The $15,000,000 oil change

All the shit that doesn't fit!
If it doesn't go into the other forums, stick it in here.
A general free for all
User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18297
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: The $15,000,000 oil change

Post by BoSoxGal »

Jarlaxle wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 4:32 pm
Lawyers are the single biggest problem in history.
Even for you that’s a colossally idiotic statement.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8542
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: The $15,000,000 oil change

Post by Sue U »

Jarlaxle wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 4:32 pm
Sue U wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 1:34 pm
So you think the guy who got killed is to be blamed for his own death? Should his estate and his widow/children have no right to fair compensation for the value of his life and injuries?
From the responsible party, sure. From a guy who had nothing to do with it, hell no.

You're correct...the dead guy is also blameless.
And that is exactly what the lawyers here -- and the trial court -- have attempted to do. Even though the STATUTES, written by THE LEGISLATURE at the behest of the INSURANCE INDUSTRY, says the dead guy's estate/widow CAN ONLY SUE the VEHICLE OWNER. Can you identify the actual source of the problem? Or are you just going to continue to blame "the lawyers"? What do you think they should do differently? Should the widow and four young children just suck it up?
Jarlaxle wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 4:32 pm
How is the automobile owner facing "complete ruin"? He has insurance. His insurance company is seeking indemnification from the auto dealership (and its insurer) as the at-fault party, so that the dealership will be on the hook for damages caused by its own negligence. The lawyers in this case are actually trying to place responsibility where it belongs as a matter of common sense. What is wrong with that?
I'd bet he doesn't have $15 million worth of insurance. "Seeking indemnification" doesn't mean he gets it. And (yet again), he still, if he has any sense, has to pay a lawyer!
Do you have some problem with reading comprehension? As has already been pointed out: 1) "He" is not paying a lawyer; his insurance company (and now the dealership's insurance company) is providing his legal defense AT NO ADDITIONAL COST because THAT IS WHAT THEY PAY INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR. And you're right that he probably doesn't have $15 million in coverage or assets, but NOBODY IS GOING TO BANKRUPT HIM WITH THIS LAWSUIT BECAUSE HE IS EFFECTIVELY JUDGMENT-PROOF BEYOND THE LIMITS OF HIS INSURANCE COVERAGE. The whole idea here is to GET THE DEALERSHIP TO PAY through indemnification, and that's exactly what THE TRIAL COURT ORDERED.
Jarlaxle wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 8:10 am
No-meaning you know EXACTLY what "lawsuit lottery" means, and pretending otherwise is beneath you.
Bullshit. There is no such thing as a "lawsuit lottery," that's a slogan made up by the US Chamber of Commerce and its merry band of corporate criminals to convince the gullible that there's something wrong with the civil justice system, so that they can justify changing the rules to avoid facing responsibility for their bad acts. It's a political propaganda campaign that has been largely adopted by Republicans because corporate interests are exactly who their constituents are. (If you don't know what ALEC is you might want to see where your "tort reform" legislation actually comes from.) American civil justice is the product of 800 years of evolution and is a constitutional cornerstone of our democracy. Those of us who work in it know that juries are pretty consistent in determining liability and damages, which is what enables the vast majority of cases to settle: there is a decades-long track record we can look to in calculating the likely result. Good cases settle, bad cases get dismissed on motions; only cases with issues go to trial, and as a rule juries are extremely serious about performing their job as representatives of the community.
Jarlaxle wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 8:10 am
First, we're not talking about some other case in a different state with different laws and different liability issues; we're talking about the case you posted in the OP.
Whooooooosssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Similarly-ridiculous case, similarly-ridiculous claims, similar approach to naming defendants who had nothing to do with what happened. Fortunately, the case was dismissed...though I'm sure at considerable cost to Laguna Seca raceway. The jackass who crashed should be on the hook for the track's and the track day organizer's legal bills (six figures). Just defending the suit resulted in the track day organizer going out of business. (Directly from a track day organizer: even BEFORE this asshole tried to cash in, HALF their operating cost is insurance.)
Again, completely irrelevant to the case in the OP, involves different facts, different claims, different issues of liability, different state's law. You are doing nothing but attempting to distract from the actual issues at hand. And since this case was dismissed, your complaint is what, exactly? II just proves my point about bad cases being dismissed. If the "track day organizer" had insurance, he didn't pay any legal bills, his insurance company did, because THAT'S WHAT INSURANCE IS FOR; defending the suit (again,THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S ACTUAL JOB) is not what put him out of business.
Jarlaxle wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 8:10 am
Second, you still haven't explained why this lawsuit is "ridiculous," especially since this is exactly what the Michigan auto statute requires. What part of this lawsuit is ridiculous? The widow seeking compensation for her dead husband and family? Or the auto owner seeking indemnification from the dealership? Should either have "thought twice" and not pursued any claim here?
One more time: the one being sued is the only living person involved who is blameless!
And one more time: This is the MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE'S choice, not the choice of the parties or the lawyers or the court who are trying to get to the right result. Why aren't you bitching about the auto dealership refusing to take responsibility for giving a kid with no driver's license and no experience with a manual transmission the keys to a stick shift car? How do you expect them to be held to account?
Jarlaxle wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 8:10 am
And here's the kicker, just for you: The Michigan auto statute as it stands today, which is driving this very litigation, is itself the product of "tort reform" legislation passed in 1995. So clearly "tort reform" is the galaxy-brain solution to such ridiculous lawsuits.
Loser pays is part of the solution.

Lawyers are the single biggest problem in history.
And again, you provide no explanation for how "loser pays" would make ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL in this case. It is the lawyers who are actually trying to make the responsible party pay. The entire issue in this case is whether the STATUTE ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE will prohibit that.
GAH!

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: The $15,000,000 oil change

Post by Jarlaxle »

Sue U wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 7:22 pm

Do you have some problem with reading comprehension? As has already been pointed out: 1) "He" is not paying a lawyer; his insurance company (and now the dealership's insurance company) is providing his legal defense AT NO ADDITIONAL COST because THAT IS WHAT THEY PAY INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR. And you're right that he probably doesn't have $15 million in coverage or assets, but NOBODY IS GOING TO BANKRUPT HIM WITH THIS LAWSUIT BECAUSE HE IS EFFECTIVELY JUDGMENT-PROOF BEYOND THE LIMITS OF HIS INSURANCE COVERAGE. The whole idea here is to GET THE DEALERSHIP TO PAY through indemnification, and that's exactly what THE TRIAL COURT ORDERED.
If he doesn't have his own lawyer, he's stupid.
Bullshit. There is no such thing as a "lawsuit lottery," that's a slogan made up by the US Chamber of Commerce and its merry band of corporate criminals to convince the gullible that there's something wrong with the civil justice system, so that they can justify changing the rules to avoid facing responsibility for their bad acts. It's a political propaganda campaign that has been largely adopted by Republicans because corporate interests are exactly who their constituents are. (If you don't know what ALEC is you might want to see where your "tort reform" legislation actually comes from.) American civil justice is the product of 800 years of evolution and is a constitutional cornerstone of our democracy. Those of us who work in it know that juries are pretty consistent in determining liability and damages, which is what enables the vast majority of cases to settle: there is a decades-long track record we can look to in calculating the likely result. Good cases settle, bad cases get dismissed on motions; only cases with issues go to trial, and as a rule juries are extremely serious about performing their job as representatives of the community.
Look, I get it: you want to keep yourself and fellow lawyers employed. I understand.
Again, completely irrelevant to the case in the OP, involves different facts, different claims, different issues of liability, different state's law. You are doing nothing but attempting to distract from the actual issues at hand. And since this case was dismissed, your complaint is what, exactly? II just proves my point about bad cases being dismissed. If the "track day organizer" had insurance, he didn't pay any legal bills, his insurance company did, because THAT'S WHAT INSURANCE IS FOR; defending the suit (again,THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S ACTUAL JOB) is not what put him out of business.
The track day organizer is out of business due, entirely, to a baseless lawsuit! Read, for comprehension!
And one more time: This is the MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE'S choice, not the choice of the parties or the lawyers or the court who are trying to get to the right result. Why aren't you bitching about the auto dealership refusing to take responsibility for giving a kid with no driver's license and no experience with a manual transmission the keys to a stick shift car? How do you expect them to be held to account?
Criminal charges, enormous fines, prison time.
And again, you provide no explanation for how "loser pays" would make ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL in this case. It is the lawyers who are actually trying to make the responsible party pay. The entire issue in this case is whether the STATUTE ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE will prohibit that.
I have. You ignored it. One more time: it makes people think twice before filing ridiculous lawsuits. It's not enough of a deterrent, but it's a start.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: The $15,000,000 oil change

Post by Scooter »

How does this lawsuit qualify as "frivolous"? Because no real injuries were sustained? Somebody died. Because the wrong person is being sued? The owner of the vehicle is the ONLY person that the law allows to be sued. So tell us, genius, how was the family of the victim supposed to proceed, according to law, so that their claim for reparations would not be considered "frivolous" in your eyes?

Oh, and your moronic little quips did absolutely nothing to rebut a single word of what Sue wrote. Because she knows the law you, clearly, know less than nothing.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: The $15,000,000 oil change

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

I introduced the word 'frivolous' into this conversation on 18 May. Just for the record, it was part of a discussion of 'who pays?' and I never intended that my comment should be taken as an indication that I thought this lawsuit was frivolous. The fact that the (IMO blameless) car owner is being sued is probably an unintended (??) consequence of Michigan's law as enacted. If the final result is that the dealer and its insurance company pay up and help to assist the family of the auto tech who was killed, the dealer changes his training and job assigning procedures, and the owner gets his vehicle back and pays nothing - then the system will have worked.

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18297
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: The $15,000,000 oil change

Post by BoSoxGal »

ex-khobar Andy wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 12:37 pm
If the final result is that the dealer and its insurance company pay up and help to assist the family of the auto tech who was killed, the dealer changes his training and job assigning procedures, and the owner gets his vehicle back and pays nothing - then the system will have worked.
And that’s exactly what torts litigation is for - to remedy harms that emerge from negligence.

I don’t get why Jarlaxle can’t grasp the value of such a system in a nearly unfettered capitalist system. He must be one of those people who thinks corporations actually care about him and rich people make jobs and wealth trickles down.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: The $15,000,000 oil change

Post by Scooter »

He has bought into Corporate America's bullshit that holding them accountable for their wrongdoing is somehow bad for him.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: The $15,000,000 oil change

Post by Jarlaxle »

BoSoxGal wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 2:51 pm

And that’s exactly what torts litigation is for - to remedy harms that emerge from negligence.

I don’t get why Jarlaxle can’t grasp the value of such a system in a nearly unfettered capitalist system. He must be one of those people who thinks corporations actually care about him and rich people make jobs and wealth trickles down.
Because I believe that stupid should hurt. If you do something stupid (say...ironing pants you're wearing, or putting Gorilla Glue in your hair, or target-fixating on a sandbag and crashing your Ducati), you should not get anything for your own idiocy.

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18297
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: The $15,000,000 oil change

Post by BoSoxGal »

This man was engaging in the required activities of his wage work when he irresponsible negligent boss let an idiot teenager RUN HIM OVER. He was IN NO WAY contributorily negligent! How the fuck do you overlook that by pointing to the few cases where the plaintiff is also negligent?! This is one case where your loyalty should absolutely lie with the deceased victim of negligence and his minor children including a newborn who will never even know its father thanks to some sleazy dealership owner cutting corners to maximize his profits. The fact that you can’t concede that point unequivocally is evidence of deficit of compassion and common sense.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9014
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: The $15,000,000 oil change

Post by Bicycle Bill »

BoSoxGal wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 4:28 pm
...thanks to some sleazy dealership owner cutting corners to maximize his profits.
When did you add clairvoyance and omniscience to your oh-so-many talents, skills, and life experiences?
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: The $15,000,000 oil change

Post by Jarlaxle »

BoSoxGal wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 4:28 pm
This man was engaging in the required activities of his wage work when he irresponsible negligent boss let an idiot teenager RUN HIM OVER. He was IN NO WAY contributorily negligent! How the fuck do you overlook that by pointing to the few cases where the plaintiff is also negligent?! This is one case where your loyalty should absolutely lie with the deceased victim of negligence and his minor children including a newborn who will never even know its father thanks to some sleazy dealership owner cutting corners to maximize his profits. The fact that you can’t concede that point unequivocally is evidence of deficit of compassion and common sense.
Yes, the dealership should be buried. I wouldn't consider putting them out of business and all assets being transferred to the family of the dead guy to be inappropriate.

The idiot that ran him over should go to prison, so should the guy that told him to move the Jeep.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8542
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: The $15,000,000 oil change

Post by Sue U »

Bicycle Bill wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 5:41 pm
BoSoxGal wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 4:28 pm
...thanks to some sleazy dealership owner cutting corners to maximize his profits.
When did you add clairvoyance and omniscience to your oh-so-many talents, skills, and life experiences?
Image
-"BB"-
If you're putting untrained and inexperienced workers in charge of operating potentially dangerous equipment, it's not because you're spending to hire the best or otherwise ensure on-the-job safety.
GAH!

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9014
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: The $15,000,000 oil change

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Sue U wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 6:42 pm
If you're putting untrained and inexperienced workers in charge of operating potentially dangerous equipment, it's not because you're spending to hire the best or otherwise ensure on-the-job safety.
I agree, Sue, but there is always the possibility that the person who drove the Jeep — the person who did not know how to properly drive a manual-transmission vehicle — may have misrepresented himself as being capable of doing so, and up until this incident his lack of ability had never come into play.

The other thing I was sounding off on was BSG's penchant for weighing in on literally every issue, post, item, and statement on this board as if she were the be-all, end-all, ultimate arbiter of all things under the sun.  I don't doubt that she is an educated woman and does have expertise in many fields that I do not, but her constant bloviating about how "I did this" or "I knew someone who did that" or "I heard of an incident where... ", or other non-stop attempts to interject her 'wisdom' makes her come off as a female counterpart of a certain orange-faced, red-hatted gasbag who would never accept the possibility that he might be seen as ignorant on anything either.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

Post Reply