https://news.yahoo.com/kevin-hart-likely-file-lawsuit-220541042.html
Interesting stuff is towards the end: Kevin Hart handed keys to a 720hp modified 1970 Plymouth, some girl got in the (non existent seat) back, and friend wrecked it on Mulholland drive, famous for dangerous curves. Car didn't have all the safety equipment modern cars have, gov is considering rules to make custom shops put safety stuff in even if it's not OEM.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on September 22, 2019, 03:52:02 PM
https://news.yahoo.com/kevin-hart-likely-file-lawsuit-220541042.html
Interesting stuff is towards the end: Kevin Hart handed keys to a 720hp modified 1970 Plymouth, some girl got in the (non existent seat) back, and friend wrecked it on Mulholland drive, famous for dangerous curves. Car didn't have all the safety equipment modern cars have, gov is considering rules to make custom shops put safety stuff in even if it's not OEM.
Fuck that shit. Shit happens. Don't be an idiot.
If I was the company, I would sue the idiot driver for being and fucking douche fuck idiot.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on September 22, 2019, 03:52:02 PM
https://news.yahoo.com/kevin-hart-likely-file-lawsuit-220541042.html
Interesting stuff is towards the end: Kevin Hart handed keys to a 720hp modified 1970 Plymouth, some girl got in the (non existent seat) back, and friend wrecked it on Mulholland drive, famous for dangerous curves. Car didn't have all the safety equipment modern cars have, gov is considering rules to make custom shops put safety stuff in even if it's not OEM.
Anybody who pays a shop to do that kind of work should be signing a stack of documents stating that they know that what they're paying for does not meet any current safety regulations, has not been crash tested in that configuration, and has not been tested for handling. The person who pays for such cars needs to assume all
liability.
And honestly; these cars are pretty fucking hairy at 4-500 HP. 700+ on any sort of street tires without traction or stability control on a RWD vehicle: well, you'd damn well better know what you're doing.
This is not gonna end well for Mr Hart :(
But hey, it could have been worse:
https://jalopnik.com/man-dies-after-crash-in-home-built-honda-civic-based-ka-1825681533
I'm still not sure I believe this lawsuit. All the sources/websites I've seen writing about it are xlickbait. Yahoo is the most legit one but that's not saying much and they're probably just copy pasting it
My truck has no seat belts, one pot master cylinder with drum brakes, no ABS system, a metal dash, a gas tank behind the driver's seat, no clutch safety switch and one speed windshield wipers. And yet, I'm still alive.
It's a miracle!
It reminds me of the Paul Walker (Fast and Furious guy) lawsuit. He died when he was in a Porsche Carrera GT and his friend was driving like an asshat on public roads and crashed and burned. Walker's daughter and father both filed lawsuits against Porsche for making a very high hp car with inadequate safety features like no stability control. Porsche settled with both of them (probably for millions but the amount was not disclosed).
I wouldn't be surprised if the car modifier in this case also settles with Hart and his passengers. Juries are stupid and California juries may be more stupid than the average jury.
Quote from: veeman on September 22, 2019, 08:00:24 PM
It reminds me of the Paul Walker (Fast and Furious guy) lawsuit. He died when he was in a Porsche Carrera GT and his friend was driving like an asshat on public roads and crashed and burned. Walker's daughter and father both filed lawsuits against Porsche for making a very high hp car with inadequate safety features like no stability control. Porsche settled with both of them (probably for millions but the amount was not disclosed).
I wouldn't be surprised if the car modifier in this case also settles with Hart and his passengers. Juries are stupid and California juries may be more stupid than the average jury.
This little speed shop doesn't have the same sort of pockets Porsche does.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on September 22, 2019, 06:58:28 PM
I'm still not sure I believe this lawsuit. All the sources/websites I've seen writing about it are xlickbait. Yahoo is the most legit one but that's not saying much and they're probably just copy pasting it
Could be. But when a lawyer says they'll win what do plaintiffs have to lose?..
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 22, 2019, 09:52:27 PM
This little speed shop doesn't have the same sort of pockets Porsche does.
A shop doing what they do probably has business liability insurance with a max payout of $1 million or something like that. Just guessing though.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 22, 2019, 09:52:27 PM
This little speed shop doesn't have the same sort of pockets Porsche does.
And production cars operate under a different set of rules from modified/custom cars.
"Lets put all custom shops out of business because Kevin Hart and his friends are idiots" :facepalm:
It would be naive to think there isn't a contingent in California that would like to outlaw custom cars entirely.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 23, 2019, 05:27:13 AM
"Lets put all custom shops out of business because Kevin Hart and his friends are idiots" :facepalm:
:hesaid:
Quote from: veeman on September 22, 2019, 10:41:43 PM
A shop doing what they do probably has business liability insurance with a max payout of $1 million or something like that. Just guessing though.
How liability insurance going to payout when the business delivered exactly what the customer ordered, and which is within the well established norms of the business? If you order a custom toaster without a circuit breaker and then decide to make toast in the bath, your electrocution your own damn fault.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 23, 2019, 07:50:35 AM
How liability insurance going to payout when the business delivered exactly what the customer ordered, and which is within the well established norms of the business? If you order a custom toaster without a circuit breaker and then decide to make toast in the bath, your electrocution your own damn fault.
Like I said, juries are stupid. Why did Porsche settle with the Walker family? He died because his friend drove like an asshat. But the plaintiffs argued that Porsche new they were making an unsafe car as evidenced by internal emails, blah blah and so forth. The plaintiffs can argue in this case that the car modifier should have known that modifying a classic car with so much extra horsepower without putting any additional safety features constitutes negligence blah blah and so forth. Even if the customer wants it that way. In the end it's all about stupid juries, stupid people, and the mess the U.S. civil justice system is.
Quote from: veeman on September 23, 2019, 08:37:19 AM
Like I said, juries are stupid. Why did Porsche settle with the Walker family? He died because his friend drove like an asshat. But the plaintiffs argued that Porsche new they were making an unsafe car as evidenced by internal emails, blah blah and so forth. The plaintiffs can argue in this case that the car modifier should have known that modifying a classic car with so much extra horsepower without putting any additional safety features constitutes negligence blah blah and so forth. Even if the customer wants it that way. In the end it's all about stupid juries, stupid people, and the mess the U.S. civil justice system is.
Objection!
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 23, 2019, 05:37:45 AM
It would be naive to think there isn't a contingent in California that would like to outlaw custom cars entirely.
It would be naive to think there isn't a contingent in the United States that would like to outlaw cars entirely.
This is a terrible, terrible idea.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 23, 2019, 07:50:35 AM
How liability insurance going to payout when the business delivered exactly what the customer ordered, and which is within the well established norms of the business? If you order a custom toaster without a circuit breaker and then decide to make toast in the bath, your electrocution your own damn fault.
Quote from: veeman on September 23, 2019, 08:37:19 AM
Like I said, juries are stupid. Why did Porsche settle with the Walker family? He died because his friend drove like an asshat. But the plaintiffs argued that Porsche new they were making an unsafe car as evidenced by internal emails, blah blah and so forth. The plaintiffs can argue in this case that the car modifier should have known that modifying a classic car with so much extra horsepower without putting any additional safety features constitutes negligence blah blah and so forth. Even if the customer wants it that way. In the end it's all about stupid juries, stupid people, and the mess the U.S. civil justice system is.
The settlement, if any, is to avoid the cost, diversion and PR fallout of a lawsuit, esp. for a large well-known corporation like Porsche.
Plenty of small businesses don't carry insurance and have essentially no assets to go after.
In this case, those only remotely connected with the incident - from the government entity in charge of the road, to the suppliers of components, to Hart himself, will pay.
If the comapny had mounted a Pratt & Whitney 6000 turbofan jet engine on the roof of the car and then said go ahead and drive it, then I could see a potential lawsuit. Maybe. But this 'Cuda was a beautifully built, and thoroughly capable machine. The driver just did not respect it.
In the future: custom "one-off" car builders will have to build several identical cars for crash testing purposes. :rockon:
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 23, 2019, 09:52:20 AM
In the future: custom "one-off" car builders will have to build several identical cars for crash testing purposes. :rockon:
Or like I said, have a phone book sized stack of legal disclaimers that need to be signed before making the order.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 23, 2019, 07:50:35 AM
How liability insurance going to payout when the business delivered exactly what the customer ordered, and which is within the well established norms of the business? If you order a custom toaster without a circuit breaker and then decide to make toast in the bath, your electrocution your own damn fault.
Toaster have circuit breakers in them now?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 23, 2019, 10:04:33 AM
Toaster have circuit breakers in them now?
Probably not. But anything could happen.... In the year 2000.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 23, 2019, 10:03:32 AM
Or like I said, have a phone book sized stack of legal disclaimers that need to be signed before making the order.
How about I just sign the phone book?
This is the equivalent of suing McDonald's because you spilled your hot coffee.
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 23, 2019, 10:09:42 AM
This is the equivalent of suing McDonald's because you spilled your hot coffee.
That lawsuit isn't nearly as bad as everyone made it out to be.
If this lawsuit does happen, there's a good chance SEMA's lawyers get involved to make sure they don't make a stupid ruling
Quote from: CaminoRacer on September 23, 2019, 10:41:03 AM
That lawsuit isn't nearly as bad as everyone made it out to be.
When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". Ah, yes the old "your coffee is unreasonably dangerous" argument.
In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards. An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F (69 and 83 °C), and that two coffee outlets tested, one Burger King and one Starbucks, served hotter coffee than McDonald's.Why not sue the company that makes the coffee maker instead? Ah, somebody tried that one.
In McMahon v. Bunn Matic Corporation (1998), Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic, finding that 179 °F (82 °C) hot coffee was not "unreasonably dangerous."
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 23, 2019, 10:57:48 AM
When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured".
Ah, yes the old "your coffee is unreasonably dangerous" argument.
In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards. An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F (69 and 83 °C), and that two coffee outlets tested, one Burger King and one Starbucks, served hotter coffee than McDonald's.
Why not sue the company that makes the coffee maker instead? Ah, somebody tried that one.
In McMahon v. Bunn Matic Corporation (1998), Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic, finding that 179 °F (82 °C) hot coffee was not "unreasonably dangerous."
https://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/the-mcdonald-s-coffee-cup-case-separating-mcfacts-from-mcfiction.html
Quote from: CaminoRacer on September 23, 2019, 10:41:03 AM
That lawsuit isn't nearly as bad as everyone made it out to be.
No. It's kind of like the Toyota unintended acceleration thing. It's become a big talking point, but when you actually get in the details, it's not what is commonly portrayed at all.