Community Forums

Lindsay Richards · 12-30-2010, 09:00 PM

Lots of lawyers out there that will take any case on a contingenccy. 30% if settled out of court and 40% if it does. This award will probably be cut way back on appeal. Juries can be very strange sometimes.

parmm · 12-30-2010, 09:24 PM

Does the following from Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. | RV Business , the second article on that page, help you understand better?

"How Did the Court Determine that Goodyear was Liable?
Judge Mills’ decision was based on a lengthy analysis of the history of the G159 tire. Goodyear’s marketing of its G159 tire specifically to RV users and owners when it was intended only to be used on delivery vehicles traveling at a maximum of 65 mph was a definite factor in the judge’s decision. Not only did Goodyear improperly market the tires, they actually increased the maximum speed rating to 75 mph. This was done in spite of the fact that they were well aware of a design flaw that resulted in overheating of the tire when it was used on RVs traveling at high speeds for extended periods. Overheating is a leading cause of tread detachment, which, as in the case of Mr. Schalmo, can result in a catastrophic accident.
The fact that the tire’s treads could separate due to the heat generated on the road was only part of the equation. The trial court also found that G159 tires were not designed in a way to handle the lengthy periods of inactivity of the RVs themselves — these vehicles are typically parked for months at a time, putting constant pressure on the tires. Somewhat ironically, the inactivity contributes to the tires’ failure when the vehicle is in use."

And here is another interesting quote fromt he same web page:
"This is not the first time Goodyear has been in the cross hairs over G159 failure cases. As many as a dozen claims have been settled out of court, under the cloak of “confidentiality” despite the fact that serious injuries and deaths have resulted from the tire failures."

You can defend Goodyear all you want, but it is pretty clear that they knew what they were doing long before they did it! They even admitted it in a trade magazine in 2006.

Midniteoyl · 12-30-2010, 09:28 PM

Quote:

They even admitted it in a trade magazine in 2006.

Allegedly admitted...

Fred and Bonnie · 12-30-2010, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack R

To much is being made of the driver leaving their seat. I'm sure they had their cruise on!!

jack

Jack, isn't that procedure SOP?

fred

parmm · 12-30-2010, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midniteoyl

Allegedly admitted...

'However, in a 2006 Fleet Owner magazine feature, a Goodyear marketing communications manager acknowledged that the G159 was a truck tire that had not been developed for RVs. That same year, Goodyear stopped selling the G159 and replaced it with a more robust tire specifically designed for motorhome use." Nothing "Allegedly" about that.

ralper · 01-02-2011, 12:24 PM

Most tires are rated for 65 MPH sustained speed. Most RV tires are just barely strong enough to do the job. Combine these two factors and neglect by the owner and disaster is brewing up fast. In my travels I have been on roads with a 75 MPH speed limit. Many (cars, big and small trucks and RV's) are going 80 MPH. Tire companies or the government should publisize these facts.

ccc · 01-05-2011, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wthomas1

I don't know the merits of this case but, I do know that these awards are not paid for by the Company. You and I pay for these type of awards in higher prices for insurance premiums and consumer products.

Just my opinion.

---------------------------------------------

Just as Wayne said WE ALL PAY FOR THESE AWARDS.
They should be called EXPENSES as that is what they are to all of us.
No, companies do not pay the judgment WE DO through higher prices for insurance and higher prices for the tires that we buy.

The sooner people in this country realise that ONLY CONSUMERS pay for insurance and taxes the sooner this nonsense will slow or stop.

CCC

Dick Noble · 01-05-2011, 01:54 PM

CCC, I must, with respect, disagree with you. Business' that produce an inferior or dangerious product must be punished. Prices for products are set by what the market will bear. Increasing a product's price because of losing a lawsuit should decrease sales. The publicity for this type of suit is what we need to see. We are not a fully informed public without this type of punishment. In any case, it appears that Goodyear had to increase the quality of it tires. Thats a good thing.

UFO Pilot · 01-05-2011, 05:28 PM

As I stated, I wasn't arguing the merits of the case. If you don't believe that you as a consumer pay for these type of awards, ask your Doctor how much malpractice insurance adds to the fees that he or she charges you.

A jury locally just awarded a man 11.7M for a back injury. Juries seem to think they are punishing those bad, evil companies. Companies don't have some "magic" pot of money to pay awards like these. That money will eventually be paid for by consumers like you and me.

As always, just my opinion.

ccc · 01-13-2011, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dick Noble

CCC, I must, with respect, disagree with you. Business' that produce an inferior or dangerious product must be punished. Prices for products are set by what the market will bear. Increasing a product's price because of losing a lawsuit should decrease sales. The publicity for this type of suit is what we need to see. We are not a fully informed public without this type of punishment. In any case, it appears that Goodyear had to increase the quality of it tires. Thats a good thing.

----------------------------------------

Dick,
I am NOT commmenting on the merits of any case, of course some,if not many are justified. Just dont think that for one minute that you, the consumer are not paying for them. You are, period.

Hopefully that "bad companies" who do harm will go out of business.

What must come to an end are the frivolous suits the "hot coffee" type.

By the way, in the spirit of full disclosure I am a retired attorney, having practiced on Main street for 41 yrs.

CCC

melvonnar · 01-14-2011, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wthomas1

As I stated, I wasn't arguing the merits of the case. If you don't believe that you as a consumer pay for these type of awards, ask your Doctor how much malpractice insurance adds to the fees that he or she charges you.

A jury locally just awarded a man 11.7M for a back injury. Juries seem to think they are punishing those bad, evil companies. Companies don't have some "magic" pot of money to pay awards like these. That money will eventually be paid for by consumers like you and me.

As always, just my opinion.

Just to set the record straight"
How many on those mega million awards realy get paid?
Answer-----very few
There are apeals and apeals and apeals, most don't get a dime.

The atorneys are the ones making out here.

Lindsay Richards · 01-14-2011, 02:49 PM

The lawyers always get paid.

melvonnar · 01-15-2011, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lindsay Richards

The lawyers always get paid.

The TV is full of lawyers wanting to sue anyone for just about anything; -----discusting.

R1Kirby · 01-15-2011, 03:54 PM

After three years of RV fulltiming, I think anyone who drives an RV at 75 mph is a complete idiot with no regard for other on the road. It all boils down to "Me First". I have seem several wrecks involving RVs and it all came back to speed.