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: Ilaine who wrote (31856)	7/14/1999 1:17:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

I don't get it, Cobe. Are you taking some of this personally? >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.< My turn to say "what does this have to do with it??" Everybody in this case means (to me) the folks whose professions require them to know it. Car execs, Gov't watchdogs, and various specialist attorneys. News folk. I presume that those people do read the newspaper. Why are you introducing a red herring? Imo of course. >But this Malibu was a 1979, < OK I thought it was a '73. The chronology does change things some. >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.< And do we have evidence that these victims initiated the big-money suit? Who was whispering in their ears, I wonder. Look, I don't in any way want to trivialize this family's misfortune. But they got rear-ended by a drunk going 70mph. I don't see how it's reasonable to hold the manufacturer liable for the ensuing (please ignore all puns...) fire. To me that is the nut of the issue. Yes, people got burned in a wreck involving a GM car. But holding the manufacturer liable under these circumstances (70 mph!!!!) strikes me as irresponsible. And asking for Five Billion just adds to my impression of greed over good. The bit (in your link earlier) about trying to force the distribution of product-liability settlements doesn't sit right with me either. It's like a "reverse lottery" imposed on the manufacturers, and it's a very clever political diversion. Again jmho. If it can be demonstrated that their car WOULD have blown up under a more normal (say 30mph) collision - then sure. Nail GM, cuz then I'd accept that they knowingly built a defective product. Especially after the Corvair lesson. But under the circumstances I don't clearly see that the product was defective. So I don't see the goodness of this suit as I understand it. Does this help clarify my opinion?