EVO All Evo Model Discussion

Harley-Davidson faces suit in Marshall court

  #1  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:18 PM
RLH3175's Avatar
RLH3175
RLH3175 is offline
Stellar HDF Member

Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Hallsville, Texas
Posts: 3,129
Received 2,405 Likes on 901 Posts
Default Harley-Davidson faces suit in Marshall court

A long read, but he is blaming HD for not forcing him to buy a bike with anti-lock brakes.

The personal injury trial of an East Texas couple against America's top motorcycle maker, Harley-Davidson, began here, in Marshall's federal court, on Monday, with visiting Judge Robert Schroeder III, of Texarkana, presiding.

"What brings us to the Marshall (court) today are the safety standards that protect all of us," Nelson Roach, of Nix Patterson & Roach LLP in Daingerfield and lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Mark and Pamela Jones, stated in opening arguments. He said these are the safety standards that protect people whether driving on the road or handling toys at home.

"Harley-Davidson violated this standard," Roach said.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs, who reside in Pittsburg, sued the company in June 2014, claiming that the company's lack of an antilock brake system on the Harley motorcycle the couple purchased cost them serious injuries, following a near fatal collision in 2013.

The couple is seeking $75,000 in the case, excluding interest and costs. Giving jury instructions, Judge Schroeder informed that the couple contends that the rear wheel would not have locked and the motorcycle would not have capsized if it was ABS equipped. The plaintiffs also contend that it was unreasonably dangerous because it was not equipped with ABS.

He said the defendants contend that the motorcycle was not defective and that the company isn't negligent. Harley also contends that the injuries were a result of the plaintiff's fault and could've been avoided with a mild application of the foundation brakes. The defendants contend that the plaintiffs were negligent and that the negligence contributed or caused their injuries.

Roach argued in opening statements that his clients are not at fault, as the defendant alleges.

"Harley would say Mark braked too hard. It was a reflex under the extreme emergency he faced," Roach contended.

He argued that ABS eliminates wheel lock and capsize or fall over.

"It only cost Harley less than 2 percent of the purchase price (to install ABS)," Roach argued. "They did not put this device on my client's vehicle. ABS should've been on my clients' motorcycle."

Roach said Harley knew that ABS does not hurt the usefulness of a motorcycle or the rider's experience. ABS only kicks in when the wheels lock or when the rider needs it, he explained.

"It would've only cost them (a little more than $300) to put it on my client's motorcycle," he said.

The small investment would've made a great impact for his clients the day they encountered their near fatal collision while riding their Harley-Davidson Electra Glide Classic motorcycle, which was purchased from the Harley-Davidson dealership in Paris, Texas around June 15, 2012, he said. According to the lawsuit the motorcycle came equipped with unlinked 32-millimeter, four-piston fixed front and rear brakes, which the manufacturer billed as "state of the art and top of the line."

The accident
Thirteen months later, on July 6, 2103, the couple was in an accident while en route to Oklahoma for a weekend trip.

"They were not in a hurry," Roach said, describing the forecast as a clear and sunny day.

He said they were riding in the northbound lane of Texas Highway 271 in Mount Pleasant, approaching Wal-Mart, when a southbound Chevrolet Avalanche driven by Robert Viviano cut in front of them, turning left, in the exact same way as explained in a crash study 34 years before.

The incident forced Mark, who was driving, to attempt an emergency stop to avoid crashing into the vehicle.

"No time to think, Mark slammed on his brakes," Roach said, explaining he engaged both the front and back brakes of the motorcycle.

The motorcycle's front and back wheels locked up, causing the motorcycle to skid, fishtail and become unbalanced.

"Pam was thrown off the motorcycle; Mark slid off," Roach said, noting the police report indicated Mark was not speeding.

Pamela, a former bank teller, suffered a skull fracture, traumatic brain injury, a pulmonary contusion, a spleen injury and shattered left elbow. Mark, who worked more than 15 years at Texas Eastman, sustained three skull fractures, several broken bones and a severe brain injury that placed him in a medically-induced coma for several weeks.

"Mark's medical bills are over half a million dollars; Pam's is a quarter of a million dollars," Roach said.

"Had the motorcycle been equipped with an anti-lock braking system the likelihood of these serious injuries occurring would have been eliminated or substantially reduced," the lawsuit states.

Roach said the accident is not the fault of the driver of the Avalanche, as Harley contends.

"He made a split second decision to run in to Wal-Mart too early," Roach said of the driver, Viviano. "Harley had 10 years (to install ABS)."

Kircher argued that Jones was not confronted with an actual emergency.

"When Mr. Jones, according to the expert, saw the vehicle turning into his lane, he was 75 miles away from his vehicle. He could've come to a complete stop in the roadway. If he had just slowed down by a mile or two or three an hour with a minimum application, (the incident could've been avoided," Kircher said, contending that the motorcycle and vehicle never touched each other.

Roach said, by 2012, Harley should've equipped all of its motorcycles with ABS just like BMW did.

And when BMW moved forward with equipping their motorcycles with ABS, Roach said "Harley-Davidson hit the brakes" on their progress.

"In 2011, BMW announced it will make ABS standards in 2012. Harley said they needed to take a page out of BMW's handbook." Roach said. "Harley could've added ABS.

"Instead, they decided to treat ABS like a luxury item instead of a key (item)," he said, explaining they wouldn't allow customers to buy ABS equipped motorcycles unless they also purchased an alarm system or one with more luxury items.

"They only made motorcycles equipped for police cycles and more expensive cycles," Roach said. "Harley did not have ABS available on several of its models."

Thus, many people who could barely afford a motorcycle had to sacrifice when it came to their safety, Roach argued.

He contended that the motorcycle company was not fully informing its customers of the safety benefits of ABS even though they knew them.

"Many customers remained unaware of the benefits of ABS. Harley chose to keep ABS optional on some of the motorcycles and completely unavailable on some," he said.

Roach said his client, Mark, was not aware ABS was available on the bike he purchased.

He argued that the company didn't tell Jones about the statistical studies conducted on ABS and that ABS was undoubtedly safer.

He said Harley may blame the plaintiffs' injuries on the couple's failure to wear helmets, but they were in full compliance with the law.

"In Texas it is legal to ride a motorcycle without helmets," Roach argued, noting his clients do wear them, however, in states that require them.

He said jurors will hear from a doctor who will testify that while helmets would've helped with some injuries, both Mark and Pam would still have some injuries - even with a helmet.

Opening statements
In his opening statements, Harley-Davidson's counsel, Mark A Kircher, of Quarles & Brady LLP in Milwaukee, placed blame on the plaintiff, Mark Jones, for the way he responded during the crash.

"We are here because an untrained, unpracticed motorcycle rider's mistakes," Kircher said, arguing that the plaintiff failed to take a motorcycle safety education course as encouraged by Harley Owner's Group. He contended that the way Jones "over-braked" made him skid, causing the incident.

Kircher said, in the case, the question is not whether ABS should be standard or if it can be safer because under certain circumstances it can.

"The question is whether it was unreasonably dangerous without it when it was purchased," he said.

He said Harley has been refining ABS systems on more of its models in the past 13 years.

Kircher argued that prior to 2012, the plaintiff, Jones, an avid rider, had never applied the brakes hard enough to skid.

"Don't be misled to think this is something that happens every day, all day to anybody," Kircher told jurors.

He noted that in 2010, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration examined data, determining that there's no evidence that ABS evidence on motorcycles made a difference.

He said evidence will show that ABS cannot prevent lockup of a rear wheel due to engine braking.

Kircher argued that the plaintiff knew of the benefits of ABS because they were listed in the owner's manual. He noted that the potential for accidents and skidding when over applying a brake was also noted in manuals.

He further argued that it is undisputed that, as of 2012, Harley offered more models of motorcycles with ABS available than any other manufacturers in the world.

He said it's clear that ABS was an available option on the motorcycle Jones purchased, and that it came in a bundled package with the factory security deal for $1,195.

"Those were bundled together. Mr. Jones declined the security option," he said, noting he therefore declined the ABS option.

"They'd say he chose to buy a motorcycle without ABS," Roach said. "More importantly, even if it had been reasonable to make it optional, Harley didn't tell customers what they needed to know to make an informative decision."
 
  #2  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:28 PM
RLH3175's Avatar
RLH3175
RLH3175 is offline
Stellar HDF Member

Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Hallsville, Texas
Posts: 3,129
Received 2,405 Likes on 901 Posts
Default

Moderator, I'm sorry, this should be in off topic
 
  #3  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:37 PM
QC's Avatar
QC
QC is offline
Club Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Centennial, CO
Posts: 100,442
Received 19,784 Likes on 9,863 Posts
Default

It should be in the trash can.
 
The following users liked this post:
Beemervet (01-10-2017)
  #4  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:45 PM
shorelasHD's Avatar
shorelasHD
shorelasHD is offline
Ultimate HDF Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SW FL-Jersey Shore Emigre
Posts: 5,454
Received 2,858 Likes on 1,270 Posts
Default

Tagging this thread. An interesting case, clearly the least important factor in this crash was the presence/absence of ABS on the plaintiff's bike.
 

Last edited by shorelasHD; 01-10-2017 at 06:46 PM. Reason: typo
  #5  
Old 01-10-2017, 08:36 PM
texashillcountry's Avatar
texashillcountry
texashillcountry is offline
Dirt don't hurt

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Haslet Texas
Posts: 20,999
Likes: 0
Received 4,317 Likes on 1,946 Posts
Default

Maybe it's just me but it sounds like a newbie rider panicked and got hurt.
 
The following users liked this post:
TwiZted Biker (01-11-2017)
  #6  
Old 01-10-2017, 08:47 PM
Yamaharley's Avatar
Yamaharley
Yamaharley is offline
Outstanding HDF Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Wayne County, PA
Posts: 2,530
Received 545 Likes on 421 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by texashillcountry
Maybe it's just me but it sounds like a newbie rider panicked and got hurt.
Makes sense but a new rider should have been wearing a helmet. Especially the passenger knowing the rider is new.
 
  #7  
Old 01-10-2017, 09:14 PM
texashillcountry's Avatar
texashillcountry
texashillcountry is offline
Dirt don't hurt

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Haslet Texas
Posts: 20,999
Likes: 0
Received 4,317 Likes on 1,946 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Yamaharley
Makes sense but a new rider should have been wearing a helmet. Especially the passenger knowing the rider is new.
I'm not arguing that.
Hell a newbie rider shouldn't be carrying a passenger IMO.
the plaintiff failed to take a motorcycle safety education course
 
  #8  
Old 01-10-2017, 10:33 PM
0maha's Avatar
0maha
0maha is offline
Seasoned HDF Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Omaha
Posts: 6,513
Received 4,667 Likes on 1,660 Posts
Default

Next step: The MoCo is responsible because they didn't equip the bike with four wheels, crumple zones, air bags and active braking systems.
 
  #9  
Old 01-10-2017, 10:52 PM
Prot's Avatar
Prot
Prot is online now
Club Member

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
Posts: 21,752
Received 14,115 Likes on 6,203 Posts
Default

Let me get this straight. Helmets are not required by law at the location of the accident so the lack of helmet use is being ignored as a factor in the skull/ brain injuries. ABS brakes are not required by law but the motorcycle not having them is being cited as the cause of the injuries and Harkey Davidson is being sued despite being in compliance with the law. Meanwhile the Avalanche that caused the panic braking to occur is ignored. Harley offered ABS as an option but the buyer chose not to buy that option and Harley is to blame because their motorcycles are too expensive. The rider was a novice and panic braked needlessly but that's disregarded as well.

I wonder if they took any type of riser safety course or if they rode other bikes prior to this one.

The lawsuit is so stupid that the only way I can see anybody thinking this is a solid case is if they have brain damage. Interestingly enough, both the rider and passenger have brain damage, so there you go.

This is yet another example of what is wrong with the legal system.

Harley Davidson is seen as an entity with deep pockets that would rather settle out of court instead of being convicted in the court of public opinion which is based on anything but fact.

Can you say gimme dat?
 
The following users liked this post:
Skogdog (01-10-2017)
  #10  
Old 01-10-2017, 11:46 PM
yellowstone kelly's Avatar
yellowstone kelly
yellowstone kelly is offline
Tourer
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 391
Received 101 Likes on 72 Posts
Default

Unbelievable...

Another shining example of "I'm an idiot and I screwed up and we got hurt, and somehow it's your fault. Give me a big pile of money."

The older I get, the less I understand.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Harley-Davidson faces suit in Marshall court



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 PM.