My Attorney has a very interesting case
 

My neighbor/attorney has a very interesting case coming up. Without going into a ton of detail he is representing a client that was involved in a car accident. The person was a passenger in the car a 1967 Chevelle . The Chevelle owner was at fault lost controll of the car and went into oncoming traffic. The Chevelle folded up pretty bad. His client lost part of right foot and many fractured bones and the driver faired a little better just a broken collar bone. Other car had some injuries also but all left the seen without any major injuries. So here is whats going on. After all the investigating into this accident (the car was in impound for almost three months) it came out that the Chevelle was equipped with a ''non oem'' chassis. He could not tell me the name of the manufacturer. You can imagine where this is going. His client is now sueing the aftermarket chassis manufacturer. Its not looking good for them thats for sure. The insurance company for the manufacturer paid there end and bowed out it was cheaper to do that than fight this in court. Im very interested to see how this turns out.

I'm assuming some part of the chassis failed and that's the reason the guy lost control of the car?

I sure hope it's not placing blame on the chassis company just because it was in the car and that fact allowed the owner to do something stupid and lose control

Without knowing anything of the specifics, I think that unless something on the chassis failed (due to a flaw in manufacturing or even design problem), I don't think the guy's got much of a case. The chassis manufacturer will likely argue that the driver was contributorily negligent as well, so this could possibly get somewhat messy for everyone involved.

Nothing failed from what I understand . It's coming down to the way the chassis held up in the accident. From what he's telling me came apart like a tin can. They hired a ''consultant'' from the NTSB this suit is no joke thats for sure. There in the process of going over the structural integrity of the chassis. Thats the main focus as it was explained to me . Tried to get more out of him but there was only so much he could tell me.

I can see where this is going, Next thing you know companies will have to crash test their products before being able to sell them on the open market....
I might be way out there but its these kinds of things that lead to more rules.

It's like with anything, there are some people that can cut and weld and think they can make anything. Just like contractors, a guy owns a pick-up, saw and hammer and they think they are a contractor. Anyone building a chassis,chassis components etc. have some responsibility to produce a safe product. This will be interesting.

What about when you see on the majority of products labeled for off-road use only? Does that excuse them from liability? Its an unfortunate incident and good thing nobody died from it. I just hope it does not lead to an instance where people like Roadster shop, Detroit etc have to go through great lengths to put out a product. Hopefully you can keep us updated as much as possible. Thank you.

At the very least this kind of lawsuit will increase the price of products.

Sometimes a manufacturer DOES actually build a faulty or unsafe product.. and frankly - when that happens and somebody gets hurt as a result - too bad for the manufacturer...


Other times it's lawyers and their clients going after the deepest pockets... and that's when it's just plain CRAP...


When I see aftermarket chassis - and I compare them to the FACTORY OEM stuff...(just visually) most everything I've ever seen looks far better than the factory. They are - after all - pretty simple pieces as far as basic design. Two sticks with a crossmember - and some suspension bolted on.


What I always look at and wonder about -- is -- the size and type of tires and brakes we're sticking on this stuff... and then going to tracks to beat on it.... and are these "stresses" ever taken into consideration. I mean - was the suspension and pick up points etc designed for a 305 - 200 or lower tread wear tire -- with 15" 6 piston brakes... banging a corner at 105MPH....


I hope so... :wacko:

I agree. And in turn,...costing the consumer MORE money to purchase because of all the "testing" that had to be done.

Too true my friend.

Not to distract from Mario's OP....


But to me -- this is when a lawsuit is just plain money grabbing crap. Let's see - you're in a race car -- you had the race car built -- you're racing... something breaks (which it does A LOT in racing) and you're suing everybody because it's their fault.

How 'bout you don't race... and then it wouldn't happen.... or maybe since it's your race car and you had it built -- then maybe YOU'RE responsible for making it safer... LOL


http://www.competitionplus.com/drag-...esbitt-lawsuit

This is the society we are in right now. It's everyone else's fault but your own. You sign a waiver when you get your wristband at the track. How can they be responsible. I hope she loses a bunch of money to lawyers and doesn't get a dime. That way there will be a precedent set, that you know you're taking the risk of something happening to you and no more frivolous lawsuits

That may very well happen. But for the vendor, even winning a lawsuit can be quite expensive.

I agree with Greg's statement concerning the aftermarket chassis always look WAY better built than the factory.
I'm a "glass is always half full" kind of guy. I'd have to believe in this case that the aftermarket chassis might have actually saved someone's life. Of course I'm speculating here, but perhaps the factory chassis might have allowed the engine to end up in the front seat. Could have been way more crash damage, with the stock frame. It sounds to me like another case of I should sue someone, because I have a shot at making some money off of this. Geesh...never mind the fact that you actually LIVED!
I wonder if I could sue Kicker? I had 6 15" subs in a Nissan pickup, with a Snugtop, when I was a teenager. I can't hear as well as I used to.......

The sad part about this is the frame manufacturer may not really be at fault ( or may have, I have not seen the pictures ). Things happen in car accident. Sometimes really bad things. But if you can spin what seems bad into a horrible situation you can blame anybody for anything. All you need is a few people with impressive resumes and some special training to say whatever you need. There is no truth meter in any court case filing papers. Anybody can sue anybody anytime for anything they want by paying a filing fee for any reason they want for any amount they want. They actually hope that you will settle so they get a good amount of money without anything more then scare tactics.

Welcome to our system. Until the suing party is liable for legal fees of the party defending themselves to a win your going to have these cases. But when our laws are made by lawyers you make there bread and butter on this stuff, the laws will never change.

Imagine how cheap our insurance rates would we if they just changed this one law.

Simple summary of why the chassis failed?

A glass functions flawlessly until the owner loses control causing an impact resulting in catastrophic failure. :sieg:

Bottom line to me......

Compare the damage and injury that occurred.... vs what would have happened with a completely stock original chassis set-up... If the design resulted in worse physical injury than would have happened with 30+ year chassis design and technology, then maybe there is a case

Otherwise it's crap.... Take responsibility for your own actions...

Just an FYI; IL law states that a passager in a car can NOT be held liable or at fault for an accident, not saying their going to win this case against the chassis company BUT most likely the chassis company's ins will settle before it gets to the court date.

I know this first hand when my wife was a passager in a car years ago. No aftermarket parts involved but still the same law would apply. According to IL law when you are passager in a car you can't be held liable as you are not in control of the car. She was not looking to rich but wanted to get back the $36k in bills from her injuries. Day before first court hearing the ins company settled because of this law.

Not saying that I agree with what is going on here but just pointing out that the passager will most likely get paid!!

One thing I find interesting is the state's investigator is the one thats not letting this go. And actually fueled the fire according my neighbor. It was all quite until the inquires started.

IMO you're dead on right. It's the attorney's duty now to prove that the aftermarket chassis (which is technically a vehicle accessory since the vin is on the body and only on the body) crashed in this specific accident, worse than the original chassis. This would require extensive data and information on that specific type of crash. GM kept only what they needed fo safety back then. Good luck.

I've been concerned about this for a long time - in my case more along the lines of if I was at fault in a crash, could they sue me personally because of my home built chassis ? Could a passenger sue me for hitting their head on a rollcage ? etc..

In this case, what concerns me is less of "did the chassis fail in some way that caused greater injury" but more so "this aftermarket chassis is not crash tested/certified in any way". If it was a stock chassis that is allowed because this is still a free enough country that they won't force old cars off the road. But a new, "re-manufactured" chassis/car is a whole different deal in the eyes of a skilled lawyer, a jury, and a sympathetic victim. Frankly I worry about the whole liability of this new world where eery joker with $20k can bump their car to 1000 hp and then post street racing videos on the internet. With the amount of "racing in Mexico" I read about on the forums I can't believe there haven't been more fatalities (Paul Walker anyone ? )

Well I 'm sure we will all be very interested to see what comes out of htis and who the manufacturer is.

======
(for the record I don't give out a lot of spirited rides, and if I do I always make sure they understand the risks and that they are riding in an "owner constructed" vehicle.)

That would be a tough one, Many manufacturers crash test, I never really thought about it but do any of the aftermarket chassis manufacturers crash test anything. I do know that years back when 3m first came out with the panel bond system it was declined to be used in certain areas of a vehicle for repair because it was to rigid. Think about aftermarket sub-frames, Do you think they absorb the energy in a accident like the stock one would have. They are more rigid,
I feel somebody is digging for money, unfortunately. I also feel you take some liability when you get in a high performance car with someone and plan to go for a good blast up the road. It's a bad deal for all involved, except the lawyer. They always walk away with cash.

My accountant used to laugh and tell me - HE made money - even when I was losing it...


He was right - his bill always got paid regardless.

Lawyers and Accountants,

http://www.pro-touring.com/threads/6...ers?highlight=
me too, I started a thread a while back and the conclusion I came up with is the money you would theoretically pay monthly for insurance... put it in a fund to pay for the lawyer when you need it. Cause there is no underwritter that I know of that would pull it off.

During my years of modifying and improving performance on older cars I have always been told by my customers "ahh don't worry about it, if siht happens its not on you" But what is to stop a spouse or relative from sueing you if something did happen? A loss of a life or major bodily harm can change the tune with anyone.

There has always been that argument that "oh, the aftermarket stuff makes the cars safer than the cars was originally designed". Not really, the original cars didn't do in excess of 130 MPH and pull a "G".


Hearing stories like this scares the crap out of me. Not sure its worth it anymore.

Real lawyers work on contingency. :sieg:

An old fighter pilot's philosophy -- it's a small bullet and a very big sky. Take your best shot. Though it is inevitable, considering the current government regulation trends, that we will all be riding in computer driven econo-boxes some time it the future, it is too early to throw in the towel. Life needs it's little pleasures, or we all become programed, economically equal clones -- not good! I wonder if SEMA is looking at this case? I have been expecting this issue to pop up when a failure of one of the "off-shore's best" 24 inch, flimsy wheels snaps off and puts the car head-on into oncoming traffic. Who do you sue then -- some unknown manufacturer, the U.S. company that imported the stuff, the shop that sold it, the Chinese government, or perhaps the U.S. government for allowing the import of unregulated, inferior junk? I hope it would be difficult for the government to kill the "made-in-America" aftermarket industry without having to face the monumental task of policing the imports.

Wow, got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

Pappy

sounds like either side was the right side. :flag2:

This all reminnds me that I need to set up my LLC.

:bitchslap:

Uh, yeah! You need to keep yourself, your private property, and your family safe guarded from the litigious nature of this country. LLC sub S most likely for you will do that.

I agree with Bob. In general, people just don't take responsibility for their actions. Things can keep being examined and analyzed until the end of time. Ultimately, it will result in poorer economic environment.

Bottom line, sometimes, **** happens!

I have played this game with the FAA in aviation for the last 15 years. I own a wood propeller manufacturing business and used to build wood propellers for antique airplanes. By law I am on the hook for 18 years if one ever failed. Trust me when I say that is not something you want lingering over your head. I built my first ones in 1999 and the last one around 2005/6 so I am still a few years away from being clear. I am very fortunate we have never had a failure and I built several hundred propellers before I quit. Oh, and no insurance company would touch me because it was considered a class 1 primary part so it is all my head if one ever did fail and cause an accident. I had to self insure and make sure I was personally protected in case the layers ever came knocking.

that is a possibility. if the insurance cost goes up and more testing is required someone has to pay for it.

Lawyers love the Walmart world we live in where everyone is making things cheaper and cheaper to try and compete. Instead of just making the best quality part you can anymore.

x 10000000000000

Like the bumper sticker says "First we kill all the lawyers" LOL. Of course I am joking but I hate the bottom feeders that are out to sue everything and everybody. That is why stuff is so damn expensive.