OK, here is what you said.
>>>>>Something occurred to me while I was in the shower. The whole cost-of-lives fracas. Wasn't that the big uproar in the early 70s surrounding the Corvair, another GM product? Wasn't Ralph Nader in the center of that?<<<<<
Yes. But this Malibu was a 1979, so reasonably, one would think that it had been made safer by GM as a result of the Corvair fracas. I would have. My mother had a Malibu, and I had something similar, can't remember the year but it was a 1978 Pontiac that looked a lot like the Malibu but without the open back. I had no idea that they were dangerous, and I keep up with stuff like that.
>>>>>Btm line to me is that since then everybody KNEW the car cos did this sort of number work - and they stopped when a jury punished GM for costing car safety.<<<<<
Does "everyone" know this? The average IQ is around 100, isn't it? How many people even read the newspaper or watch network news? It's not the majority.
>>>>>So it seems to me that whoever is the plaintiff in this latest car case KNEW this (the design weakness of the what, Chev Malibu?) for years - and did not see fit to disclose the case until they had a juicy event like this one. Cuz now there's money to be made in court.<<<<<
Six people were horribly burned in a collision, Lather. A mother, her children, and some other relatives. You don't mean that they drove around hoping to be rear-ended and burned in a car fire.
>>>>>The car cos aren't the only ones doing a cost analysis here. On that basis alone I hope that the plaintiffs 1) lose and 2) are held liable for the entire cost of the suit.<<<<<
What cost analysis did the mother, the children, and the relatives do? Please explain. |
