I’m sorry, I don’t see where Chrysler is liable at all in this case. She was driving a minivan, not a tank. What car is designed to stop a speeding tire in flight? While I agree there is definately some liability on the service station, that is where it should stop. I a surprised the plaintiff didn’t sue the tire manufacturer and the country of bolivia where the rubber was grown from the rubber tree. No wonder people don’t want to work for a living anymore, they feel they can get the $$ for free.
I concur. An automobile is designed to withstand accidents with other vehicles/objects that they run into. Hence the front & side impact crash tests that the must perform. What’s next, a suit against a car maker because it failed to stop a bullet from a drive-by shooting?
There was a woman in a nearby city that was killed when some kids threw a cement block off an overpass that went through her window. Maybe the automaker should be sued because it didn’t create a force field to repel all foreign objects.
First of all, $5mil a piece for mental anguish is just ridiculous. $5mil for all of the kids together is just as ridiculous. And plaintiff attorneys wonder why tort-reformers want caps on non-economic damages!
As for the main topic of the article, I’m not sure I understand. Is the appellate court saying that the award against DaimlerChrysler should be reduced by what the settling defendants paid, or is it saying that the settling defendants should have to pay more that they agreed to at the time of the settlement?
If it is the first, that makes some sense to me, although I’d like to know whether the second jury knew about any of the settling defendants when they came up with this whopper of an award, and if they will be allowed to know what the previous settlements were.
If it is the second, then this looks like it is new, and dangerous, precedent. You settle before verdict, maybe don’t even put on a defense or arguments, and then just when you think it’s over, post verdict, the judge brings you back in. Is that even allowed under the NJ RCP?
Totally absurd verdict, absolutely ridiculous finding of fault, and irresponsible court findings. The only good thing is that these “poor” children will now have enough money with this assanine award to go out and buy a Mercedes Benz…..hell, a dealership! And finally, a huge “UP YOURS” to the juries.
If youse don’t like dodging with yo Dodge in the great Garden State, then stay the H@LL off of da roads. I seen even woise tings than flying tires and i aint thrown NONE of dem. Most of da time we just bury da whole car. And fugeddabout looking for the spare – aint NOBODY in da trunk.
You got the gov’t and environmentalists trying to get car manufacturers to improve gas mileage on cars, which results in lighter cars. You got the s-bag lawyers suing and taking advantage of the lighter cars. It’s crazy. Next time I get shot, can I sue Van Huesen because the shirt didn’t stop the bullet?
I’m sorry, I don’t see where Chrysler is liable at all in this case. She was driving a minivan, not a tank. What car is designed to stop a speeding tire in flight? While I agree there is definately some liability on the service station, that is where it should stop. I a surprised the plaintiff didn’t sue the tire manufacturer and the country of bolivia where the rubber was grown from the rubber tree. No wonder people don’t want to work for a living anymore, they feel they can get the $$ for free.
I concur. An automobile is designed to withstand accidents with other vehicles/objects that they run into. Hence the front & side impact crash tests that the must perform. What’s next, a suit against a car maker because it failed to stop a bullet from a drive-by shooting?
There was a woman in a nearby city that was killed when some kids threw a cement block off an overpass that went through her window. Maybe the automaker should be sued because it didn’t create a force field to repel all foreign objects.
First of all, $5mil a piece for mental anguish is just ridiculous. $5mil for all of the kids together is just as ridiculous. And plaintiff attorneys wonder why tort-reformers want caps on non-economic damages!
As for the main topic of the article, I’m not sure I understand. Is the appellate court saying that the award against DaimlerChrysler should be reduced by what the settling defendants paid, or is it saying that the settling defendants should have to pay more that they agreed to at the time of the settlement?
If it is the first, that makes some sense to me, although I’d like to know whether the second jury knew about any of the settling defendants when they came up with this whopper of an award, and if they will be allowed to know what the previous settlements were.
If it is the second, then this looks like it is new, and dangerous, precedent. You settle before verdict, maybe don’t even put on a defense or arguments, and then just when you think it’s over, post verdict, the judge brings you back in. Is that even allowed under the NJ RCP?
another clear example of pursuing the “deep pocket”, liability has nothing to do with it
Totally absurd verdict, absolutely ridiculous finding of fault, and irresponsible court findings. The only good thing is that these “poor” children will now have enough money with this assanine award to go out and buy a Mercedes Benz…..hell, a dealership! And finally, a huge “UP YOURS” to the juries.
If youse don’t like dodging with yo Dodge in the great Garden State, then stay the H@LL off of da roads. I seen even woise tings than flying tires and i aint thrown NONE of dem. Most of da time we just bury da whole car. And fugeddabout looking for the spare – aint NOBODY in da trunk.
You got the gov’t and environmentalists trying to get car manufacturers to improve gas mileage on cars, which results in lighter cars. You got the s-bag lawyers suing and taking advantage of the lighter cars. It’s crazy. Next time I get shot, can I sue Van Huesen because the shirt didn’t stop the bullet?
I have one question, is Joy Z. Boy drunk or on drugs?
Like I said – fugeddaboutit. Drugs and drink makes woikin dis insurance stuff easier.