fanfoy wrote:
You guys have it wrong. The problem is not with the idiots responsible for this non-sense. Or their lawyers. The problems is the judges. Those are supposed to be highly-competent people in charge of keeping the legal system to a high standard. A judge could have stopped all this madness a long time ago by simply saying "You're an idiot, get out of my court. Case dismissed."
Judges are no less likely to make stupid decisions than anyone else, as in the $54 million pants. I have been in traffic court, had two witnesses say I was hit from behind and pushed into the car in front of me and had the judge say my ticket for following too closely stood. But it's not all the judges' fault.
The problem is that people hire attorneys to get them off at any cost (what I call the OJ effect) and that attorney will, rather than argue the case on its merits, cloud the situation to the point where it's not possible to make a clear decision. As the saying goes, 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullsh!t'. And there goes the objective decision.
moparman76_69 wrote:
It's a chicken/egg paradox. Is it people not paying attention leading to the safety feature or is the safety feature leading people to not pay attention and rely on the car to prevent an accident.
Booth's rule#2: "The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant"
the same for traction control, stability control, seatbelts......
The real problem isn't necessarily all the stupid lawsuits...it's that the people WIN the stupid lawsuits, thus allowing this trend to continue....
Curmudgeon wrote:
fanfoy wrote:
You guys have it wrong. The problem is not with the idiots responsible for this non-sense. Or their lawyers. The problems is the judges. Those are supposed to be highly-competent people in charge of keeping the legal system to a high standard. A judge could have stopped all this madness a long time ago by simply saying "You're an idiot, get out of my court. Case dismissed."
Judges are no less likely to make stupid decisions than anyone else, as in the $54 million pants. I have been in traffic court, had two witnesses say I was hit from behind and pushed into the car in front of me and had the judge say my ticket for following too closely stood. But it's not all the judges' fault.
The problem is that people hire attorneys to get them off at any cost (what I call the OJ effect) and that attorney will, rather than argue the case on its merits, cloud the situation to the point where it's not possible to make a clear decision. As the saying goes, 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullsh!t'. And there goes the objective decision.
ill have to agree with fanfoy, and disagree with Cur on this one. I hold judges completely accountable for the nanny state we live in. Congress does what its told, yes, but only cause McDonalds told them to, and Mc told them to cause they got sued and lost, and they lost cause some bleeding heart liberal judge didnt say "NO". Put that case in front of me, and not only does the woman lose, but she becomes liable and responsible for Mc's courts costs, lawyer fees, and lost business.
And THATS where i think we need to go with this. If you sue, and the suit is labeled frivolous or flagrantly bogus, YOU should be responsible for ALL costs to both the state AND your obviously innocent target. That way, if you decide to bring about a multi million dollar suit, either you or your lawyer will think through it a little bit. This out for blood mentality is horse$#1T, and we need to clean house judge wise, and start making people accountable for their actions.
-J0N
It's not so much that people are stupid, its a case of only a very small percentage of the population having ANY comphehension about how the technology they use every day works. You need to understand that for the majority of the population cars and cell phones are indistinguishable from Magic.
In order to deal with this situation, Under the legal concept of "Reasonableness" (what would a reasoable person do?) the courts have pushed the lack of understanding on to the manufacturere's plate. In other words, it is reasonable to expect that people do not have a clue what the technology does or does not do, and what combinations, permutations and situations may present a potential risk, hence it is your responsibility to protect the entire spectrum of consumers from any possible dangers.
In order to satisfy the letter of the law, you need to find a lowest common denominator consumer and base your efforts from that point. In the case of a car, the driver could reasoably be seen as a 90 year old woman who has never driven a car decided to take up driving as an item on her bucket list and has acquired a new corvette to fill the need.
