 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007Has anyone ever sued the car-makers for making fast cars??
It would seem like a no-brainer. If someone is killed on the freeway by some nut doing say 85 mph, you'd think the victim's family would sue the manufacturer for making a car DESIGNED to break the law. Should be easy for the family to win. And yet i've never heard of any such lawsuit. I suspect the lawsuits have happened many times and the car-maker rushes to settle out of court. Last thing they want is a public trial exposing how many people are murdered by fast drivers. The car makers make a fortune replacing the cars totalled in high speed crashes and don't want the gravy train to end. In article <1168730604.639712.186090@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote: > It would seem like a no-brainer. If someone is killed on the freeway > by some nut doing say 85 mph, you'd think the victim's family would sue [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > car makers make a fortune replacing the cars totalled in high speed > crashes and don't want the gravy train to end. I'm sure you suspect this has happened many times. Shows what you know. Just because a car _could_ be used to speed doesn't mean the car company is liable for people who use it to speed. Any more than a knife company is responsible for someone who stabs someone else to death using one of their products. It's taught in every first-year Torts class in law school. > In article <1168730604.639712.186090@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It's taught in every first-year Torts class in law school. Yet scumbag lawyers STILL keep trying to sue gun manufacturers for criminal misuse of their products by 3rd parties.(and many people somehow think that's OK..)  SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net In news:1168730604.639712.186090@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote: > It would seem like a no-brainer. Which is, of course, why you're suggesting it. SignatureBert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com > > It would seem like a no-brainer. > > Which is, of course, why you're suggesting it. Snort ! Graham Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >In news:1168730604.639712.186090@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com "Speeders >& Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> It would seem like a no-brainer. > >Which is, of course, why you're suggesting it. Let's start a class action suit against Aunt Judy. SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Scott en Aztlán said in rec.autos.driving: << reply limited to r.a.d. >> > Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Let's start a class action suit against Aunt Judy. Lotsa luck collecting. ;) SignatureSpeeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS demonstrates its Bartlo quality forecasting abilities: "At least they did where i live. It'll be $3 by turkey day and $4 by Xmas as exxon tries to make up for the money they lost lowering prices to help their bud Bush." Ref: http://tinyurl.com/y35dzw Msg ID:g1b6m2toqvke4g7jampip7d32kalsvvn74@4ax.com necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_nospam_noway.org> said in rec.autos.driving: >Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Scott en Aztlán >said in rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Lotsa luck collecting. ;) Then throw his a.s in debtor's prison. :) SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Scott en Aztlán said in rec.autos.driving: > necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_nospam_noway.org> said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Then throw his a.s in debtor's prison. :) Would be ironic, wouldn't it? ;) SignatureLoco laura bush - VEHICULAR shows us all - yet again - what an idiot it really is: "Radios shouldn't be in cars either. Only an idiot would argue that." --laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE, 8/5/06 Ref:http://tinyurl.com/hwevv Message ID: fp68d21f99pa2bnn471lsss02nq0pkfa7j@4ax.com Scott en Aztl?n wrote: > Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > I hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. Let's examine the potential settlement: Aunt Judy's beater: $200 Aunt Judy's bald "tars": $30 Sandpaper: $10 Glue: $10 That wouldn't come close to covering the attorney fees. :-( > It would seem like a no-brainer. If someone is killed on the freeway > by some nut doing say 85 mph, you'd think the victim's family would sue > the manufacturer for making a car DESIGNED to break the law. Should be > easy for the family to win. I'm no lawyer, but some degree of negligence from the car maker would have to be proven. The fact that a car will greatly exceed posted speed limits is not negligence. The negligence in such a case would be due to the driver. Firearms can certainly kill, but usually it is the person behind the weapon who catches the punishment. > > It would seem like a no-brainer. If someone is killed on the freeway > > by some nut doing say 85 mph, you'd think the victim's family would sue [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but usually it > is the person behind the weapon who catches the punishment. It's not the law of negligence that applies, its the law of product liability. Heck, an M1A1 Abrams tank is much safer than any comsumer vehicle on the market today. But they're expensive, unwieldy, and no one wants one to shuttle the kids to soccer practice or commute to work. So there are trade-offs. Of course cars are not made to ensure maximum safety possible - and its not negligent of the car makers to make them this way. > Heck, an M1A1 Abrams tank is much safer than any comsumer vehicle on the > market today. But they're expensive, unwieldy, and no one wants one to > shuttle the kids to soccer practice or commute to work. I'll say... they cost over $3 million apiece as they were being delivered 20 years ago. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com >> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote in > Heck, an M1A1 Abrams tank is much safer than any comsumer vehicle on the > market today. But they're expensive, unwieldy, and no one wants one to > shuttle the kids to soccer practice or commute to work. So there are > trade-offs. Of course cars are not made to ensure maximum safety > possible - and its not negligent of the car makers to make them this way. In England, you can be issued a civilian driver's license to drive tanks on roads. One person in England has received this license and likes to drive his tank in traffic, I think even in London. > In England, you can be issued a civilian driver's license to drive > tanks on roads. One person in England has received this license and > likes to drive his tank in traffic, I think even in London. Tank or IFV/APC? wheeled or tracked? SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> > It would seem like a no-brainer. If someone is killed on the >> > freeway by some nut doing say 85 mph, you'd think the victim's [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the market today. But they're expensive, unwieldy, and no one wants > one to shuttle the kids to soccer practice or commute to work. Actually,the Israeli Merkava IV is much better suited for that;it has a troop-carrying compartment at the rear,clamshell doors(like a tailgate) for easy access/egress. 70 tons and 1500 HP(diesel)! The ultimate SUV! B-) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > > It would seem like a no-brainer. If someone is killed on the freeway > > by some nut doing say 85 mph, you'd think the victim's family would sue [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but usually it > is the person behind the weapon who catches the punishment. The difference is that cars are DESIGNED to break the law. And it's not inherent in the nature of a car that they be built that way. The car-makers could make a car with a top speed of 70. But most cars will excede 100!! Suppose a gun maker sold a semi-automatic rifle with a switch that let the owner turn it into an illegal full automatic whenever he wished?. No gun maker would do that and if they did the law would be on them in a second. In article <1168743556.119621.230610@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > It would seem like a no-brainer. If someone is killed on the freeway > > > by some nut doing say 85 mph, you'd think the victim's family would sue [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The difference is that cars are DESIGNED to break the law. Having the capability of being used in an illegal way is not the same as being designed to break the law. Heck, if this is such a rock-crushing lawsuit you have, why not sue the car companies yourself! I'm sure you'll find the lawyers lining up at your door to take the case on a contingency basis, and you can just work your way down the list.... GM, Ford, Toyota, Daimler Chrysler, Honda.... you'll make millions and millions just in the settlements! > And it's > not inherent in the nature of a car that they be built that way. The > car-makers could make a car with a top speed of 70. But most cars > will excede 100!! And most knives will pierce the skin if someone is stabbed with one. But they don't have to be designed that way, do they? > Suppose a gun maker sold a semi-automatic rifle with > a switch that let the owner turn it into an illegal full automatic > whenever he wished?. No gun maker would do that and if they did the law > would be on them in a second. Right, because the law says you can't sell a gun that's convertible to a fully automatic. Just like there *could be* a law that says car makers can't sell cars that go over a certain speed. But there is no law! Get that through your head - it'll be a start. > Right, because the law says you can't sell a gun that's convertible to a > fully automatic. Just like there *could be* a law that says car makers > can't sell cars that go over a certain speed. But there is no law! Get > that through your head - it'll be a start. Hey stupid. You don't have to prove that the manufacturer broke the law to win a product liability lawsuit. It would help but it's certainly not essential. You are a legal ignoramus. In article <1168801752.628466.26670@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote: > > Right, because the law says you can't sell a gun that's convertible to a > > fully automatic. Just like there *could be* a law that says car makers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > law to win a product liability lawsuit. It would help but it's > certainly not essential. You are a legal ignoramus. Actually, I am a practicing attorney who graduated law school with honors. What's your legal education? > In article <1168743556.119621.230610@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > can't sell cars that go over a certain speed. But there is no law! Get > that through your head - it'll be a start. Still waiting for your response to this... unless you finally realize the idiocy of your posting! >The difference is that cars are DESIGNED to break the law. And it's >not inherent in the nature of a car that they be built that way. The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >whenever he wished?. No gun maker would do that and if they did the law >would be on them in a second. Heckler & Koch does. I've fired one (the one I used had a silencer, too). It's fun. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>The difference is that cars are DESIGNED to break the law. And it's >>not inherent in the nature of a car that they be built that way. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Heckler & Koch does. I've fired one (the one I used had a silencer, > too). It's fun. Many gun makers sell "select-fire" rifles or submachine guns,perfectly legal.Switchable between semi-auto,3 rd burst,or full-auto. It's just that the list of legal BUYERS is limited these days,in violation of the US Constitution. Corporations can legally own machine guns.(NFA-34 weapons) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > It would seem like a no-brainer. If someone is killed on the freeway > by some nut doing say 85 mph, you'd think the victim's family would sue [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > car makers make a fortune replacing the cars totalled in high speed > crashes and don't want the gravy train to end. You do realize that cars are sold worldwide, and not all countries have the same asinine speed laws that we do here in the US, don't you? nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > It would seem like a no-brainer. If someone is killed on the freeway > > by some nut doing say 85 mph, you'd think the victim's family would sue [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > nate Well hell most products are sold worldwide but that doesn't excuse the manufacturer for a dangerous design. And besides, the speed limiter could be adjustable. THINK - if you know how. >>>It would seem like a no-brainer. If someone is killed on the freeway >>>by some nut doing say 85 mph, you'd think the victim's family would sue [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > manufacturer for a dangerous design. And besides, the speed limiter > could be adjustable. THINK - if you know how. You have yet to prove that there's anything intrinsically dangerous about driving at 100 MPH. The Germans do it all the time on roads that look a lot like ours and they don't have any higher fatality rate than we do. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > You have yet to prove that there's anything intrinsically dangerous > about driving at 100 MPH. The Germans do it all the time on roads that > look a lot like ours and they don't have any higher fatality rate than > we do. > > nate Hey stupid. As we've explained countless times, the issue was settled in 1974 when american went to the 55 and immediately highway fatalities dropped 16%. Higher speeds are always more dangerous and only an insane psychopath like you would claim that speeders are NOT deadly murderers. >>You have yet to prove that there's anything intrinsically dangerous >>about driving at 100 MPH. The Germans do it all the time on roads that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > in 1974 when american went to the 55 and immediately highway fatalities > dropped 16%. Proving nothing. Not only are pre- and post-1974 stats not directly comparable due to differences in methodology, the decrease in deaths was simply a continuation of a trend that had been happening since the statistics were first gathered and continues to this day. > Higher speeds are always more dangerous You have yet to prove this. > and only an > insane psychopath like you would claim that speeders are NOT deadly > murderers. If someone has not killed another human being, they are by definition *not* a murderer. Perhaps you should look up "slander" and "libel." nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel In article <1168801555.078334.299270@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote: > > You have yet to prove that there's anything intrinsically dangerous > > about driving at 100 MPH. The Germans do it all the time on roads that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > insane psychopath like you would claim that speeders are NOT deadly > murderers. Then answer the question: how is it the Germans manage to do it and have fatality rates that are generally the same as the United States? Signature'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS, a connisseur of gay kid porn and lover of goats foamed in rec.autos.driving: > > You have yet to prove that there's anything intrinsically dangerous > > about driving at 100 MPH. The Germans do it all the time on roads that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hey stupid. As we've explained countless times, the issue was settled Excuse you, sh.t For Brains, but the only one here speweing this "55 saves lives," crap is you. > in 1974 when american went to the 55 and immediately highway fatalities > dropped 16%. Yeah, after the method of counting the deaths was changed to skew the numbers to the result that you naderite frauds wanted. Figures lie and liars figure, liar. > Higher speeds are always more dangerous and only an > insane psychopath like you would claim that speeders are NOT deadly > murderers. And the highway death rates have continued to drop inspite of rising highway speeds and the death of the communistic 55 MPH limit in 1986, you moron. Only an insane blood (and goat semen) guzzler like you would claim that slower speeds save lives, you psychopath. SignatureSpeeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS supports the troops again: "Screw that 'he's just doing his job' justification. That's what the nazi guards said. And that's what our child-torturing troops in iraq say." Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (A.k.a: LBMHB/lb-VH/am/POA etc...) 1/7/2007, 1118 hours. Ref: http://tinyurl.com/y7c5ah Message ID: 1168186680.432376.36280@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com > > It would seem like a no-brainer. If someone is killed on the freeway > > by some nut doing say 85 mph, you'd think the victim's family would sue [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You do realize that cars are sold worldwide, and not all countries have > the same asinine speed laws that we do here in the US, don't you? Make motorway limit 80mph to cut jams, Ministers told The speed limit on motorways should be raised to help the network to function more efficiently, a report for the Government has concluded. Motorists would benefit most if traffic travelled at a 'target speed' of 78mph, it said. This would enable quicker journeys, without seriously jeopardising safety. The report by the Highways Agency examined the overall costs and economic benefits of travelling at speeds of between 30mph and 100mph - taking account of time at the wheel, fuel burned and accidents. It concluded that 78mph was the most economical and 'appropriate' average speed, despite a rise in fuel consumption and more 'costly' crashes when vehicles travel faster than the current 70mph limit. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=4286 42&in_page_id=1770 Note.......... *** TARGET AVERAGE SPEED OF 78MPH*** that's probably about 85mph on an averagely over-reading speedo as typically found today. Has common sense just broken out in the UK ? Surely shome mishtake ? Graham > It would seem like a no-brainer. If someone is killed on the freeway > by some nut doing say 85 mph, you'd think the victim's family would sue [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > car makers make a fortune replacing the cars totalled in high speed > crashes and don't want the gravy train to end. Hm...if that's true, then why do most cars get the best fuel efficiency between 40 and 55 mph? My vehicle is in its highest gear at 35. Then again, such a lawsuit as you recommend would likely qualify for the Stella Award for being frivolous. (that's the famous McDonald's coffee case) > It would seem like a no-brainer. If someone is killed on the freeway > by some nut doing say 85 mph, you'd think the victim's family would sue [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > car makers make a fortune replacing the cars totalled in high speed > crashes and don't want the gravy train to end. Why not sue because the car they were in was not indestructible? > It would seem like a no-brainer. If someone is killed on the freeway > by some nut doing say 85 mph, you'd think the victim's family would sue > the manufacturer for making a car DESIGNED to break the law. Should be > easy for the family to win. Just because a tool maker makes a screwdriver that you use to poke your own eye out, don't expect them to make you independantly wealthy because you're a moron. Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 16 Jan 2007 12:45 GMT >It would seem like a no-brainer. I believe Mary Jo's family has brought suit, but for some reason the incident appears to have been swept under the rug.... <crickets chirping> Signaturegpstard (gpsman@driversmail.com) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:" (Message-ID: <1167151218.287827.24230@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>) Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident? "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en Joshua Calvert <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> demonstrates his lack of understanding of the terms "sarcasm", "irony", and "hypocrisy": Poor rightard, forced to whine about an 40 year old event. Message-ID: <Xns970A68202F1C5joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.