triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Triumph mechanical drawings?

To: triumphs@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Triumph mechanical drawings?
From: "J.H. Roulleaux" <Jean.Rouleaux@skynet.be>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:07:29 +0100
From:                   "John Macartney" <jonmac@ndirect.co.uk>
To:                     "Triumph List" <triumphs@autox.team.net>
Subject:                Re: Triumph mechanical drawings?
Date sent:              Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:32:45 -0000
Send reply to:          "John Macartney" <jonmac@ndirect.co.uk>


Ken Gano wrote:
>With all due respect to JonMac, this is BS.
>I would defy anyone to send me a citation from ANY jurisdiction where
>liability has been found in this type of situation.  This is pure and
simple
>lawyer bashing and fear based not on fact.

With all due respect to Ken (who, from the tone of his post implies he
may have some legal experience) my earlier post on the availability
(or not) of technical drawings is not as he so succinctly suggests BS.
I deduce this means bullshit?
Rather than clutter up the digest with my lengthy reply to him on what
is essentially a non-Triumph matter, the list may know that while Ken
put forward a number of reasons that in his opinion my reasons were
groundless, I have relayed to him the findings of the European Court
of Justice which presents (to me anyway) an entirely different
perspective.
I'm flabbergasted that the remark comes from the U.S. They are finally the 
inventors of the product liability laws, that are sometimes 
completely ridiculous. Imagine some loony building a braking 
system  or suspension from Triumph drawings,but not using the 
correct alloy.Later on he or one of his clients is killing himself and 
the widow through a clever lawyer is prosecuting the originator of 
the drawings for product liability, as the product failure was a direct 
consequence of the unclear  or uncomplete drawings.Lawsuits like 
that have brought large american companies to their knees.
I have seen reports where an aircraft company (Beechcraft) has 
been prosecuted as a very drunken pilot killed himself because he 
was unable to select the proper fueltank when the engine stoped 
due fuel starvation.Beechcraft had to pay millons of $ to the widow,
because a clever lawyer made clear to the court that the product 
was not protected against incorrect use and that it should have 
been designed in such a way that even a dead drunken pilot 
should be able to switch tanks.This is what I would call BS.
Unfortunetely or maybe not, I don't know , we here in Europe reach 
the same degree of insanity with concern to product liability.Every 
company is now trying to its utmost to avoid  prosecution in case 
their product is used in an incorrect way leading to failure.
regards
Jean    

///
///  triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
///


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>