It seems reasonable to me that they would sue everyone they possibly could sue and I'm surprised, shocked really, that so many of you didn't expect this.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
RogerHScott
Active Member
Rest assured that every entity within a 100-mile radius with a nickle of assets will be sued. Call it "legal carpet bombing"
Better increase you radius, Tesla is a couple thousand miles from them.Rest assured that every entity within a 100-mile radius with a nickle of assets will be sued. Call it "legal carpet bombing"
I really hate lawyers because I naturally distrust any profession that would have me as a member.
Who gets named in the lawsuit has little to do with who might be at fault and everything to do with who has the deepest pockets. #Murica
RogerHScott
Active Member
I didn't say those were the only criteria...Better increase you radius, Tesla is a couple thousand miles from them.
I think a reasonable person would conclude that the family would sue everyone and their mother.
*changing subject slightly* Consider the optics of fighting in court a Navy Seal war veteran and noted Teala supporter. It's a tough call because even though they can settle without assuming liability it opens the door if they settle.
I tried to use less words, but my point was that, yes, I expected the parents to sue (Expected? Yes). A reasonable person would expect the parents to sue. But that doesn't make it reasonable to sue (Reasonable? No).
My experience having served on two juries is that being an engineer may increase your odds of being picked. I was called for 3 jury duty sessions over the years while I lived in Texas and ended up getting picked on 2 of the cases. (One civil and one criminal). Both times I was pretty far down in the jury pool, so they had to weed through several folks to get to me.
Sure, I could have probably gotten out of the service, but I do consider it part of my civic duty and found the experience worthwile of my time for both occasions.
Years ago I owned an exotic car rental company. One of my clients drove a 6 figure Italian sports car in front of a bus and got hit. An old lady on the bus fell down and broke her hip - everyone got named in her lawsuit - including me.
To my great consternation my insurance company settled with her rather than fight it.
To my great consternation my insurance company settled with her rather than fight it.
RogerHScott
Active Member
Insurance companies are trying to win wars, not battles. Sort of like long ago when if your idiot son got drunk and killed someone in the next village everyone understood that it was better to give that village a couple of your cows (i.e., pay them off) than to have them
go to war with you in the name of "justice".
cpa
Active Member
Actually, they did cause the explosion. They were welding pipes together, and a spark ignited the gas. The appellate court found that the 20+year experienced plumbers should have known that pickling the new pipes takes several days. The plumbers did not check first to see if another plumber had turned off the gas at the main, as he knew they were going to be welding. And, if I recall correctly, commercial plumbers who work with new gas lines have a device to measure gas concentrations before they light up a smoke or do some welding. They failed to use it in this instance.
This is a pretty complex case involving (potentially) three different negligent actors. The truck driver was likely negligent, the driver of the Tesla was likely negligent and it's possible that Tesla was negligent. I know some of the facts of this case but certainly not all of them. Florida is pure comparative responsibility state (Comparative responsibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) so bringing in all the potentially negligent actors is important. Due process requires that a person or corporation must be a party to a claim to be liable for damages from that claim.
Theories of negligence related to each party:
- Truck driver: turned left across two lanes of traffic to make a turn, probably didn't look adequately?
Mr. Brown:
- Failed to adequately monitor his surroundings while driving? Was he watching a movie and not paying attention?
Tesla: (these are only possibilities, I'm not advocating for any of them)
- Product liability:
The civil liability system is the alternative to having the state dictate the outcome in these types of situations (the other option is the Hatfields and McCoys). Individual juries decide fault on a case-by-case basis because we haven't managed to come up with a better system.
Theories of negligence related to each party:
- Truck driver: turned left across two lanes of traffic to make a turn, probably didn't look adequately?
Mr. Brown:
- Failed to adequately monitor his surroundings while driving? Was he watching a movie and not paying attention?
Tesla: (these are only possibilities, I'm not advocating for any of them)
- Product liability:
- Failure to warn. Was the warning that the driver must always pay attention, even when autopilot is engaged, sufficient?
- Design defect. Is there an element of the AP system that is defective in its design. This is where they would look at, and balance, the relative utility of AP versus the cost of a "perfect system."
- Manufacturing defect. If the system is not defective in its design, was it made incorrectly in some way? Unlikely given that we have video evidence of the system working in the past and the car is likely too badly damaged to be usable for evidence.
- Design defect. Is there an element of the AP system that is defective in its design. This is where they would look at, and balance, the relative utility of AP versus the cost of a "perfect system."
- Manufacturing defect. If the system is not defective in its design, was it made incorrectly in some way? Unlikely given that we have video evidence of the system working in the past and the car is likely too badly damaged to be usable for evidence.
The civil liability system is the alternative to having the state dictate the outcome in these types of situations (the other option is the Hatfields and McCoys). Individual juries decide fault on a case-by-case basis because we haven't managed to come up with a better system.
It sounds like you're an attorney (or play one on TV)
. What's your view on the potential impact of an action on Tesla from the NHTSA and NTSB to this case?
It sounds like you're an attorney (or play one on TV)
Didn't hide that well, did I?
Usually the outcomes of government agency investigations can be persuasive to a jury but they aren't dispositive for the issue being raised. Put another way, they're just more evidence... but they can be really good evidence if they support your position.
Another thing to be aware of is that, to the extent that such a report reaches a conclusion that's the same as the jury is supposed to decide (e.g. who is at fault) they may not be admissible. The reports may also be inadmissible hearsay. They're very likely hearsay but might fall under an exception.
How true.
The basic truth is the lawyers are looking for an easy payday and their actions are NOT based on any "injury" the family may have suffered.
Are you saying a family member (mother, father, wife, children, etc..) are not injured in some way by a fatality?
Similar threads
