Chrysler sued for 20 mil????? Your thoughts on this and other ridiculous law suits. (1 Viewer)

[Brian Perry]

The best thing would be if the whole system with punitive damages was reworked, so that the damages would not be awarded to the plaintiff, but to someone else. Don't know who, don't know how to do it, but something needs to be done.

I agree. Give the money to charity or send it to the Treasury.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Joseph --

Exactly so.

From your story, it sounds like what you should have said was "Exactly not". The case where you sat on the jury shows how hard it is to base liability on the depth of a co.'s pockets, because sooner or later the facts have to get presented to a jury (or a judge) -- and if one side or the other doesn't have the goods, it becomes clear very quickly.
In the United Technology case you describe, it sounds like the plaintiff's lawyers made a huge mistake in assessing the strength of their case -- and if they were on a contingent fee, they didn't make money and probably spent a bundle on various out-of-pocket costs. Good lawyers don't make such mistakes, but unfortunately as with any occupation, there are people who do it well and people who do it poorly.
In the Chrysler case that started this thread, it's impossible for anyone to fairly assess the quality of the jury's verdict without having access to everything the jurors saw and heard. With a few famous exceptions, juries generally do try to be fair and reach a just result. Slamming the result without knowing the record is unfair to 12 people (or more if you include alternates) who probably spent a good deal of time and energy trying to do the right thing.
Now, whether laws should be changed to discourage certain types of lawsuits altogether is a different question. Sometimes things don't go the way you'd expect. In 1995 Congress passed (over a presidential veto) certain restrictions on suits involving securities fraud. There is now some concern that those restrictions may impede the ability of injured parties to recover from those responsible for the Enron mess.
M.

 

[Eve T]

I still believe this to be an act of God and that the only reason they went after Chrysler is because they had the money. The guys at the gas station couldn't pay such a tremedous amount of cash. They put the tire on incorrectly. The police said it was due to human error from the people at the gas station who didn't tighten the lug nuts properly.
It's all about the all mighty buck these days. Who has the most cash...get's attacked and takes the rap.Inot in every case) but apprears to be in this case . That's my take on it. When something like a 50 pound tire and assembly is propelled at a high rate of speed on the interstate it's only natural that the impact is going to cause serious damage to any automobile Chrysler included. Sorry it happened :frowning: but it was a fluke, nothing more IMO.
Oh, I saw this article in the latest issue of Mopar Muscle magazine.
Peace,
Eve

 

[Bill_Weinreich]

Working in the automotive field, I see a lot of literature. One that has always stuck in my mind was about ten years ago when a women sued Ford Motor Co. She had rear-ended another vehicle (I believe it was found to be her fault) and she was injured. Her case was that her 1984 Mercury Lynx (Escort equiv.) was not equiped with airbags. Their case was that the technology was available at the time and should have been made available. she won and was awarded over 350k. Rediculous.

Maybe someone could clarify something else. I was told that England doesnt have as big of problem with frivolous lawsuits because if you do not win, ALL costs are to be covered by the one who is suing, including all court, lawyer, and other fees incured in the court process. Is this true? If so maybe a similar system would help clear our already conjested courts.

 

[Bill_Weinreich]

Thought of another one going on now.
Our federal courts are going through a lengthy (hence costly) case to prosecute an already convicted criminal (I think linked to the mob) for giving his wife his own frozen sperm. The Govt wants the sperm destroyed claiming that because he is a criminal it belongs to them????????????
What a legal system

 

[Chad R]

The best case I know about had a woman who was visiting Daytona Beach being struck by lightning. She then sued Volusia County for negligence because the lifeguards didn't tell her to get off the beach during a lightning storm.

[Dr. Evil voice]Riiight[/voice]

Thankfully, she lost.

 

[Mitty]

I'm consistently amazed at how people eat up these stories.

These are media created specialties. They selectively tell one side of a story to incite moral outrage. It's a story. The media is telling the parts which suit the angle of their story, omitting what doesn't.

In almost every one of these "frivolous" lawsuit cases widely reported by the media, there is another side and a lot of "insignificant" (read: not sensational) details that get swept aside.

 

[Sean Conklin]

Oh, I saw this article in the latest issue of Mopar Muscle magazine.

OK I have a subscription to Mopar Muscle(The Small Block shootout issue) and I just got it and my buddy borrowed it immediately! I'm getting it back Wed. though.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I still believe this to be an act of God and that the only reason they went after Chrysler is because they had the money.

That may explain why they went after Chrysler, but it doesn't explain how they persuaded 12 jurors to return a verdict for the plaintiff. The jurors aren't motivated by money (unless you're going to start claiming that bribery is the norm).
M.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

it doesn't explain how they persuaded 12 jurors to return a verdict for the plaintiff.

I don't think unanimity is required in a civil case. All things being equal, who do you think the jurors would want to have $20 million? Chrysler or a grieving family?

Regards,

 

[Michael Reuben]

All things being equal, who do you think the jurors would want to have $20 million? Chrysler or a grieving family?

Sorry, but I just don't subscribe to the popular notion that juries are composed of mindless sentimentalists who base their results on nothing more than sympathy for the injured. Plaintiffs' lawyers may dream of such juries, but they almost never get them.

M.

 

[Henry Carmona]

Sorry, but I just don't subscribe to the popular notion that juries are composed of mindless sentimentalists who base their results on nothing more than sympathy for the injured.

But it does happen. Judges even order jurors to not watch the news or speak about a trial.
They even move trials to other cities or states so as to not place biased jurors on the stand.

 

[Eve T]

Also it's hard to know what you yourself would do if you had to be a juror looking at pictures of the deceased and then looking at her family and children. I'm sure it tugs on the heart strings and that it wouldn't be that hard to award a judgment in their favor instead of a big company like Chrysler. Regardless, I still in my heart of hearts say that there isn't a car company out there that can predict acts of God such as a 50 lb tire and the tire assembly coming off another car and shooting like a rocket towards another automobile. The police already chalked it up to human error from the gas station who put the tire on incorrectly. If anyone was to blame for the accident it was them. That's my take on it.

Peace,

Eve

 

[Philip Hamm]

Eve,
According to the information thus far presented in this thread, this is not by any stretch of the imagination an "Act Of God". If lightning struck the vehicle or a tornado struck it away that would be an "Act Of God". This is a negligence case.

In almost every one of these "frivolous" lawsuit cases widely reported by the media, there is another side and a lot of "insignificant" (read: not sensational) details that get swept aside.

Mitty, that is the most intelligent thing I've read on this thread so far. The whole concept of "Frivolous lawsuits" is so blown out of proportion by the propaganda machine in this country that we percieve it as a real problem. In reality "frivolous lawsuits" aren't really clogging up the leagal system at all and represent only a tiny perecentage of all litigation (in the USA).
It has been my observation that most people who complain about "too many lawyers" and "frivolous lawsuits" have never had the need to file a suit and hire a lawyer in the first place.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Quote:

Well said, Philip.
M.

 

[MikeAlletto]

Also it's hard to know what you yourself would do if you had to be a juror looking at pictures of the deceased and then looking at her family and children.

Maybe I'm just cold and heartless, but I would not have a problem. I would have to hold back laughing at the lawyers because I would realize they are trying to play the sympathy card. Just show me the evidence, let me do my duty so I can go back to my real life.

 

[Sean Conklin]

According to the information thus far presented in this thread, this is not by any stretch of the imagination an "Act Of God". If lightning struck the vehicle or a tornado struck it away that would be an "Act Of God". This is a negligence case.

Yes it is negligence AND an "Act of God", while it was the mechanics fault the wheel came off, The direction and projection the wheel took was an "Act of God". Even IF we cannot consider it an "Act of God"(which is really irrelevant), Chrysler still cannot be held accountable for a 1 in a googol chance that a flying wheel will strike one of their vehicles. Mfg just don't test or specifically reinforce the intregrity of a vehicle for this anomoly, no mfg does. If they took all variables of life into account while designing their vehicles, we would be driving bulletproof ARMY issue Tanks.

 

[Thomas Reagan]

Reminds me of an old Bloom County comic strip:
One of the characters (Bill The Cat?) gets beat up by Sean Penn for taking his picture for the local newspaper. Steve Dallas, local sleaze lawyer, explains who to sue over the incident:
Sean Penn? No way. Psycho actors will just come back and beat you up again.
Opus the Penguin? Nope, even though he sent Bill on the assignment. Why not? He has no money. Number one rule of lawyers: Never sue poor people.
Nikon: Yes! They are the manufacturer of the camera, and although logically have nothing to do with what happened, are a huge corporation with gobbs of cash, a little of which they won't miss to avoid even absurd, poor publicity.
Not too far fetched, huh? God, I miss that comic strip.
Thos.

 

[Henry Carmona]

Henry, the examples you've listed only serve to illustrate the extent of precautions the justice system takes to prevent such things from happening.

LOL
And what are YOU saying Michael?
That because of these "precautions" it could NEVER happen?

Riiight.

 

[Eve T]

Philip, I think it's a little bit of both. Act of God meaning no one would be able to predict that a whole tire and assembly would come shooting at their vehicle like a rocket, I don't know any car companies that test for such a thing. Negligence...hmmmm okay yes but against who? I'm putting my money on the jokers who didn't put the guys tire on properly not Chrysler. For instance say someone is on a golf course riding around in their golf cart when out of the blue a golf ball comes towards them at a high rate of speed hitting the person driving the golf cart and killing them. Who would be at fault here, the golf course owners, the person who hit the golf ball, or the golf cart maker? That's all I'm trying to get at. In many law suit cases these days people are shifting blame and heaping it onto companies that have a mass cash flow trying to cash in. I wonder if Chrysler will now have to put warning stickers on their windshields that say: "WARNING, if a 50 lb tire and assembly come off another vehicle and shoot towards this vehicle at a high rate of speed you could be killed." If people are expecting their vehicles to protect them from acts such as that (acts that are impossible to predict) then maybe they shouldn't be driving period. We all want to be safe but we can't expect our vehicles to do the impossible and shield us from all harm.Let's say for instance hypotheticaly speaking say some clown shot at a vehicle and injured the person inside would it be logical to sue the idiot who shot the vehicle or the car manufacturer for making a car that's not bullet proof? Who knows when something as terrible or freaky as a rocketing tire/assembly coming straight for you can happen? Until we can predict such things maybe we should all drive tanks