Comments on: Particles in power steering fluid not responsible for crash

By: Melvin

Melvin — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:46:08 +0000

I realize the glut of lawsuits, criminal cases, etc. that are loading up the courtrooms, but could someone explain what was done, in this case, to take five-plus years to decide certain people weren’t–SHOULD’NT–have been sued!!

For example, Jiffy Lube (to take what is written here) could’ve said, “We don’t replace power steering fluid, and none of the manufacturers recommend it ever be replaced.” If the plaintiff lawyers could not disprove it, Jiffy Lube is off the hook. The time it would take for that would be a LOT less than five years.

The other question should be why this case was filed five years after the accident. I could understand a year or two, but FIVE YEARS???!!
Can any action be taken against the lawyers for dragging out a case, like this one was?

By: glund0

glund0 — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:20:35 +0000

It stuns me that it takes 5 years for the courts to find that this guy didn't have a case. Why does the current court system allow these things to drag on?

Faster trials might not help reduce the number of these sort lawsuits, but at least it would be over quickly for the defendant. I know if I was being sued, I wouldn't want to spend 5 years thinking about it, let alone the legal fees.

By: steveintheknow

steveintheknow — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:44:24 +0000

So true.

My one jury duty experience so far was a frivolous lawsuit, though too mundane to ever appear in a blog, essay, or on the news.

Anyway, some small time nail salon (sole proprietor) got sued for burning some woman’s face during a routine waxing procedure, one of 20 that day. The trial took about 2 years to get to court – a fact both sides trotted out for sympathy – and took us all of 15 minutes to decide. 15 minutes!

The decision?

No one was negligent. That’s right, nothing happened. %0 negligence for the plaintiff, %0 for the defendant. Nothing.

You could see the sigh of relief on the faces of the owner and his mother (the person accused of the negligent procedure) when the verdict was read.

Anyway, 2 years, and tens of thousands of dollars for 15 minutes of “duh?”.

By: Pat W

Pat W — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:29:45 +0000

From the decision:

“Boss claimed that Aldridge and Eberle negligently
represented the car to be in safe condition and that Jiffy Lube negligently failed to change the power steering fluid.”

One small problem: JL doesn’t change power steering fluid. In fact, no manufacturer recommends that it be changed. EVER.

How are they able to flat out LIE in sworn documents without repercussions?

By: Dick

Dick — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:00:34 +0000

The judge may not have granted an award to Boss, BUT the case was allowed to proceed causing innocent defendants to waste their money.
Why would any judge allow this to happen … because they too are trained as lawyers. It is absurd that someone could be allowed to file a suit like this for more than they settled for from the person that actually caused the accident. What happens to doctors that are caught extending illnesses or providing services that are not needed? Why shouldn’t the same standard be applied to lawyers? Oh, that’s right, because they are also the ones creating and enforcing the laws.

By: Ima Fish

Ima Fish — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:57:29 +0000

Good write-up David. It’s not really the obviously frivolous multi-million dollar pants lawsuits that are causing the problem. It’s the mundane but without any factual or legal basis ones that are causing the real harm.

We had a lawsuit recently where a person claimed to have slipped on 1/4 inches of water in a convenience store. She also claimed that there were no mats where she slipped.

Well, the defendant filed a motion for summary disposition along with a video of the incident. Not only was there no water. Not only was there a mat at the entrance. She did not even fall! Yeah, that was dismissed.

And than there was the case filed by a big-wig Michigan attorney whose brother used to play for the Knack. (Hint hint!)

Anyway, the plaintiff made an illegal left turn into the defendant who had the right of way. The only possible way the defendant could have been at fault was if she was speeding through the intersection. But every single witness testified that the defendant was driving under the limit. He ended up dismissing her from the case.

The remaining defendants in the lawsuit were construction companies who allegedly blocked the plaintiff’s view of the intersection with their equipment, which is bad enough.