carcinogen? How can you say that this isn't a crime, and a great crime at that? Do you have any ability to understand the concept of addiction? Your nerve cells make an increased quantity of receptors for nicotine, and when nicotine is withdrawn from your system, your nervous system literally sends excitatory impulses looking for more nicotine! That nicotine is then delivered by the specifically designed ammonia chemistry to give your nerves a heightened, more rapid fix, thereby cementing the addiction. Crap, what don't you understand about that?? You're really defending big tobacco????? These criminals made BILLIONS on the suffering and death their product causes. Wake up. | ||
| Dave Penhale (Dapper)
Member Username: Dapper Post Number: 604 Registered: 4-2002 |
"1. McDonalds sold coffee at a drive in window, meant that they were selling to people who drove up for their coffee. 2. McDonalds has 25 prior claims of those driving up to the windows had been severely burned. 3. McDonalds: 1. knew that their product was a safety hazard to those that they were selling the product to. They also knew that because they had such a high temperature, that any such spill would cause serious injury. Because they served the product at the drive in window, they knew people were driving the coffee and driving, a likely situation where a spill could occur. 4.McDonalds didn't post a warning at the pick up site, advising that the temperature was higher than industry standard, and that any spill could cause serious injury. There is a duty on behalf of any manufacturer in the good old USA to make their product as safe as they can, and McDonalds didn't do that." Guys, they don't put warnings of how to hold a friggin knife in restaurants but that shouldn't mean we can sue if we decide to stab ourselves with them rather than use them as eating utensils! Although it wouldn't suprise me if I couldn't find any number of 'Lawyers', that would say we could sue for such action. unfortunately, like all professions, whilst there are likely a huge overwhelming number of those practising with a strong degree of whats right and wrong and what should constitute 'common sense', there are many parasites who give the whole group a bad name. | ||
| Dave Penhale (Dapper)
Member Username: Dapper Post Number: 603 Registered: 4-2002 |
Fraid I have to agree fully with Arlie on his sentiments re the mcdonalds and tobacco cases "Some guy spills coffee on himself and sues for a million dollars. Some guy smokes cigarettes for 40 years and sues the cigarette company saying it was THEIR fault. Heck, I've known that cigarettes were bad for your health since I was 6 years old. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that inhaling smoke on a daily basis is bad for your health. Give me a break. Some idiot eats hamburgers every day for 10 years until he gets as fat as a whale and he gets some shyster lawyer to file a lawsuit against the fast food restaurant because it is THEIR fault. That's the underlying factor among lawyers. ALWAYS blame somebody else. Never assume responsibility for your own actions. It has to be SOMEBODY ELSE's fault, not mine. And can I get a big bag of money while I'm blaming somebody else for my problems? Pretty please??? Whine, ad infinitum." in these cases it is the Lawyers who are encouraging such despicable practice on wider issues like doctors/motor companies etc, I guess each of those could be discussed/debated till the sun goes down on humanity! | ||
| Barney Guzzo (Trinacria)
Junior Member Username: Trinacria Post Number: 188 Registered: 8-2002 |
JMG Nice car!!! | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 3330 Registered: 2-2001 |
Laws and facts aside, you're an idiot if you spill coffee on yourself while you're driving. Newsflash... don't drink coffee in your car if you're retarded and prone to spilling. I don't think McDonalds put a gun to anyone's head and made them buy coffee from them and drink it while they drive. There are laws and then there is common sense. It seems nowadays the two are growing farther and farther apart. This is like the Italian Supreme Court just reopened the case on Senna's death at San Marino. I personally believe that there quite possibly was a problem with the steering shaft, but come on. He's an Fing race car driver, are people surprised that he could die. It would be different if it were on a street car. I'm gonna start seeing if I can sue Ferrari and Lamborghini for everytime I've burned one of my knuckles while working on one of their cars while the engine is hot. I mean I could have never known that would happen... they never put any warning labels telling me that the glowing exhaust manifolds were actually hot. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1182 Registered: 6-2001 |
Arlie: I'd explain the long line of civil cases which set forth the principals of why McDonalds lost the case, but I suspect that even if I only used monoslabic terms, you wouldn't get it. I'll try one more time: 1. McDonalds sold coffee at a drive in window, meant that they were selling to people who drove up for their coffee. 2. McDonalds has 25 prior claims of those driving up to the windows had been severely burned. 3. McDonalds: 1. knew that their product was a safety hazard to those that they were selling the product to. They also knew that because they had such a high temperature, that any such spill would cause serious injury. Because they served the product at the drive in window, they knew people were driving the coffee and driving, a likely situation where a spill could occur. 4.McDonalds didn't post a warning at the pick up site, advising that the temperature was higher than industry standard, and that any spill could cause serious injury. There is a duty on behalf of any manufacturer in the good old USA to make their product as safe as they can, and McDonalds didn't do that. The little old lady who got burned, had approximately $150,000.00 in medical bills to treat her severe third degree burns. What she got was her medical bills, and nothing more, as I understand the case. Some windfall for her huh? Lastly punitive damage cases aren't windfalls for the client. There is a provision in the tax code, called the alternative minimum tax. The net effect of that tax, is that if you get an award of punitive damages, you must report all of them, before deduction for attorney's fees, costs, etc. Because the way the tax code in written, you are not allowed to deduct any of those items, and you pay tax on the entire amount that is awarded. Net result, Feds get about 80-90 of any such award that the client receives after deduction for attorney's fees and costs. As to your argument with the degree and damgers per degree, I'll respond to it with what it deserves: (Intentionally left blank.) . Arlie, isn't it terrible to have to deal with facts, not your opinions? This will be the last time I respond to one of your comments, because you clearly have an agenda, and, in my humble opinion, little reaoning capacity. I'm not the only one on this board who has said that, but I guess I'm the only one who has posted that comment, which I've received by email more than once. Art | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 872 Registered: 10-2002 |
One reason that 1967 and earlier race cars are so valuable is that it is much easier to legally drive them on the streets. Before the motor vehicle safety act of 68 and emmission laws that began around then it was possible to drive many racecars to the track, put on some numbers, race, take the numbers off and drive home. "Gentleman Racer" Cars of that vintage also have headlights, wipers, and ground clearance. One problem is also being able to get insurance that allows one to drive one of these cars on the street. It's not simply a matter of being able to pay it's a matter of being the kind of driver that an insurance co. would trust to drive a valuable, rather fast race car on the street. The point is, it can be done and except for night carrier landings in the rain it's the most intense thing one can experience... | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 912 Registered: 5-2002 |
Hey Art, here are some facts for you. Since McDonalds coffee was 40 degrees hotter than the industry standard, and the settlement was for $150,000; therefore that amounts to $3750 per degree of heat. If I prowl through the McDonalds restaurants and fine one serving coffee at say 150 degrees, can I hire myself a shyster lawyer and file a suit for $37,500? I mean after all, the precedent for $3750 per degree has already been set, so 10 degrees times $3750 equals $37,500. Tell me Art, if you spill hot coffee on yourself while eating breakfast, are you going to file a lawsuit against your wife/mother/brother/Uncle Henry etc? I mean, who do you blame something on when there is no rich corporation to file a suit against? It HAS to be somebody else's fault. What's the world coming to when we have to actually accept the responsibility of spilling hot coffee on ourselves? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1158 Registered: 6-2001 |
EFWUN: I hung out at the car races, but never had enough money to get involved. I started racing motorcyles in the late 60s. Went on to win a couple of championships on Ducati. Finally got hurt badly enough in 90, to realize I'd gotten too old for the sport. I now drive a 125 shifter at Sears Point for giggles. I still ride occassionally, but I don't race, still like to go fast though. Art | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 329 Registered: 2-2003 |
Art, many years ago, (many, many!!) I had the "fun" of trying to help a local guy set up an M8 E or F, (I can't remember which) for what was then a burgeoning historic race scene. The car weighed around 1,500lbs, and the allow 494 CI "Chevy" with Kinsler mechanical injection had to be making 700hp, with probably 650lb ft. of torque. At Slime Rock, the car was a cross between a mechanical bull and a rocket sled, with only an ephemeral wisp of brakes! After the weak sister Atlantics and F-5000 based Can Ams I had raced, this thing was BRUTAL. I cannot imagine driving one on the street. Can barely imagine racing one! | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 328 Registered: 2-2003 |
DES, considering that the R8 is not "antique or classic", I'd say it would take an act of Congress. People streetifying (new word!) P4s or McLaren coupes etc have the benefit of their manufacture in the 60s, when licensing requirements were FAR FAR less stringent. See, as example, James Glickenhaus' P4 or Ford GT 40 MK IV. (There was an ancient Motor Trend artical on the previous owner of Mr. G's P4, Dino Martin, and the simple steps he took to register it for road use in Ca.) In fact, Mr. Glickenhaus would be the perfect person to consult. Having said that, I'm pretty sure something like an R8 would never be truly "Street Legal." | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1155 Registered: 6-2001 |
DES: In California, there is a lunatic with an old CANAM car (predacessor of the American LeMans Series) set up for the street. Weighs about 2000#, has about 600HP, 1/2 ground clearance. What a kick. Art | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Advanced Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 3004 Registered: 8-2002 |
There's a whole huge wealth of information here, thank you... Maybe i should be a bit more specific, though, i apologize... What would it require to make, let's say, The Audi Infineon R8 road legal...? Thankies...! | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1148 Registered: 6-2001 |
Tommy: I don't know much about them, at first blush they appear to be without any basis, but I don't know the facts. Art | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 958 Registered: 5-2001 |
Authur - what are your thoughts on the McDonald's obesity lawsuits? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1145 Registered: 6-2001 |
Arlie: You don't have the facts right on the Mcdonald case. Before you get started make sure your facts are right. The actual temp of the coffee, served at the drive through window was 180 F. Industry standard was 140 F. The difference was that at 140 F, if you spilled the coffee, you would get a 1st degree burn (reddening of the skin, etc.) At 180 degrees, you would sustain a 3rd degree burn, literally melting away the skin. McDonalds had approximately 25, that's right 25 prior cases where their patrons, who while driving had bought coffee at the drive through window, and sustained 3rd degree burns. The jury in that case felt that McDonalds, knowing the potential for injury, declined to reduce the temperature, and had claimed that it would have cost them 110 million to adjust the temperature of the coffee served at their drive through windows. Because McDonalds was on notice that their were serving a product with a strong propensity to injure, and despite prior knowledge that the product would cause substantial injury, continued to market the product. The jury felt that it would be appropriate to punish (punitive damages) McDonalds in a sum that had a basis in fact (i.e., a sum of sufficient size to cause them to change their behavior) i.e., the cost of actually making the change. Jury got it absolutely right, Judge was an idiot. However, McDonalds did bring the temperature down to industry standard, so the effect of the award was that they stopped marketing a product that hurt people. Great result. Too bad people don't understand that. Art | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 911 Registered: 5-2002 |
Reminds me of the old joke: If it weren't for lawyers, you wouldn't need one. Meaning: If one lawyer wasn't trying to sue you, you wouldn't need another lawyer to defend yourself. Because they're all buddies and are all going out to lunch together after the trial anyway, in the end, only the lawyers win. Thanks for the referal and lunch is on me! | ||
| DONALD GRIESDALE (Griesdale)
Junior Member Username: Griesdale Post Number: 68 Registered: 11-2001 |
I have the solution to the medical malpractice and product liability problems. I've always thought that succesful plaintiffs should be paid with kernals of corn rather than $$. After all, if you are a Quad or have burned your labia, all the $$ in the world will not restore normality. He or she with the most corn wins!! The "corniest" lawyer will be exhaulted among his peers and be the toast of his local bar association! Don. | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 956 Registered: 5-2001 |
I have said this before on this site. There are reasons to hate lawyers BUT, If you need one you can't have a better friend. My hat's off to the good ones out there. Thank you. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 208 Registered: 1-2003 |
The cigarette lawsuit is silly. Smoking is a choice. Although you can get addicted, the same can be said for alcohol, gambling, sugary foods, shopping or whatever you want. I never new anyone that was a routine smoker until junior high. By then we all knew it isn't healthy, but people still chose to do it. Can't you tell just be the fact that when you inhale you start coughing? There are too many BS lawsuits, and then there are a few good ones. I'm sure someday soon someone will sue major grocery store chains for putting candy near the register. You're forced to stand next to it, so now we can all blame grocery stores for obesity. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 910 Registered: 5-2002 |
Jason, your ramblings are filled with truth. I also agree with you on the insurance companies. They rake in money by the ton for years on end, then one hurricane hits the coastline, and they have to pay out a few dollars, then they start whining about being on the edge of bankruptcy. If that's the case, what became of all those billions that they earned during years WITHOUT hurricanes or other disasters? I found that out first hand when I ran across a potential real estate deal. One of the first steps was to call my insurance company to check on homeowner's insurance. LOW AND BEHOLD, I was informed that my company is NO LONGER accepting any new homeowner policies in the states of Arkansas and Texas due to high losses incurred during the ice storms in the winter of 2000/2001. In other words, when times are good and we DON'T have to actually pay off any claims, we want your business ($$$). When times get a little lean and we have to actually pay off a few claims, tough luck to our potential customers because we don't want your business. Strange how that fact was missing from the most recent flyer that they mail to all their customers. Just another example of "cleansing" the truth. The happy news is always out in the open. The sad truth is thrown at you when you call up your agent. They always want the deck to be stacked in their favor. And I'm sure that all their top executives are living in a doublewide mobile home and driving a ten year old car because corporate money is so "tight". Give me a break. | ||
| Jason Wesoky (Wesokyjb)
New member Username: Wesokyjb Post Number: 46 Registered: 1-2003 |
One of the problems with the legal profession is that there are too many lawyers. If you want proof, look in the yellow pages. There are too many lawyers today because becoming a lawyer is too easy. Trust me on this one, I'd say one in 3 of the people I went to law school with were dumb, at best. The only thing it takes to get a J.D. is a pulse and the ability to take out loans. However, the majority of people who graduate are crappy lawyers who have to scrape the bottom of the barrell for clients. Hence the zillions of ads you see. Back in the day, law schools actually failed their students, now, if you pay your tuition, you'll graduate. Problem is, once you're out, you'll have a real tough time finding a job, so you go out on your own and perhaps cull the accident reports. Anyway, my point is that I know the legal profession is one of the most admirable, much like the medical profession, but it has become littered with crappy lawyers with scetchy morals willing to take up frivolous law suits knowing it's more expensive to litigate than to settle. HOWEVER, the med-mal problem will not be solved by limiting damages, that's insane. I'd like to see anyone who's close family member has been a victim of med-mal to accept with a grin a statement from the judge saying, sorry, I know you'll never walk again, but you can only receive $250,000, despite the fact that over the rest of your life you would earn well over $2million. You want to fix malpractice insurance? Talk to the medical boards who almost never yank a person's ability to practice medicince. Yet, lawyers lose their ability to practice all the time. Also, talk to the insurance companies. These multi-billion dollar companies who give away tens of millions of dollars to politicians alone each year would not go out of business if they lowered the premiums, but they use fantastic news items to jack the cost of insurance up claiming that claims are more expensive and on the rise. It's like the tuition situation at Harvard. That school, through its endowment, could literally make attendance tuition free for the next 50 years and never struggle. I suspect the same is true for isurance compaines. If they lowered the premiums, nothing would happen but lower premiums. I've obviously rambled, but that's my 2 cents. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 909 Registered: 5-2002 |
EFWUN, you are ignorant if you think that all the parts on those crash test Ferraris are dangerous junk. Where do you think that 99% of the used automotive parts come from? WRECKED CARS, that's where! Where do you think all of the used parts come from in salvage yards? WRECKED CARS. I don't see multi-billion dollar lawsuits being brought against salvage yard operators because of faulty parts from wrecked cars. Those crash test Ferraris are in far better shape than most cars that I've seen in salvage yards. Those Ferraris and their respective parts could be easily sold, but Ferrari would have no part of that due to potential lawsuits from greedy lawyers. EFWUN, you are in denial. General Motors sends its crash test vehicles to a specific destruction yard somewhere in the northwest and any yard employee that attempts to remove parts from those vehicles is fired immediately. That's how much GM (and Ferrari, and other manufacturers) fear the lawsuit potential. They would rather have those cars and their parts ground into scrap metal than let some enthusiast have a chance at them. It's all about lawsuits. Stop dreaming EFWUN and accept the truth. | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 954 Registered: 5-2001 |
EFWUN, I completely agree with you about tobacco companies but you don't need a college or advanced diploma to have common sense. I never smoked. I saw the ads and had friends that smoked when I was a teenager and I chose not to. I chose not to BEFORE I became a dentist. How do you explain that? I do not follow your logic. | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 324 Registered: 2-2003 |
A: I don't plan to wrap my Ferrari around a tree; and B: I don't plan to sue anyone if I should do so; and C: You're really demonstrating a great ignorance; I'm going to decline to waste any more time with you and your ignorant rantings. | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 323 Registered: 2-2003 |
Truth to tell, Horsefly (nice screen name!), you could probably find a lawyer who will negotiate with Ferrari for you on the purchase of some crash tested wreck. I'm pretty sure you could actually waive any right to sue should your newfound toy fall apart, killing you. (you'd have to ride alone, because I'm sure no one will waive a suit by a passenger!). Should you be wrong about the structural integrity of your newfound toy, think of the benefit to the gene pool! | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 908 Registered: 5-2002 |
Hey EFWUN, who are you going to sue when you wrap your Ferrari around a tree? The Ferrari company themselves because they sold you the car without warning you of its "high speed" potential? Or will you sue the highway department for not posting enough speed limit signs? Or maybe you'll sue the owner of the tree that you hit because it was growing in a hazardous location and wasn't adequately marked with warning stripes. You're sitting on a potential gold mine EFWUN. | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 321 Registered: 2-2003 |
Horse-ass, you've gotta be kidding, right? Do you want a nice set of pre-campaign 550 wheels for your car? No prob, when they fall apart, you don't have to sue anyone. The MacDonalds lady actually had several skin grafts and burns to her labia etc, not because she spilled "coffee" on herself, but because MacDonalds gave her a cup of boiling coffee without warning her. Whatever. Given your desire for crashed Ferrari pieces, you probably can find an old Pinto somewhere, and if you're rear-ended and burned, you don't have to sue anyone either!! Why should Ferrari sell busted up crap that might kill someone? Don't you want corporations to have any conscience? Dude, you need to READ something soon!! | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 320 Registered: 2-2003 |
Not when you're talking about an addiction, Dr. Tommy! Remember the kind of people you're talking about here, they didn't graduate from dental school or similar!! They see ads, they take up the habit, (mostly as pre-teens and early adolescents) and they're hooked! No, I think you can safely blame big tobacco for crimes against humanity. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 907 Registered: 5-2002 |
EFWUN, I stand corrected. That poor old lady only got ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS for spilling some hot coffee on herself. My friend's wife splashed some hot oil on her hand while cooking in the kitchen and she had to rub some ointment on her hand for several months. I feel SO SORRY for that lady knowing that she ONLY got $150,000 for a hot coffee burn. My uncle burned his leg badly with a cutting torch one time on a construction site. He went to the doctor and had to soak his leg in treated water for a long time each day. He didn't sue anybody for $150,000 and he didn't try to blame the construction company for the accident. Notice that nobody has challenged my original posting that stated the reason why nobody can get their hands on relatively intact Ferraris that are used for crash testing. DENY the facts all you want, but those cars go to the crusher because of LAWYERS AND LAWSUIT POTENTIAL! | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 953 Registered: 5-2001 |
Big tobacco is bad but what he is referring to is accountability. People do have free will and CHOOSE to smoke. If you choose to and get sick why is it all big tobacco's fault? Are poeple not responsible for their own actions anymore? | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 319 Registered: 2-2003 |
Yes, Horsefly, perhaps Billy Bob Industries manufacturers pajamas, and does a cost benefit analysis. To make them flame resistant, suppose it costs an extra $5, and they know they won't sell as many pajamas. Guess what? The model is that Billy Bob industries doesn't spend the extra money, figuring that it can pay off the families of children maimed and killed in the service of Billy Bob's bottom line. I guess you're right, ANYONE who would think that Billy Bob should have their scrotums cut off is a SHYSTER? Right? You know, I'm thinking you're just an ignorant fool. | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 318 Registered: 2-2003 |
Ah, Horsefly, you're just not getting it. First of all, big tobacco is one of the three great crimes of the twentieth century, the Holocaust, Aparthied, and Tobacco. Don't you understand that these people knew their product was deadly, but nevertheless devised a way to deliver an addictive substance (nicotine) with such chemical accuracy that the smoker experienced an even more addictive rush?? They've killed more millions of people, than Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin! They are the perfect model of corporate America without product liabilty!! You're thinking with the set of tools that TV has given you, just like the poor people who tobacco killed!! Get some independent thought!!, and remember that independent thought requires knowledge, and that requires reading something other than the tabloids. Further, YES, there ARE greedy attorneys, who work for GREEDY clients (see, e.g., Dennis' comments). Greedy Doctors on the other hand, work for themselves at the expense of their patients. (and while they are few and far between, the ability to punish them by lawsuit is endemic to the correct operation of medicine! Again, look toward the insurance companies for a better culprit!!) The MacDonalds lady sued because at that time, MacDonald's coffee was LITERALLY boiling, e.g., 212 degress Fahrenheit. Did she get too much, YES!! Did the judge command remittitur to $150,000 for VERY serious burns, YES. Get your facts, Horsefly! Personally, I feel the pride of my profession when someone comes to me who has had his constitutional rights trampelled and been wrongfully dismissed from his State job, where his benefits are the only thing keeping his wife with Lupus Erythymenodosus in medical care. My firm also did Pro Bono work for the Trade Center Victims through "Trial Lawyers Care." People like these need my education and ability to right their wrongs. I also expect to be arguing a Fourth Amendment issue in front of the Supreme Court of the United States, perhaps as early as this Fall. Wanna imagine a country without the right to be secure in your person?? I am NOT out in the streets encouraging people to fall in Home Depot's parking lot! Stop this lawyer bashing, and talk about some mother F**king Ferraris. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 206 Registered: 1-2003 |
I don't know if you can just blame the lawyers. Our society is feeding this sort of behavoir, judges are condoning it and the lawyers are just the means to get the money. I've never been able to understand the amount of money given in a lawsuit. I've seen a case where there is racism in the workplace and even though the guy loses a job that pays $40k a year, he gets a multimillion dollar settlement. I think the only acceptable number would be income lost times years it was lost. In this case $40k X life= settlement nd fiing the acist boss. Our society needs to start making adults responsible for their actions and stop tolerating excuses for every little thing. But that's just a fantasy that will never come true. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 906 Registered: 5-2002 |
And don't forget that most "lawsuits" are settled out of court to avoid bad publicity. Joe Smith calls up a shyster lawyer and files a lawsuit against Billy Bob Industries for a $100,000. The lawyers for Billy Bob Industries know that with legal expenses and all the bad publicity over the lawsuit, their company will be out OVER $100,000 by the time the smoke clears. So they settle out of court for $75,000. All the shyster lawyers know these cold hard facts of reality, and they file lawsuits all the time hoping for an out of court settlement. And of course the "out of court" settlement is all confidential, so the true facts are never available to add one more case of "shyster lawyering" to the legal gene pool. | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 951 Registered: 5-2001 |
Arthur is correct about the 2% bad docs thing However, tort reform wouldn't hurt either. Lets say a guy comes to see me with a bad tooth but doesn't think any tooth is worth $1300 to fix and just wants it pulled. Suppose I pull the wrong one? Now how much do you think a tooth is worth to him? Sure I should be financially responsible to correct it and I imagine he may be entitled to a reasonable amount of money for the inconvenience because that is how our society imposes punishment in non-criminal legal judgements. A few thousand maybe, I don't know, but I do know something like 25.8 million is ridiculous. Any sane person knows that but a contingency attorney going after an insurance company is going to bust it for all he can get, not what it's worth. Yes I know there are much worse examples like killing a patient but this is to illustrate a point only. We should share the blame with the lawyers. No single party is the problem here. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 905 Registered: 5-2002 |
EFWUN et all, just because there are greedy doctors does NOT mean that there is not a proliferation of greedy lawyers. Two WRONGS do not make a RIGHT. I just can't believe you guys the way you defend such insane legal tactics. Some guy spills coffee on himself and sues for a million dollars. Some guy smokes cigarettes for 40 years and sues the cigarette company saying it was THEIR fault. Heck, I've known that cigarettes were bad for your health since I was 6 years old. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that inhaling smoke on a daily basis is bad for your health. Give me a break. Some idiot eats hamburgers every day for 10 years until he gets as fat as a whale and he gets some shyster lawyer to file a lawsuit against the fast food restaurant because it is THEIR fault. That's the underlying factor among lawyers. ALWAYS blame somebody else. Never assume responsibility for your own actions. It has to be SOMEBODY ELSE's fault, not mine. And can I get a big bag of money while I'm blaming somebody else for my problems? Pretty please??? Whine, ad infinitum. | ||
| Dennis (Bighead)
Junior Member Username: Bighead Post Number: 64 Registered: 2-2003 |
Horsefly (Artie): Are there greedy, grubbing lawyers out there? Yup. Are there greedy, grubbing doctors out there? Yup. Are there greedy, grubbing [insert profession here] out there? Yup. Remember this -- for every greedy, money-grubbing lawyer there is, there is a greedy, money-grubbing client. In fact, for every greedy, money-grubbing lawyer there is, there are probably even more greedy, money-grubbing clients who wish they could sue someone for something. Is overzealous litigation a problem in America? Absolutely. Not one of the top five problems, and probably not even one of the top ten, but still serious. But only a fool would blame this problem solely on lawyers. vty, --Dennis P.S. Never forget the law of unintended consequences. | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 317 Registered: 2-2003 |
Finally, a greedy attorney is an abomination, perhaps all too common. However, a greedy doctor takes patients who come to him with trust, place their very lives and bodies in his care, and he abuses their trust for MONEY. There are a lot of excellent doctors like our friends, but there are also a lot of quacks, don't kid yourself. Blaming it on lawyers is an old, ignorant means of displacement. The saw "physician, heal thyself" is appropriate, because these folks are never going to get their credentials yanked. Why should insurance companies be able to convince people like you that "its all the lawyers' fault" while they raise premiums and cut benefits?? | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 316 Registered: 2-2003 |
Your OB GYN friend is probably in the same situation as my opthalmologist friend. He is a caring, compassionate surgeon, who has never had a claim. Your friend has NEVER HAD A CLAIM. Wanna interpret that? They're GOOD, and no one sues them!! Too bad that greedy insurance companies are charging them for other doctors mistakes, but who do you want to blame that on?? The lawyers who sued the doctors who •••••• up? Do you know who gives the outrageous jury awards on some of these cases?? Hint, it is the JURY. Judges often give what we call remittitur, or reduce the verdict in accord with equity. Listen, you can't blame lawyers; they protect you from bad medicine and irresponsible manufacturers, including Ford!! Educate yourself, then evaluate your previous comments. | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 315 Registered: 2-2003 |
Horsefly, the comeback to the outrageous slip and falls is simple. I have experience with an ENT surgeon who sees 100patients in an 8 hour day. Wanna explain the greed that causes that? How about the 20 endoscopic sinus surguries this man performs PER WEEK??? There are greedy attorneys, sure, but there are also greedy doctors. Can you, you simplistic idiot, figure out the DIFFERENCE?? Greedy attorney are pests, greedy doctors KILL PEOPLE regularly! | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 314 Registered: 2-2003 |
Horsefly, There are excellent, compassionate doctors, just as there are honest, forthright attorneys. The problem is, that doctors DO NOT police their own, and without malpractice suits, lots of these guys just run a patient mill. Try medicine in Florida if you want an example of what making doctors nearly judgment proof does for medical care. Your simplistic rantings are foolish, because you propose one solution for a problem that has its roots in the INSURANCE industry. Please don't tell me about your friend's malpractice, my closest friend is an eye surgeon, and I KNOW. Guess what? INSURANCE companies also dicate what he, and any other doctor can charge, and they are turning medicine into a not-for-profit profession. The problem is that there are LOTS of greedy doctors out there too (just like greedy lawyers and those gullible patients who succumb to the lawyers wiles and file suit!!) If you can only make $20/patient, these guys' solution is to see 100 patients! My parents saw 15 patients in a LONG day, and billed accordingly. Those days are OVER, and Insurance companies are to blame. They then turn on Lawyers. Believe me, you don't want to live in a world where doctors and hospitals are judgment proof! You want a SOLUTION?? Make insurance companies the Not-for-Profit entities!! | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 902 Registered: 5-2002 |
"I'm more than willing to see if you've got some FACTS supported by real scientific data, but I sure haven't seen any." Art, I just gave you several incidents that are factual. My doctor friend DID have his malpractice insurance raised. (His record is squeaky clean,and he's an OB/GYN that has to pay the increased insurance bill because of legal buzzards that sue other OB/GYN doctors for alleged labor and delivery malpractice.) I most certainly WAS contacted by mail from some local money hungry legal BUZZARDS who were trolling for lawsuit money. Those hospitals in Nevade DID close down. Do you think that I make this stuff up? Do you only take something as fact when it is placed in front of you on a legal affidavit form? I noted that you had no comeback concerning outrageous "slip and fall" lawsuits, phoney "staged" accidents involving connections with crooked lawyers, and the lawsuit hungry buzzards that prowl police department accident reports. It's kind of difficult to defend those guys, isn't it? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1143 Registered: 6-2001 |
Arlie: The statistical surveys actually show that litigation is down. The population is up, and therefore there is on an absolute scale more cases. As to your contention of the cost of cases putting doctors out of business, I say good. What has happened is that they have totally refused to clean up their act. We've all seen the poor gal with the heart lung transplant. How could someone possible screw up something so simple as a blood type. Annal rectum inversion, I suspect. Mal-practice claims are hurting the doctors for two very good reasons: 1. They won't clean up the 2% of doctors who bring 75% of their claims, and 2. When they hurt people it costs a huge amount of money to compensate those who've been injuried. An example of that is what it takes for someone who is turned into a quad. It used to be, some 30 years ago, that those folks didn't live very long, the medical bills were relatively low, and therefore if a Doc made that kind of error, it wasn't an astronomical amount. Today, someone with that kind of injury can expect a normal life expectancy. A common type of suit for medical negligence is where the doc uses forcepts to remove a child rather than a cesearian. Breaks the kids neck. Medical costs over the life span: 10 Million. Not a dime for pain and suffering 10 big ones. Sort of drives up the cost of insurance, doesn't it. That medical technique was appropriate in the 40s, 50s because the risk of operating outweighed the risk of turning the baby into a quad. No longer, techniques have gotten better. There has been 2, 3 of those types of claims in the LA area within the last 5 years to my knowledge, and at least 2 of them were against the same doc. Again, is there fraud? sure, no system is perfect, but on an overall basis the system works pretty well. I have yet to see a scientific analysis of the legal system which supports our outlandish claims. If you are aware of one, please let me know. I suspect you are using conservative antodotal evidence, which is unsupported and used to support some ideologue's idea of what is right. I'm more than willing to see if you've got some FACTS supported by real scientific data, but I sure haven't seen any. As to listening to talk show hosts: I do. It's better than a comedy show. Most of them appear to be mentally ill (bi-polar) in that they yell, scream, make crazy claims, etc. I think that they are a scream. Have you ever listened them, and gone and attempted to verify some of the crazy claims that they make? Let me know when you do, I'd love to see the results. These guys jsut preach hate and other inappropriate behavior, and I truly pity those who actually believe them. But they are funny. heheheh. Art | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 900 Registered: 5-2002 |
EFWUN, Art, et all, You are both right. There is no problem with excessive legal litigation going hog wild crazy in modern day America. I guess that those doctors and hospitals in Nevada that closed down because of rising malpractice insurance costs had absolutely nothing to do with greedy lawyers. I guess that a doctor friend of mine pays increasing malpractice insurance costs just for the fun of it. I'm sure that it has nothing to do with increasing medical lawsuits. I guess the increasing thickness of my local telephone book has nothing to do with the massive amounts of lawyers listed in the yellow pages. This year, there are so many lawyers that the legal section of the yellow pages is highlighted in red ink so it stands out. You guys need to get your head out of the sand and listen to some talk radio, watch a few news programs and listen to the wind in general. People are feed up with lawsuit happy lawyers. I have been involved in 2 minor auto accidents within the past 10 years. In both instances, my vehicle was sitting still when one guy hit me after trying to beat the red light. In the other instance, I was hit from behind by a guy not paying attention. IN BOTH CASES, I was contacted by mail within THREE days by a bunch of blood thirsty lawyers who were trying to get me to file a lawsuit against the guys who hit me. These BUZZARDS actually have people who prowl through the daily accident reports at the police department looking for victims so that they can file lawsuits on their behalf and collect a percentage of the profits. I wonder what percentage of the "slip and fall" lawsuits each year are actually legitimate. Same goes for thousands of phoney auto "accidents" that are actually staged and endorsed by sleezy lawyers with phoney lawsuits. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1141 Registered: 6-2001 |
EFWUN: Arlie is too wrapped up in the conservative mantra to think. He just pushs out the mantra, doesn't think his way through anything. What he doesn't get is that most lawyers are pretty careful about filing suits, for a very simple reason: we fund the case, usually because the injuried party isn't in a position to pay tens of thousands of dollars to ensure that the matter is properly tried. Because its on our nickle, most of us are very, very careful to ensure that we only represent those who have a righteous case. Do we make mistakes, you bet, but there is a strong motivation to ensure that we are right. The Pinto case is a great example: Ford knew that upon crashing with a substantial rear impact, the gas tank would rupture, sending two streams of gas, pointed at the heads of the two people in the front seat. We know that because Ford made videos of just that happening. When Herb Hafif asked, in discovery, for any tapes showing crashes, Ford claimed none. Unfortunately for Ford, they didn't destroy the tapes, just sent them to a dumping site, where the guys there kept them, and somehow Hafif found them. When those tapes were played to the jury: gangbusters. 110 Million dollar verdict. By the way: same thing with the McDonald's case. The large verdict was due to the behavior of Mcdonalds. Contrary to what you hear in the press and TV, there was a very solid basis for that verdict. At any rate, I'm ranting, and I should stop now. Art | ||
| EFWUN (Efwun)
Member Username: Efwun Post Number: 307 Registered: 2-2003 |
You know, horse's ass, uh Horse-fly, Product liability attorneys, medical malpractice attorneys and even, gasp personal injury attorneys play a large role in preventing those nice corporate entities from bringing the nice public more cars like the Pinto (cost more to fix than it would cost to pay off the wrongful death suits, so they didn't fix it), flammable pajamas, and mistaken transplants. How nice for you that you can distill the problems of the world down to lawyers greed!! You simpleton!! | ||
| Rob Schermerhorn (Rexrcr)
Member Username: Rexrcr Post Number: 431 Registered: 11-2002 |
Des, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If you read the fine print on some auto parts, seat belt assemblies, owner's manuals, tire stickers on new tires, and all other types of auto parts and cars, you will see reference to FMVSS and then some numbers that refer to a huge pile of specifications manufactures must comply to when they design and build. Some of it is bureaucratic crap, most of it improves safety, reliability, cost to own, etc. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/import/FMVSS/ http://www.tiretesting.com/1g-fmvss.htm | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Advanced Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 2983 Registered: 8-2002 |
Jmg, that car is just butter... | ||
| william speer (Wspeer)
Junior Member Username: Wspeer Post Number: 177 Registered: 8-2002 |
if you want to see a pic that is even more heartbreaking, there was a pic a while back in cavallino, i believe, that showed the wrecked f-50's from the crash testing. | ||
| 89TCab (Jmg)
Member Username: Jmg Post Number: 410 Registered: 9-2001 |
Nice to see no Mondials are in that pile...I guess even the regulators couldn't see the beauty we find in them!  | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 891 Registered: 5-2002 |
And just think, if it weren't for money grubbing lawyers willing to help a client file a lawsuit at the drop of a hat, those Ferraris and the parts from them could easily be sold to eager Ferrari buffs who would appreciate them. Engines, transaxles, wheels, interior parts, maybe even restorable cars could be saved from the scrapyard melting pots. BUT NO!!!!!! Ferrari can't take the chance that some idiot might mount one of those wheels on his car and naturally he (and his lawyer) would blame his late night, high speed accident on that "faulty" wheel and consequently sue Ferrari and the testing facility for selling it after the crash test. So bring on the bulldozers and crush the whole pile without getting a single usable part out of the entire mass. Don't you just love lawyers? | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Advanced Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 2970 Registered: 8-2002 |
Rob...! Delete Tillman's account...! That was a sacrilege...! FOUL...! FOUL...! i just finished eating lunch, i think i'm gonna be sick... Can someone please post that smiley face that pukes on the other smiley face...? | ||
| Tillman Strahan (Tillman)
Member Username: Tillman Post Number: 483 Registered: 11-2001 |
Sure it was Here it is in quick-edit Panoramic Vistavision  Acutally, the two 550s in there make me want to cry  | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 4120 Registered: 5-2001 |
Was that necessary Tillman??? | ||
| Tillman Strahan (Tillman)
Member Username: Tillman Post Number: 482 Registered: 11-2001 |
Ah, yes, the infamous crash tests...   | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 4117 Registered: 5-2001 |
It is a whole lot more that than just lights and stuff. All vehicles have to undergo a crash test. This is mostly done by the manufacturer. Most countries require those for road worthiness so the one with the highest standard will be used by most manufacturers. Not so in the 70s and 80s when making a EURO road worthy in the US, you had to weld steel into doors, bumpers etc. That is where the butt ugly Countach bumper came from and the US bumper on the 308 that sticks out 10 feet. Roll tests, crash tests in different angles, speed test etc. When all is said and done there will be several wrecks on the manufacturers lot before he is issued a certificate of compliance. That is why it was always easy to have a car imported from the US to Europe. The standards in Europe were less than in the US so no crash tests were necessary. | ||
| Frank Parker (Parkerfe)
Intermediate Member Username: Parkerfe Post Number: 2049 Registered: 9-2001 |
The DOT and EPA set the requirements for the operation of a MV on the street. | ||
| Tillman Strahan (Tillman)
Member Username: Tillman Post Number: 480 Registered: 11-2001 |
Every state has specific safety and equipment requirements for vehicles. In addition, the Federal government has specific safety and emissions requirements for vehicles. Almost all automobiles from major companies meet these requirements at the time of sale. Those that do no receive "off-road only" titles and cannot be legally registered for the street. For NY state information, start at your state government web site or your local DMV | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Advanced Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 2966 Registered: 8-2002 |
What makes a Ferrari road-legal...? The Bird and i were chewing the fat on Prancing Horses last night and this was a question that came up and i had no real answer; besiDES lights and blinkers and noise, etc., what makes a Ferrari road-legal (or any car for that matter)...? Also, are emissions a factor...? Are the emissions regulations different for a track/race car than a road-legal car...? Are tires an issue...? Etc, etc, etc- any info would be really cool... Thanks, everyone... |