Another perspective -
>
> What I wan't to know is who the hell makes up these bleeding heart juries
>that award outrageous sums to bloodsucking parasites and their lawyers?
It's interesting that the news stories report the initial jury award. But,
often they don't bother to report that the award is (drastically) reduced
by the judge. I was an expert witness in a patent infringement suit earlier
this year. The plaintiff won and was awarded something around $60 million
for the infringement - counting all damages except the judge's ability to
increase the award by up to a factor of three because the infingement was
willfull. ( This number was the actual loss by the plaintiff, not soem
punative award)
After two months of review the judge decreased the award but added punitive
damages. The final award was well under the jury award - even though the
documented loss was higher.
While this example relates to a patent case, the principle of decreased
awards on review or appeal is pretty common.
> I
>sure as heck wouldn't fall for these scams, and I doubt many of you would
>either. Are the decent people of common sense all begging off jury duty and
>leaving it to the little old ladies or what???
Let's see. If you're educated most attorneys want you off the jury for most
cases. If you are a professional they'd like you off the case. The case I
was most recently involved with had an all woman jury. Of these, a
significant number were from a lower economic group. It took a long time to
find jurrors who didn't have legitimate excuses and didn't have conflicts
with the case. Take a look at your local jury pool. In many areas you'll
find retirees, housewives, and folks out of work make up the bulk of thsoe
who show for jury duty. The remainder tend to get excused by the judge due
to conflicts, or challenged by a lwyer.
Having said that, I've been impressed by the thoughfulness and attention of
jurors to complex cases. If they're given the facts, I think that in
general they'll come to the right conclusion. Sometimes they don't get all
of the facts: a lawyer is incompetent, the evidence is suspect and not
permitted to be presented, errors in procedure, the judge limits the time
for each side to present their case, etc. They're not always right, but
they often have good BS filters!
> BTW, although stories like the above make my blood boil, we should keep
>things in perspective. First, before anyone can win a suit over your
>modifications, they have to prove that the modification caused or
contributed
>to the accident or aggravated the damage/injury therefrom.
In many states the standard is "proxmiate cause" which means that a
specific thing or action was the cause of the accident. In most suits it's
common practice to name everyone in sight. The idea is that by suing a
group jointly and severally, if there is a win in court, then they can
collect the whole judgement from a single entity if need be. That's why
when a vacationing couple was killed in a balloning accident two years ago,
the estate named the farmer whose field the ballon crashed into as a
defendant - as well as the power utility whose power lines the pilot hit.
All of this in addition to the ballon manufacturer, the pilot, the weather
service, and others.
Generally juries are asked to apportion responsibility for an accident. In
theory then each party pays according to their responsibility. In practice
somebody doesn't have assets or hides them so the rest get stuck.
> Second, I spent
>many years in the auto repair field, including over 7 years as a service
>manager, and 6 years running my own shop. Not once was I a defendant in a
>legal action related to the business. Third, if the leeches do come out,
>that's why you have insurance. (Although I agree that the insurance
>companies are largely to blame for this mess. They figure it's cheaper to
>settle than to fight it out with their high-priced lawyers.
My personal experience with insurance companies is that when the stakes are
high (more than the cost of a new car) they will drag their feet in
settling. They don't get their lawyers involved until you get your lawyers
involved (why spend big bucks on lawyers when claims agents can drag their
feet for them at a MUCH lower cost?). In one instance I had to sue an
insuror over goods lost during shipment. It took 2 years and me shelling
out $35k to get back 75% of the insured value - even though they agreed
they'd lost the stuff! All of that without actually getting into the court
room.
Insurance companies settle because they expect to pay less in a settlement
AND they can make the terms of the settlement confidential so they don't
create precedents.
>Justice has
>nothing to do with it, only economics.)
Yep. You're right there.
> Of course the real problem is that our political system is run by
lawyers,
>who continue to allow frivolous and unjustified lawsuits with no penalty.
There are some pretty stiff penalties for lawyers who file frivolous suits
(like they can lose their license and pay big fines).
In
>most countries, the loser pays the winner's expenses, which tends to inhibit
>the filing of questionable suits.
That can happen here too and does in some cases. The cost of getting to
court in the US is by itself a big impediment to suits. And it's one reason
why lawyers go for such big awards. If it costs in excess of $50k to get to
court, how much do you need to go after in order to make to financially
viable? For contingency fee cases that go to Federal Court I'd be surprised
to find a competent lawyer take on the case unless it was worth in excess
of $250k in potential awards. The attorneys that I talked to probably would
get interested around $500k. All of this supprts your comment that it's
about finances and not justice.
Application to GMCs:
1. wait long enough, and do something and you'll likely become the target
of a lawsuit no matter what - wrong place wrong day at the least.
2. unless your accident is your fault and is notorious (say you kill a bus
load of kids) there isn't likely to be a mechanical assessment of your GMC
3. if you are involved in an accident big enough to warrant a mechancal
assessment then you're in deep stuff no matter what you've done to the GMC
4. commercial manufacturing ventures need ordinary insurance for an
automotive supplier. It isn't as much as you think, but it's no easy feat
getting approved either.
5. mechanics need the same insurance as if they were working on an ordinary
car
Modify your own coach and it looks like one set of rules apply. Modify
someone else's and it's a different story. If you are planning to do a
major mod like Manny's slideout, a change in brakes, etc do your own
engineering work - or find a company willing to do it for you.
For myself, I'll modify my coach as I please and not worry.
Henry
These are NOT legal opinions. I am Not an epert in this stuff. YMMV. Void
wherever you live. Consult your own attorney. If something goes wrong, I
told you so!
Henry Davis Consulting, Inc / new product consulting
PO Box 1270 / product readiness reviews
Soquel, Ca 95073 / IP reviews
ph: (831) 462-5199 / full service marketing
fax: (831) 462-5198
http://www.henry-davis.com/ http://www.henry-davis.com
atrick
