Because that is what policemen do...they put thier lives on the line everyday. Not saying this particular lawsuit is right or wrong just think the proposals to fix the "problem" are not well thought out.

 

YES, evidently you heard me right. Jurys are not smart enough!.

They're not smart enough to convict O.J.Simpson. They're not smart enough to send people who spill hot McDonalds coffee in their laps packin' - pennyless. They're not smart enough to send the life-long smoker home without an award. They can't see beyond the emotion of it all. Oh, it's all so sad.

They're not smart enough to understand that THEY are our government. That shareholders are a company. The average member of a jury pool views the government, or a big corporation as bottomless pits of money. For anyone to hit the lottery by jammin' it to a company or the government is a victory for da little man. They don't understand it enough to realize they're reaching around and picking their own pocket.

Unlike you, I don't trust the American system of justice anymore. Our system of justice assumes an intelligent and educated citizens who are as convicted to the ideals of our constitution as the framers. We ain't got that anymore man! Most people in this country don't understand freedom and liberty. They don't even WANT freedom and liberty. They want a friggin' boat! Give me enough money for a plasma TV and health coverage... you can HAVE my freedom and liberty.

Geesh man, it's all around you. Especially and particularly in the civil courts. In the ivory tower, our system of justice works great... maybe even up through the 1960s. It's broken down now. Our courts are being played like a roulette wheel with the citizens in the house seat and the corporations being forced into throwin' the little white ball wether they want to or not.

Of course the insurance company execs are gonna say tort reform won't change insurance premiums. It'l friggin' ELIMINATE them, along with the insurance companies. If corps. are sued out of existance for liability issues, then they'll cease to exist, like it should be. Not charge a few million off to the insurance company, pay 'em back over time in higher premiums, and keep on doin' what they're doing.

YES, I support the death penalty. We need to use it.

Dave

 

What's the lawsuit. Which motorcycle company was sued because their headlights didn't stay on full-time?

Horns!? So, there was a lawsuit that someone filed against a motorcycle manufacturer because it didn't come equipped with a horn. That poor victim won the law suit, and suddenly all the manufacturers started putting horns on them? What was the case?

I think all of these things were mandated by the government at one time or another because Ralph Nader & company imagined a better world where they existed.

I drove a 1972 Pinto. It never blew up. And the Pinto lawsuits didn't result in the use of gas tanks... they'd been using them for many years before that. It was a liability issue on Ford's fault in that particular design... it's not like ALL gas tanks were blowing up and suddenly the world got safer because of this law suit. That one design was repaired (by a piece of plastic) and life went on. No sweeping reforms as GM & Chrysler stood agasp to the revelation that a gas tank could explode.

Dave

 

Lawyers[sm=rant.gif] Tim

 

Juries NEED to keep the precedent of massive cash awards for BS. That way they can get theirs when the time arrives. You hit a bag of cement, not the bike's fault. Burn your cooch on coffee you spill on yourself? Deal with the poached flounder smell.

Tired of all these get rich quick loser-*** piles of crap getting paid for stupidity.

 

GADave, here, here brother. Well said, my sentiments exactly.

 

Boy, do I ever agree with the above quote! Hey Dave, if you haven't seen the movie Twelve Angry Men with Henry Fonda, I highly recommend that you do. Me thinks you'd like it.

 

You think any scoot could handle hitting a bag of cement at 80mph.I"m sure any bike would wobble hitting that bag.What's the most dangerous part of any road for a scoot,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the shoulder.

 

As far as the article and the lawsuit itself, I am pretty disappointed that Harley's lawyers are arguing that the wind from the semi was a big part of why the officer lost control of the bike. I also don't understand why the plaintiff would sue the manufacturer and the dealer. Either it's a design flaw (sue Harley), or it was maintained poorly by the dealer (sue the dealer). If they are serious about the problem being caused by a design flaw, how could they expect a dealer to correct that?

 

In a majority of civil cases, the jury is not smart enough to set aside sympathy if the defendant is a large corporation. I could tell you story after story of real life examples.

HD is paying the cost of defense. They have a multi-million dollar self insured retention. To the extent the complaint asserts a product defect allegation against the dealer, the dealer would be an additional named insured on the HD policy (still subject to the SIR) so HD would be responsible for defending the dealer also.

Bifurcation is a great idea which most judges won't grant because it increases the length of the trial. While it works in death cases, it does not work in cases where the plaintiff was severely injured as they are in the courtroom during the liability phase and the jury does see their injury.