Court rules criminal act unforeseeable...

[BrokenPaw]

The short version:

A 19-year-old girl got a flat tire. She stopped to change it, and was picked up by a man who eventually killed her.

Her parents, in a blinding flash of dimwittery, filed suit against the manufacturer of the tire, as well as the maker of the truck the tire was mounted on, claiming that their negligent sale of a defective product led to their daughter's death.

Longer version:
http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/422142.html

The conclusion:

The high court said while there was evidence that the companies were negligent in making the tire and putting it on the vehicle, they could not have foreseen Cook's criminal acts.

Golly.

If I were Ford or Bridgestone/Firestone, I'd have filed countersuit alleging that, if they (the truck and/or tire manufacturer) were criminally negligent for having produced the truck and tire in question, then the girl was criminally negligent for having taken such an obviously deficient vehicle on the road. And her parents were criminally negligent for having birthed such a reckless child.

What kind of people actually have the lack of neural capacity to come up with lawsuits like this one?

At least this decision sets a good precedent; a manufacturer can't be expected to foresee criminal acts by others...

-BP

 

[TarpleyG]

I wish that trial lawyers were dead goldfish and we had a giant toilet.

GT

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Cook should sue the parents. If they hadn't had a daughter, Cook wouldn't have ruined his own life by killing her. Right? :banghead:

 

[Ol' Badger]

It sounds like the parents are try'n to cash in on their daughters death! "Hun. I know Jane is dead, but lets try to milk ford and firestone out of a few million!"
:banghead:

 

[David Scott]

I have instructed my lawyer to sue Bridgestone/Firestone, Ford, the killer, the girl's parents, The High Road and everyone who posted to this thread, because reading this may have made me miss the opportunity to get a hot oil massage from the Swedish Bikini Team, thereby violating my right to the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I wish that trial lawyers were dead goldfish and we had a giant toilet.

Many are politicians, and can be voted out of office. They'll still be assault lawyers, but at least they won't be able to write laws.

 

[BrokenPaw]

everyone who posted to this thread, because reading this may have made me miss the opportunity to get a hot oil massage from the Swedish Bikini Team

David, you need to add "and everyone [you] were spending time with this weekend" to that list. Because you weren't where I was at, and if you had been, well, let's just say that it wasn't the whole bikini team...

Is it actually possible to hijack your own thread?

Just to keep it sort of gun-related: Why the heck is the outdoor shooting range in Berkeley Springs, WV, only for shotgun and handgun? It's not as if the state is lacking for rifle-lane-sized chunks of land...

-BP, much closer to catching happiness than DScott is , and happy that WV recognises VA CCW...

 

[Iain]

Weren't Bridgestone in trouble for producing dodgy tires for Ford SUV's a while back? That relate in any way?

 

[foghornl]

I would say another court ruling that will help dismiss some of those lawsuits agains firearms makers.


"...they could not have foreseen Cook's criminal acts..." Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

[BrokenPaw]

St Johns,

Yes, it was Bridgestone/Firestone that was embroiled in that whole Ford Explorer rollover fiasco. But I don't believe that the cases are related; the original cases were over tires that catastrophically failed, at speed, which caused drivers to lose control of an intrinsically top-heavy vehicle. Lots of people rolled their Explorers over as a result.[0]

This is a simple case of "she got a flat, and had to change it". If it had been a BF Goodrich, or a Uniroyal, or a Bob's Tire Hut tire on there, you can bet her parents would be after the manufacturer. The only reason that Ford's involved at all is because the tire was the original one that was put on at the factory.

-BP

[0] Never mind that the tires generally only failed when critically underinflated, which is a matter of negligence on the part of the owner, not the manufacturer.

 

[Iain]

Ta, it was just those two company names and lawsuits were linked in my mind and I needed to know why.

I read an article in the Economist a while back that suggested that Ford might go under in a decade. Anyone else heard this?

 

[mjydrafter]

Never mind that the tires generally only failed when critically underinflated, which is a matter of negligence on the part of the owner, not the manufacturer.

"But my exploder-err-explorer rides so much nicer with only 18 psi in the tires..."

Ford did recommend lower than acceptable pressures, and firestone went right along.

These people should really be going after the (assuming here of course) fastener company that made the nail/screw/staple that caused the flat.

 

[agricola]

this is why i really like the idea of costs in English and Welsh civil courts.

 

[longtom4570]

I think it's time to add more chlorine to the gene pool (glug glug glug)