My Attorney has a very interesting case - Lateral-g Forums

**DOOM** · #1 02-19-2014, 01:46 PM

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.

DRJDVM's '69 · #2 02-19-2014, 02:20 PM

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

ArisESQ · #3 02-19-2014, 04:03 PM

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.

**DOOM** · #4 02-19-2014, 04:35 PM

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.

OOCustoms · #5 02-19-2014, 04:53 PM

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.

ccracin · #6 02-19-2014, 05:14 PM

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.

GodSpeed · #7 02-19-2014, 05:45 PM

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.

TheJDMan · #8 02-19-2014, 05:50 PM

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

**GregWeld** · #9 02-19-2014, 06:44 PM

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...

**tones2SS** · #10 02-19-2014, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OOCustoms

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregWeld

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...

Too true my friend.