Speed bump video (now tort law discussion)

[G.Irish]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.topspeed.com/car_news/lamborghini_gallardo_-_wrecked_by_dubai_speed_bumper-ar3138.html">http://www.topspeed.com/car_news/lambor ... r3138.html</a><!-- m -->

[ScottyB]

i have to admit i laughed, but if that was my car getting torn up i'd be freaking furious

[Mike]

GET UP AH! GET ON UP! GET UP AH! GET ON UP!

[Nis01]

Less of a speed bump... more of a ramp. Even cars going fairly slowly got a decent amount of air.

I give the gallardo a 7 out of 10 for stunt points... the landing was a little weak. :lol:

[bassmangrammy]

Yeah, I'd be pissed.

[Goodspeed]

[Jeff]

I wonder if he has any way of getting money from the gov...

[Nick325is]

Probably no money from the government if he was speeding like that. However I am not sure what the laws would be regarding the government posting signs about the speed bumps.


Nick

[Dragon]

I wonder what the speed limit is in that area and what speed these vehicles were going on average.

[Jeff]

In America the city/state would pay dearly for that. Almost like McDonalds did with the hot coffee BS in the 90's... "Caution: contents may be extremely hot" You need to post signs for the stupid people in this country.

[Mike]

I wonder what the speed limit is in that area and what speed these vehicles were going on average.

read the comments below the video.

[Evan]

The interesting thing is that in a country like Dubai, the rich have a huge influence on politics, especially local politics. While the owner of the Lambo may not be able to "sue", anyone with that much money has considerable pull politically (in a shady way most likely) so I bet heads will roll (maybe literally?)

[Dragon]

I wonder what the speed limit is in that area and what speed these vehicles were going on average.

read the comments below the video.

Ahhh didn't bother to check down that far. After reading them though I have 0 sympathy for the driver(s), ~25mph speed limit, plenty of warnings about the speed bump. Screw the whiners and complainers about damage to the vehicles.

[bassmangrammy]

In America the city/state would pay dearly for that. Almost like McDonalds did with the hot coffee BS in the 90's... "Caution: contents may be extremely hot" You need to post signs for the stupid people in this country.

The issue with the coffee was not simply a matter of a posted warning. McDonalds used a lower grade coffee bean that required a brewing temperature that was deemed beyond the expectation of temperature for that of a reasonable person. Compounding the issue was when the customer asked McDonalds to ONLY pay the medical bills incurred as she suffered 3rd degree burns within 5 seconds of the spill, McDonalds refused.

At that point, McDonaldÔÇÖs gross negligence removed then from normal compensatory damage liability to punitive damage liability. The difference being that the monetary judgment in a compensatory case is limited to offset the negative effect of the tort, whereas, the judgment in a punitive case is based on the size of the organization at fault. The punitive judgment serves to punish the organization at fault.

Know your facts before you use an example that really has no correlation to the example at hand. I feel sorry for someone who is hurt by the intentional actions of a firm to marginally increase profits by dangerous means.

I donÔÇÖt feel sorry for some idiot who is grossly exceeding the posted speed limit, and by that action experiences property damage.

[Mike]

of all people, you would justify the mcdonald's coffee lawsuit...

[Jess]

Wow, somebody wants to go to law school...why? :wink:
But thanks for the torts refresher, I start studying for the bar in 2 months.

However, I do believe she did put a cup of hot (albeit extremely hot) coffee between her legs so that she could put the lid on it- as her son was driving the car, and she was found contributorily negligent for that action.

[Nick325is]

In America the city/state would pay dearly for that. Almost like McDonalds did with the hot coffee BS in the 90's... "Caution: contents may be extremely hot" You need to post signs for the stupid people in this country.

The issue with the coffee was not simply a matter of a posted warning. McDonalds used a lower grade coffee bean that required a brewing temperature that was deemed beyond the expectation of temperature for that of a reasonable person. Compounding the issue was when the customer asked McDonalds to ONLY pay the medical bills incurred as she suffered 3rd degree burns within 5 seconds of the spill, McDonalds refused.

At that point, McDonaldÔÇÖs gross negligence removed then from normal compensatory damage liability to punitive damage liability. The difference being that the monetary judgment in a compensatory case is limited to offset the negative effect of the tort, whereas, the judgment in a punitive case is based on the size of the organization at fault. The punitive judgment serves to punish the organization at fault.

Know your facts before you use an example that really has no correlation to the example at hand. I feel sorry for someone who is hurt by the intentional actions of a firm to marginally increase profits by dangerous means.

I donÔÇÖt feel sorry for some idiot who is grossly exceeding the posted speed limit, and by that action experiences property damage.

Yes, it is true that the woman who sued Mcdonalds did so because Mcdonalds was brewing their coffee too hot. They were doing this as part of an advertisment saying that their coffee would still be hot when you got to work.
In reality the correct brewing temperature of coffee is alittle over 200 degrees meaning that you are getting a piping hot beverage when you order a cup of coffee. Last time I checked all coffee was brewed this way. If it was brewed at any less of a temperature it would not be as flavorful. Not to mention...who wants a cup of luke warm coffee?

The point being...she should have expected her coffee to burn her if she spilled it on herself.

I think Jeff was trying to say that in today's litigious society everything needs some sort of warning on it to avoid a lawsuit. If the Lambo owner had been driving on a street in America and hit a speed bump that was not labeled and that caused damage to his car then he would have sued and most likely won. His rate of speed probably would have not kept him from getting some reinbursement.



Nick

[HAULN-SS]

If you own a lambo, I doubt you care about the repair bill.

[G.Irish]

You'd be surprised, some people stretch the f out of their budgets to buy stuff like that. And of course the cost to replace stuff on the Italian bling is stratospheric.

We were just talking about that at Dave and Buster's Friday. Apparently the cost to replace the hydraulic pump that actuates the F355 F1 transmission costs...$16000 hock:

[Jeff]

Know your facts before you use an example that really has no correlation to the example at hand.

Is this something that really required a call out? I have read this and thought on it for almost an hour now. I have come to the conclusion that things like this are what bring down the MM forums. Hate with a laugh at the end or picking on someone is one thing. It can look bad, but isn't. Going out of one's way to write a huge essay about why someone is wrong is the kind of thing that happens on SRTforums and HondaTech. Its something you do to people you will never see (and even I can never do that). I was trying to say that the American Justice system allows for a lot of poor things to get out of hand. This fool in the car deserves nothing for what happened. Coffee is hot...its the way it is. Personal responsibility is on the downturn here in America. You have written a book there that does little for the conversation being made. We are all brothers in speed here at MM and I think we need to take a step back and consider things a bit more. There is no reason to be dividing. I must say however that I like people to call me ignorant to my face, it allows me to do a better job of expressing myself than it does here. Hiding behind a computer screen is the easy way.