Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (31847)	7/14/1999 12:06:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

<<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? >> Late 60s. Unsafe at Any Speed was his book. The Corvairs were built using independent suspension which wasn't perfected at the time. The CJ Jeep had the same rollover problem. The army jeeps did too.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (31847)	7/14/1999 12:15:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

I am sorry, but I don't get your point. In a product liability suit, it's not the obligation of the plaintiff to disclose design defects. It's the obligation of the manufacturer to make products that are reasonably safe. The manufacturer is the defendant. The plaintiffs are the injured people. If you mean the plaintiff attorney, you still don't understand how it works. As a plaintiff attorney, I may know a lot about defective products, but I have no way of controlling which plaintiffs walk through my door. Even if I engaged in "ambulance-chasing", and personally solicited business from injured people because I knew of a good legal theory for their case, I still have no way of knowing that a person is going to be injured by a product in advance. Public advocacy groups publish data that products are defective all the time. Most people are not aware of the data. They're watching soap operas and sitcoms. It's the obligation of the manufacturer to recall the product and retrofit it if it was dangerous when it was sold. Not the obligation of the plaintiff attorney. I must be misunderstanding you, as you are a very intelligent man, but what you said makes no sense to me. Sorry.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (31847)	7/14/1999 12:33:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

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.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (31847)	7/14/1999 6:05:00 PM
From: melinda abplanalp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71178

I was hit from the rear on the Bay bridge. I was stopped and the guy was going full tilt. He never even slowed down. I could see him coming from my rear view mirror. I went straight up in the air and twirled around into on coming traffic (rush hour reverse commute). I just closed my eyes and held on to the wheel cuz I knew I was going to die. I didn't open my eyes until the car stopped and horns were blasting at me. I was never so happy to get honked at. I looked up to see I was nose to nose with this huge truck with about 4 guys in the cab. I never even thought about the gas exploding. I don't think it is so odd to get hit at 70 miles per hour. I don't think you should burn to death. So I disagree LRL.