If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   Court to allow widow of drunk driver to sue Volkswagen for contributing to husband's death.   (nypost.com) divider line 58
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

5007 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Feb 2002 at 8:11 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
fb-
2002-02-20 08:14:45 AM
I want to sue Volkswagen for making those ugly ass cars and stupid commercials.
 
2002-02-20 08:16:24 AM
My car makes me drink, too.

Walking over her husband's corpse to make a money grab at the big eeeevil corporation. Humans make me sick.
 
2002-02-20 08:16:48 AM
GEEZ. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
 
2002-02-20 08:19:21 AM
::sigh:: This is giving me a headache.
 
2002-02-20 08:23:15 AM
Ah, the culture of blame...gotta love it.

I'm suing McDonalds for making me have gas and blowing a lucrative job interview!
 
2002-02-20 08:30:28 AM
In reinstating the lawsuit, Justice Richard Wesley wrote for the majority that widow Shauna Alami "does not seek to profit from her husband's intoxication."

Bullshiat. She is a gold digger like everyone else that takes these pathetic cases to court.

"I certainly don't want to open the door to let people think it's OK to drink and drive, but as a consumer, I certainly have a right to a safe product," said Alami.

Listen you moron. If you drink and drive no one is to blame but yourself. You have a safe product, as long as you operate under the conditions intended. If you alter those conditions with alcohol the product is no longer responsible for what happens to the dumbass behind the wheel.

Silhadi Alami of Briarcliff Manor died after his '89 Jetta jumped a curb at about 35 mph and smashed into a steel utility pole as he exited the Saw Mill River Parkway in Yonkers.

I feel for the pole.

VW lawyer David Hamm said the company will prove that Silhadi Alami's death was solely the result of his drunken driving.

This shouldn't be that hard to accomplish due to the fact that any moronic case can be presented to a judge in the USA. I am amazed a judge is even willing to take time out of their day to rule over such a pathetic suit.

Oh yeah!

Just more proof that America has the best damn judicial system. Period.
 
2002-02-20 08:30:47 AM
Looks like the Ass'n of Trial Lawyers of America bought off some more judges . . .

NY law is soooooooooooooo farked up.
 
2002-02-20 08:31:01 AM
Wow, she must have been an automotive engineer to come up with that argument... When will these evil car companies produce a car that lets me drive 35 mph into a steel utility pole and live?
 
2002-02-20 08:32:14 AM
Old VWs are death traps. I can almost hear them now when they bought the car:

"This thing is like driving a tin can. You'd be dead in an instant."

"Yeah, but it gets 35 miles to the gallon. Sign me up!"

Ugh, people are stupid.
 
2002-02-20 08:32:59 AM
I got drunk and stabbed a guy with a piece of Kmart flatware...they ought to make butterknives that don't allow that!
 
2002-02-20 08:34:16 AM
... probably no win - no fee arrangement with a hearse chaser
 
2002-02-20 08:35:12 AM
I am glad to see other farker agree, that it is always someone elses fault.
 
2002-02-20 08:35:18 AM
"She asks only that Volkswagen honor its . . . duty to"
"The majority's rationale . . . invites people injured"

Does... this guy have... a... stuttering problem... or what? Kinda like 99% of politicians who's favourite word is 'uhh'. "Wel, uhh, we planned the budget uhh, for the first uhhh of the year uhh..."
 
2002-02-20 08:35:30 AM
I wonder how many hypocrites think this is ASININE but still think people should be able to sue gun manufacturers.
 
2002-02-20 08:37:11 AM
I think the car was driving
 
2002-02-20 08:40:10 AM
Gun manufacturers? no way. The money is in Tabacco.
 
2002-02-20 08:48:26 AM
Here is a bio picture of the defense lawyer for Volkswagen

don't suspect VW will have any chance of losing the case now!
 
2002-02-20 08:54:47 AM
can i sue her for being such a stuipd golddigging biatch?? she caused me emotional damages or something like that.

and anyone who wants to sue a gun manufactuer is even worse. at least she's claiming that the cars floorboard messed up or something.
 
2002-02-20 08:54:57 AM
I own a Jetta...I'm not gay...I've hit many drunks with my car and have never crumpled any of the safety features.
 
jph
2002-02-20 09:01:13 AM
BTEzra420:

Where are her nipples?
 
2002-02-20 09:10:24 AM
JpH: I will have to decline to answer that question on the advisment of my attorney and my Fith Ammendment Rights, that it may incriminate me.
*just thought I would whip that out seeing that it's a wicked popular thing to say these days especially when your are as guilty as sin
 
2002-02-20 09:13:12 AM
As usual you have to read to the VERY END to find out what her case is based on:

Shauna Alami said her husband's injuries were more severe because the VW's floorboard buckled during the collision and did not have sufficient "subframe reinforcement."

"I certainly don't want to open the door to let people think it's OK to drink and drive, but as a consumer, I certainly have a right to a safe product," said Alami.

VW lawyer David Hamm said the company will prove that Silhadi Alami's death was solely the result of his drunken driving.


Hmm. Now if this was a design defect, wouldn't people all over the world get together for a massive class action suit? I know people all over the US would...

If This suit fails, she may want to sue the pole manufacturer for not making a pole that bent more easily. Oh and the city for buying it. Oh and the state for not putting up proper guard rails. Oh and the bar for letting him leave drunk.
 
2002-02-20 09:18:22 AM
You people are so insensitive. This woman's husband died because the car wasn't up to par. She should sue and win $50 million but it won't bring her husband back. She'll have to go through the rest of her life knowing that if only she had gotten him the SUV he wanted instead of the pansy Jetta she got, he would have survived.
 
2002-02-20 09:19:30 AM
(I was being sarcastic.) People who file frivilous lawsuits should be taken out behind the courthouse and shot. Their lawyers should also be shot. Too bad she wasn't in the car with him.
 
2002-02-20 09:19:49 AM
Texas Zulu: I'm sorry to tell you this, but if you're driving a VW, you are gay, you just may not know it yet. Why do you think this asshole got drunk and killed himself? He found himself craving cock, and he was such a homophobe that suicide seemed the only option.
 
2002-02-20 09:32:52 AM
pansy Jetta ... HEY!
Bennyhanna....mmmm...nice name...bet you look good in leather...STOP...must fight urge....resist....maybe i can get a co worker to give me a ride in his mustang...should get rid of the urges.
 
2002-02-20 09:47:04 AM
BENNY:
I bet you're behind the wheel of a '79 Nova, with your mullet flapping in the wind, listening to Motley Crue and wondering if Burger King is gonna fire you for taking home Whoppers to give to your sister, errr wife, and children, errr I mean nephews, back at the trailor park in Kentucky.
Am I right?
Thought so.
 
2002-02-20 10:03:19 AM
Ya know, this seemed like a pretty easy case of "Farkin' stupid" from the headline. But she may just have a point. It isn't Volkswagen's fault that he wrecked, no. But a crash at 35 MPH.... Don't they test for that with crash tests? Granted, I'm glad that he's the only one who's dead from this accident. Drunk drivers are both stupid in so many ways. But what if it was some idiot druink who tripped on the middle of a power cord and was electrocuted because there was insufficient insulation? Sure, the guy's an idiot and he would have been responsible if, say, he fell on his kid, but the power cord should have had insulation! Now I would definitely temper the amount of the judgement (assuming that VW was found liable for his death) given that he would not have been as likely to end up in such a farked-up accident sober, but it's still possible.
 
2002-02-20 10:04:58 AM
This story makes me ashamed to be a human so...

Look at me! I'm a monkey!
 
2002-02-20 10:14:04 AM
Stevarooni:

Drive pretty much any car from the time frame of 1989 into a steel pole @ 35mph. See how you do.
 
2002-02-20 10:14:45 AM
I'll drink to that.
 
2002-02-20 10:25:29 AM
jph: better question - where's the sadist who mangled her face?
 
2002-02-20 10:36:07 AM
Oh, they're gonna love this on the aircooled newsgroup I hang out on. heh heh. VWOA is such a bunch of ass-monkeys to the air-cooled crowd.
 
2002-02-20 10:37:36 AM
Slam just about anything short of a 4x4 over a 8"-10" curb at 35mph and see how well the undercarriage holds up. Crash tests are done running into something simulating a wall or another car, not over something because they assume you're paying attention and you'll keep the car on the farking road.
 
2002-02-20 10:41:53 AM
The best part of the article of course is that the suit was thrown out twice by lower courts. Not looking for money? She may not but her lawyer sure as hell is.
 
2002-02-20 10:46:43 AM
A suing I will go
A suing I will go
Hi-ho the merry-o
A suing I will go...

I combed my hair this morning and it wasn't exactly to my liking. Can I sue the makers of the brush I used for having a faulty product?

Or how about the maker of the conditioner I used since it did not condition my hair well enough to allow me to manipulate it in the manner which I see fit, therefore, causing me much mental trauma.

 
2002-02-20 11:02:49 AM
Boomslang just about covered it all.

biatch doesn't want to work and has to find a way to live without doing so. It's called life insurance. Try it. But he probably drank away the money for the premiums.
 
2002-02-20 11:08:28 AM
Sayeth the Schmotze:
Stevarooni:
Drive pretty much any car from the time frame of 1989 into a steel pole @ 35mph. See how you do.

No way! What, do you think I'm drunk?!? And yes, Walkman that may be so; I'm not sure what the specs are for 1989 cars. 35 MPH may be stretching things a bit. But I'll still agree that the suit shouldn't be dropped on the basis of the drunkenness of the driver. On another note, "loser pays" should definitely apply here.
 
2002-02-20 11:09:54 AM
What a crock.. I mean, for one thing, its a 14 year old car. Standards back then were not quite as strict as today, most cars would crumble going 35 into a pole.

Its pretty ridiculous... methinks that golddigging biatch is going to amass of hell of a legal bill. I know in some cases, the plaintiff is required to pay all legal fees is her lawsuit is a joke (which it is), so she will get stuck with a massive bill from a massive legal department of a massive (#3 in the world) automotive company.
 
2002-02-20 11:30:19 AM
I don't get this, the guy is drunk out hiss mind (twice the legal limit, meaning assuming he wasn't overwieght, which he probably was and assuming he wasn't an alcholic, the guy had at least 4 drinks before he left). Realistically the dude had twice that, and then drove and then hit a STEEL BEAM going 35mph after jumping the curb. I don't think it matters too much what you are driving, you are going to get your shiat farked up if you hit something that solid that fast. People are retarded.
 
2002-02-20 11:39:02 AM
You can thank the liberal lawyers vs Big Tobacco for this and the coming fast food suits. Once the precedent was set that personal responsibility was no longer a factor, there was a mass ejaculation among liberal lawyers across the country. Enjoy the nation you've created.
 
2002-02-20 11:47:33 AM
Time for a little automotive knowledge here!

First of all, check the crash test data for 1989- The Jetta from 1985- 1992 (all same body style) did pretty well.
To the person who said "old VW's are all deathtraps"- This only applies to the rear- engine, dirt cheap, original "people's car" VW's, such as the Beetle, Ghia, and Transporter. Yes, those were deathtraps. But so were almost all lower- cost cars then- and even most more expensive models- remember, this was all before there were ANY automotive safety regulations pertaining to the actual design of the vehicle's frame. However, Germany's standards for safety and crashworthiness have long been higher than those in the US- and definitely were so in 1989. VW's have been some of the most crashworthy vehicles around, since the end of the vehicles built on the original platform- starting with the Rabbit in 1975 (original Golf for the european Farkers- the Golf was called the Rabbit here in the USA until 1985, when they decided it was stupid to call a car 2 different things in different places!)
Now, a little info on crashes:
A pole does not give easily. Therefore, the car striking it takes almost all of the energy. Also, a pole is very narrow- so that energy is concentrated in a very small area, meaning it will do far more damage, i.e. penetrate farther in to the car, than a wall or another car would at similar speeds. Look at it this way: take a hammer, and smack at a 2X4 for a while. You will probably only make a tiny dent in it. Why? Because you are spreading the force across the surface of the head of the hammer. Now, take a nail, hold the point on the 2X4, and hit it. You drive the nail deep in to the 2X4. Why, because the force is concentrated at the tip of the nail.

Car engineers have a lot to deal with when designing a car - safety, performance, convenience, comfort, and cost. There is a point in all of these areas where they have to stop. It would cost a LOT of money to design a car which could take concentrated- force collisions at higher speeds well. Even modern cars won't do very well in this kind of crash- it's just that hitting an unyielding, narrow object at an upward angle (he jumped a curb, remember?) is not anywhere near as common to be able to cover for it
 
2002-02-20 11:58:14 AM
Greek--one minor point, I don't think the Golf/Rabbit switch was due to the stupidity of the car having two different names in two different places. The 93-98 Jetta was badged as the Vento in Europe and the 99+ Jetta is currently called the Bora overseas.
 
2002-02-20 12:09:28 PM
This will be humorous, when she loses, the city can sue her for damages to the sidewalk and pole caused by her ASSHOLE husband, and VW can sue for legal costs. This HO is gonna end up on the street hoping some lowlife will pay her fee for a 'Muslim around the world.'
 
2002-02-20 12:50:40 PM
Lewis Black once said "We opperate very well without a leader."
This article proves that completely wrong.
Maybe if we had compitent leaders people would gain some common sense by now. But instead our nation's justice department keeps making new laws to accomidate the lowest common denominator. I weep for the future.
 
2002-02-20 01:00:21 PM
Damn, I can just see it. In a few years we'll have Federal Floorboard Safety Requirements: "flooboard shall not crumple - even when some drunken dumbass drives it into a pole after jumping a curb at 35mph."

Of course then some dumbsh!t will crash the same way, but at 75mph and sue.

I'm surprised she didn't sue because VW failed to inform her husband that driving their car while drunk might be dangerous.

"Warm up the van. We've got a biatchslap to deliver."
 
2002-02-20 01:00:47 PM
Stevarooni, I don't think any lawsuit should be allowed for any reason by anyone or his/her survivors if the person was drunk at the time, regardless of the safety issues involved. As far as I'm concerned, a drunk person forfeits all rights to anything because it is a voluntary condition. No one makes these people tip the bottle and get hammered. People picked up for DUI/DWI should be charged with attempted murder and premeditated murder and executed (if convicted) if they actually kill somone because they deliberatly got drunk and just as deliberately got behind the wheel to drive in full knowledeg that they weren't capable of driving. Start executing and imprisoning drunk drivers and DD will stop.

I saw some figures that said there are about 20 million wrecks in the US each year, causing somewhere around 45,000 to 50,000 deaths and 50% are caused by drinking drivers. That's really scary. What's even more terrifying is the OTHER 50% of wrecks and deaths are caused by SOBER people driving just as recklessly as a drunk.
 
2002-02-20 01:22:47 PM
Would this biatch's actions be legal in Farkistan? No?

Yes, sir, I would like a one-way flight to Farkistan... Smoking please.... Aisle please.... Nope, I have no baggage to check in.
 
2002-02-20 02:34:02 PM
Here , here Walkman. Well, mostly. Laws against drinking and driving in and of themselves are stupid and against personal freedoms. Personally, I can down half a fifth of vodka and drive fine, better than most and certainly better than any random jackass yammering on a fvcking cell phone while they are behind the wheel of a car for certain. (I don't do it. I'm saying I COULD do it.)

That all having been said, I can't agree with you more on the penalty. Drink and drive and you're okay? Fine. Drink and drive and have an accident, jail time. Drink and drive and harm or kill someone, death.

But limiting personal freedoms IN CASE someone can't handle it is wrong. Of course, I don't expect a lot of folks to agree with me on this. Anti-drinking and driving is too PC and in for most to disagree. I just thought I'd share.
 
2002-02-20 02:34:25 PM
Leave it to Odietamo to try to turn this from a 'idiot woman suing company' thread to a 'Liberals tree huggers are the cause of all evil in the USA/World' thread.

Good job.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report