Gee, does anyone remember a time when there was personal responsibility,
rather than personal liability? Used to be, you were in charge of your own
stupidity, and if you got hurt, that was your own bloody fault. Today, you
do something stupid and get yourself hurt, or killed, and you can blame
everyone but the one responsible(yourself) and sue the
builders/designers/etc. of a product for your intentional or unintentional
misuse of it, and make yourself rich.
Gotta love the lawyers who came up with that idea. I mean, how much better
can it be, than declaring no responsibility for your own actions(Beechcraft
example- flying drunk) and suing the honest and innocent makers of the item!
Scott
(tired of people who don't follow the proper directions, read the
instructions, or do the right thing, and who get themselves hurt, then try
to blame the rest of the world for their incompetence.)
Please note- defective products are not in question- defective people are.
----- Original Message -----
From: "J.H. Roulleaux" <Jean.Rouleaux@skynet.be>
To: <triumphs@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: Triumph mechanical drawings?
>
> 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
///
|