"If you were riding your bike and the front wheel locked because of a faulty design or a manufacturing defect dont you think your family should have the right to recover for your demise"

Well I have to agree on one point, if it were a design defect and the MoCo knew about it but did nothing to correct it, a loud yes from me would be in order. (Think Ford Pinto and Crown Vic gas tank problems).

"They could only be suing for a design or manufacturing defect. If there were no evidence of this the case would have been thrown out way before it made it to the court house."

Sorry to take issue with that, but, that is totally incorrect, especially here in NY/NJ. Anyone can sue for just about anything and with lawyer motions, etc. it is nearly unheard of for a case to be thrown out when filed since the judge has to hear evidence presented and rule on that before a case is summarily dismissed. So could a totally bogus lawsut make it to court before beging thrown out, you bet, thousands upon thousands of them do every year and the cost of the lawyers, motions, and other related crap are all figures into the cost of our shiny new whatever it is we buy on a daily basis.

 

Not talking about taking away trials. Talking about making frivoulous sue'ers pay up MASSIVE lawyer costs and lost work.

You lose your case, you pay the defense. It should be that simple. And make it so the plaintiff lawyers are liable for 33%. You'd see cases go away, and no more "do no stick fork in electrical outlet" signs.

Stupid should not be profitable.

 

"Stupid should not be profitable." Amen big time to that brother. It should be ammended to say that Stupid people and their survivors should not be profitable.

This is obviously all speculation based on incomplete information, but the basic principle can't be argued with. If i use my power lawn mower to trim my hedges or something equally as idiotic, I should have no recourse for whatever happens to me because of my own stupidity.

Vent over.

D'

 

Yeah, but then a lot of people would starve.

 

Well,

It's like DGlide04 said....it makes no difference who's right or wrong or the details or whatever or if it's frivolous......doesn't matter one iota......the suit still has to be addressed by legal even if it doesn't even make it to court, therefore causing a manufacturing expense........lawsuits are what killed the general aviation market........think about it, you build a plane in 1947 and the FAA says it has to be maintained to a certain standard to be airworthy so they are constantly being reviewed and renewed. The thing is, you are on the hook for something the company built SIXTY YEARS AGO! And every time a plane crashes--there IS a lawsuit.......look at the Cessna stats.

Regards,
Draggin S

 

There are already Federal and State rules that prohibit frivilous lawsuits and that provide for costs including reasonable costs of defense and even other penalties. I whole heartedly agree with Rule 11 and all of the accountability in litigation laws that are in place. That is not to say that every plaintiff that loses should pay the defendants costs. There are instances where costs should be, and are assesed, but other instances where costs of defense should not be granted.

Federal Rule 56 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure regarding Summary Judgement provides one remedy for the defendants. If affidavits are made to support thier response to summary judgment in bad faith to create a justicible issue, fees are awarded and contempt is an available remedy. Every defendant has a right ot bring a motion for summary judgment and if there is no way they can win in front of a jury the case will be dismissed. There are a number of other hurdles you must pass before getting to the court house.

I never said that the wheel locked in this case. It was a hypothetical question. But based upon this sketchy article it is impossible to determine what happened. There are other things that could have happend which would raise liability other than a tire locking, like for instance the forks locking preventing the turn or the brakes failing because of a manufacturing defect. I just think that yall are a little quick to claim frivilous lawsuit based on this sketchy article.

Yes people can and do sue for anything and everything. That has always been the way that it is. There are rules of law that weed out these frivilous lawsuits before trial. They also weed out some good ones when you have the wrong judge. And yes frivilous lawsuits cost the inusrers big bucks. But most lawsuits that people see as frivolous because they have not heard all the facts or do not understand the rules of law are in fact very valid. I am just saying the family of this biker should receive the benefit of the doubt and not be called money grubbers until you know whether there is some liability.

You can bet that unless the defense attorney in this case is an idiot that this case has already survived more than one motion to dismiss. Filing a lawsuit is easy, creating a case that will withstand summary judgment and a rule 12 Motion is a little harder. The hardest part is creating a case that a jury will agree with.

If there is no culpability on the part of the moco the jury will find for them. If the Judge finds that the lawsuit was frivilous the lawyers and the family will pay the costs. But if there is a good faith argument for liability, and the defense wins they will not pay the costs.

The rules of law in this country have served its citizens well for a while now. I do not think that we should overhaul them when there is not a major problem. You hear a lot of bitching about frivilous lawsuits coming from insurers who fund studies that tell half truths about the situation. We will see how bad you want tort reform when your right to sue has been curtailed even further. A plaintiff has a right to a trial by jury just as a criminal defendant does. These are the same juries that sentence people to death, dont you think they have enough sense to make a determination over money.

There are some hell hole jurisdictions in this country. Jefferson County MS, the valley in TX, and a few more that I can think of. But in MS we have 82 counties, in about 80 of them, even with clear liability a jury will say that your life is worth less than your anticipated earnings. If something happens to you that is the fault of another shouldnt your family at least recover what you would have earned? This is very true in the majority of states.

BTW there was a 50million dollar verdict in VIOXX litigation today, and the jury is still out on punitives. This is not a frivilous lawsuit...but that award is excessive. Do no

 

The survivors are suing here for the same reason they do in airplane accidents. Their loved one couldn't possibly have done anything wrong therefore it must be a product design defect. The MoCo has the deep pockets and some lawyer convinces them to sue. Usually the company being sued will settle out of court without admitting guilt just to avoid litigation fee's. The lawyer takes their cut, the survivors get theirs, the company's product liability insurance goes up and we all pay more.

 

Not so fast! Remember all of the lawsuits filed (some of them actually won or settled) against the gun industry. There wasn't anything WRONG with the guns...they functioned in the exact way they were designed and built to function.

As has been stated...not enough information in the article to determine if this lawsuit has merit or not...

 

Bobg Are you alledging that this claim is based upon the doctrine or res ipsa locuitor? If that were the case this case would have been long gone. In an airplane there is no opportunity for the passenger to contribute to the accident, for that reason by definition it is someone elses fault, if there is fault. In this instance the decedant had lots of opportunity to cause the accident, and the doctrine is not applicable. The only possible action that could get passed summary judgment in this instance would be a defective product theory. Which could include failure to warn. If you know all of this from reading this article I wish to invite you for an all expense vacation to Las Vegas because you have ESP. I am saying that this was a biker that died. If his death was caused by a product defect his family should be compensated. If there was not a product defect then the family will lose. If that is the case and the defense makes a Motion under rule 11 or that states adoption of the FRCP then the family and thier attorneys will and should be responsible for the defenses cost. FAA regs are the basis for lots of liability. Sure we could loosen the FAA regs, but if they do I am going to quit riding on planes. I fly private a lot, mostly on about a 1974 king air. It is safe because of FAA mandates, you cannot even add a radio to a plane w/o lots of paperwork. There is a lot of expense because of mandated regulations. These things are not cars, when one falls out of the sky there is no telling who it is going to land on.

DMSC, not so fast yourself, I was the first to mention the gun lawsuits......they were and are BS. I think all were dismissed under the time honored premise of "a seller should not be punished for selling good sugar good tobacco or good alcohol" Beer companies do not make us drink too much. Sugar manufacturers are not responsible for our expanding wastelines. This was an attempt by cities to hold gun manufacturers responsible for things that were not thier fault. They used a product marketing theory, and it was a thinly veiled attempt to help the gun control nuts. That is not to say that a gun manufacturer should not be sued if thier gun blows up because of a product defect, but they should not be sued for selling good guns. This is also similar to the tobacco litigation, which was clear cut that the manufacturers attempted to market thier products to children, hid information about the addictive nature of thier product and actively sought ways to make thier product more addictive. The gun companies did none of these things, even the sellers of saturday night specials used defensible marketing stratagies. I think people even tried to sue Mcdonalds because Big Macs make you fat...duhhh. There are lots of lawsuits that do not make sense. But there are already laws that take care of these, and then you have the ultimate blockade a jury. You hear lots about the bad cases that go against the insurance companies because they have lots of money and media pull. You do not hear anything about the cases that go bad for injured persons because they do not have the media connections. I think there are far and away a greatr number of cases where companies get away with murder than cases where they get hit with a big verdict that will not stand up on review anyway. BTW if more tort reform was passed and our rights were curtailed even further do you think insurance companies would willingly pass those savings along to the consumer. The have already admitted in legislative hearings that they would not pass the savings along to physicians.
So yes I agree that the gun lawsuits were BS.

[quote]ORIGINAL: bobg1253

The survivors are suing here for the same reason they do in airplane accidents. Their loved one couldn't possibly have done anything wrong therefore it must be a product design defect. The MoCo has the deep pockets and some lawyer convinces them to sue. Usually the company

 

[sm=WTFsgign.gif][sm=dontgetit.gif]