GM To Face Civil Trial Over A Faulty Ignition Switch On January 11th

Thanks hyper, and OK, no hard feelings at all.  And likewise I hope.  

I too enjoy a good debate, very much so in fact.  To a fault I guess.

Thanks hyper, and OK, no hard feelings at all.  And likewise I hope.  

I too enjoy a good debate, very much so in fact.  To a fault I guess.

When you disagree you really help sharpen my game. If you just debate with yes men you lose your edge! LOL!

 

 

 

I presented a well thought out argument with facts and references to the actual trial, and an analogy that makes perfect sense with the reasoning that I laid out TWICE (and at least one other member agrees with it). You call it "pathetic" without presenting any support or reasoning.

 

You come back with nonsense about how you drink 20 oz 8% beers so 2 beers is the correct number. Are you kidding me? Any logical person thinks of two beers at a bar as a 12 oz glass and your run-of-the-mill 4.0-5.5% content. If you're drinking 20 oz servings of high-octane beer, you better believe driving safe is STILL YOUR RESPONSIBILITY even if you only have 2 or 3.

 

I take no issue with you presenting your opinion, no matter how biased or ill informed, I WILL take issue with you or anyone else presenting an opinion as "truth" or fact in a condescending manner. Your greatest argument seems to be telling me how "pathetic" mine is.

 

 

 

Does not really matter how many times you "laid out your reasoning" because it is a horrible analogy.

 

Driving after a few drinks and/or not using a belt should NOT preclude one to losing their rights in the same vein as robbing a house.

That is a terrible analogy, easily the worst I have ever heard in my life, and I have to apologize if your feelings are hurt.

 

Why?

Because most people drink at some point and then get behind the wheel, and many may or do forget their belt. Not arguing that is somehow OK or right, but to remove culpability from the responsible manufacturer for a failed defect that has also killed or injured many hundreds of people as well, simply won't get you far.  And to attribute that to armed robbery......welll, nuff said.

 

But hey, I do wish GM luck in getting closure on this matter, as I have repeatedly said already.

 

I'm not sure how you can make such a distinction between someone breaking into your home and someone driving drunk. In 2013, just over 10,000 people were killed as a result of drunk driving, however the CDC claims that only about 100 burglaries annually result in murder. So how you can scoff at drunk driving versus breaking and entering is beyond rationalization. If a person driving drunk kills another motorist and survives, they get jailtime. It's felony manslaughter. If the same person careens off the road and kills themself, their family gets awarded millions of dollars because the airbags didn't deploy?

Furthermore, being that the case against GM is almost exclusively about airbag deactivation in a crash. Studies have shown, and the NHTSA will tell you, an airbag without use of a seatbelt is only slightly more effective at preventing injury than nothing at all. That fact alone should have thrown out every non-seat belted claim.

So when I read actual case files about the families of drunks, people falling asleep at the wheel (there were at least two), and people without seatbelts circling like vultures to get their payout, I found it repulsive. It's a f@#king faulty ignition cylinder. It doesn't CAUSE accidents. 169 people weren't killed by an ignition switch. 169 people died in horrific accidents that indicated the airbags didn't deploy.

That's not to say EVERY claim was BS, I'm talking about specific cases publicized in the media, but it's important to remember that a Cobalt without airbags is still safer than millions of cars on the road today because it has a modern safety structure.

... ... 

 

Thanks hyper, and OK, no hard feelings at all.  And likewise I hope.  

I too enjoy a good debate, very much so in fact.  To a fault I guess.

When you disagree you really help sharpen my game. If you just debate with yes men you lose your edge! LOL!

 

Are you sure you lose your edge? The Yes Man might just be wanting to use the diamond sharpener to refold the Samurai sword for better slicing!

After all , I love a good debate to a fault also and yet have no problem playing devils advocate to see if one might change their mind!

Thanks hyper, and OK, no hard feelings at all.  And likewise I hope.  

I too enjoy a good debate, very much so in fact.  To a fault I guess.

When you disagree you really help sharpen my game. If you just debate with yes men you lose your edge! LOL!

Are you sure you lose your edge? The Yes Man might just be wanting to use the diamond sharpener to refold the Samurai sword for better slicing!

 

After all , I love a good debate to a fault also and yet have no problem playing devils advocate to see if one might change their mind!

There are those debates that hold a different opinion and no respect and then there are those who disagree but yet hold some respect. He has shown me respect in the past and I return in kind. We get along well even if we do not agree.

The intelligent argument is often not the opinion you give but the opinion you hold back.

When it comes to arguments pick and choose carefully.

He made his point I made mine time to move on.

We'll Said Hyper, You both made your point clear and time for a new thread.

 

There are those debates that hold a different opinion and no respect and then there are those who disagree but yet hold some respect. He has shown me respect in the past and I return in kind. We get along well even if we do not agree.

The intelligent argument is often not the opinion you give but the opinion you hold back.

When it comes to arguments pick and choose carefully.

He made his point I made mine time to move on.

 

Yeah, well said hyper. And thanks for the words.

 

 

 

 

I presented a well thought out argument with facts and references to the actual trial, and an analogy that makes perfect sense with the reasoning that I laid out TWICE (and at least one other member agrees with it). You call it "pathetic" without presenting any support or reasoning.

 

You come back with nonsense about how you drink 20 oz 8% beers so 2 beers is the correct number. Are you kidding me? Any logical person thinks of two beers at a bar as a 12 oz glass and your run-of-the-mill 4.0-5.5% content. If you're drinking 20 oz servings of high-octane beer, you better believe driving safe is STILL YOUR RESPONSIBILITY even if you only have 2 or 3.

 

I take no issue with you presenting your opinion, no matter how biased or ill informed, I WILL take issue with you or anyone else presenting an opinion as "truth" or fact in a condescending manner. Your greatest argument seems to be telling me how "pathetic" mine is.

 

 

 

Does not really matter how many times you "laid out your reasoning" because it is a horrible analogy.

 

Driving after a few drinks and/or not using a belt should NOT preclude one to losing their rights in the same vein as robbing a house.

That is a terrible analogy, easily the worst I have ever heard in my life, and I have to apologize if your feelings are hurt.

 

Why?

Because most people drink at some point and then get behind the wheel, and many may or do forget their belt. Not arguing that is somehow OK or right, but to remove culpability from the responsible manufacturer for a failed defect that has also killed or injured many hundreds of people as well, simply won't get you far.  And to attribute that to armed robbery......welll, nuff said.

 

But hey, I do wish GM luck in getting closure on this matter, as I have repeatedly said already.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how you can make such a distinction between someone breaking into your home and someone driving drunk. In 2013, just over 10,000 people were killed as a result of drunk driving, however the CDC claims that only about 100 burglaries annually result in murder. So how you can scoff at drunk driving versus breaking and entering is beyond rationalization. If a person driving drunk kills another motorist and survives, they get jailtime. It's felony manslaughter. If the same person careens off the road and kills themself, their family gets awarded millions of dollars because the airbags didn't deploy?

 

Furthermore, being that the case against GM is almost exclusively about airbag deactivation in a crash. Studies have shown, and the NHTSA will tell you, an airbag without use of a seatbelt is only slightly more effective at preventing injury than nothing at all. That fact alone should have thrown out every non-seat belted claim.

 

So when I read actual case files about the families of drunks, people falling asleep at the wheel (there were at least two), and people without seatbelts circling like vultures to get their payout, I found it repulsive. It's a f@#king faulty ignition cylinder. It doesn't CAUSE accidents. 169 people weren't killed by an ignition switch. 169 people died in horrific accidents that indicated the airbags didn't deploy.

 

That's not to say EVERY claim was BS, I'm talking about specific cases publicized in the media, but it's important to remember that a Cobalt without airbags is still safer than millions of cars on the road today because it has a modern safety structure.

 

You are now comparing deaths to make your case?

My point stands, which is to disprove and disagree with your analogy.  And death count has NOTHING to do with it.

Are you implying that even in situations like those that have been described, the driver bears no responsibility?

That's exactly what he is implying.. but only if its not Ford.

Endangering other innocent people as a result of negligent and wreck-less driving

She also must have (as the flaw dictates) loaded her key up with loads of crap.

No one has to accept fault anymore folks. That's what lawyers are for these days.

No one has to accept fault anymore folks. That's what lawyers are for these days.

This is one of those comments that I want to "like" but at the same time "hate" because it is true. I want to show that I agree...but hate it.. Ya know? One of those confusing posts like "my Grandma has cancer" on facebook. You want to show support by "liking" but you don't actually LIKE that she has cancer... Okay enough rambling. You get my point at this point! 

 

No one has to accept fault anymore folks. That's what lawyers are for these days.

This is one of those comments that I want to "like" but at the same time "hate" because it is true. I want to show that I agree...but hate it.. Ya know? One of those confusing posts like "my Grandma has cancer" on facebook. You want to show support by "liking" but you don't actually LIKE that she has cancer... Okay enough rambling. You get my point at this point! 

 

And that point waaaaaas....(just kidding. you get what I was trying to say there).

Here is the latest trial.  http://www.law360.com/articles/729954/accident-victim-looks-to-keep-pain-meds-out-of-gm-mdl-trial

The Trial of  Robert Scheuer is going on. Robert contends his air bags failed but also is trying to block that he was on a Narcotic [you know the kind that say not to drive] in an accident that another car forced him off the road into a tree at 60 MPH. I am trying to find out if he had a belt on too.

The Engineer  Raymond DeGiorgio stated he made the mistake and make the order to remake the part and not change the part number. He was asked if he felt he was a scapegoat and at the time he was fired yes but now no.  This is appearing more as a mistake in the mid ranks that was covered up. The key in the trial is when the part failure was discovered by the leaders and I have a feeling it was late in the game. GM was guilty of having poor internal communication as they seldom listened from the bottom up. This is a common sin of most larger companies.

Here is another key  http://www.wsj.com/articles/plaintiff-in-gm-civil-trial-takes-stand-1452814167

However, Mr. Scheuer did testify that to the best of his knowledge his car did have power steering and power brakes when it left the road. GM contends that if the car had these two functions, then the air bag didn’t deploy because it wasn’t supposed to and the ignition switch hadn’t slipped out of the drive position.

Here is a description of the trial so far.

http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202746901197/Jury-Hears-Two-Vastly-Different-Portrayals-of-GM-Plaintiff?mcode=1202617075062&curindex=0&curpage=2

Here is another story and photo of the car. http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/home/id=1202747152689/Plaintiff-in-GM-Case-Says-He-Cant-Recall-Phone-Calls?mcode=1202617075062&curindex=0

He claims he was in the car 3 hours unconscious but they show a record of phone calls.

General Motors defense lawyer Mike Brock, a partner with Kirkland & Ellis, showed Scheuer AT&T phone records of two phone calls Scheuer made to his voicemail while in the badly damaged car, allegedly reeling from injuries he said were caused by a shutdown of the ignition switch that rendered his air bags unable to deploy.

After Scheuer reviewed the records, Brock asked "Did you satisfy yourself you had made calls to your voicemail at 2:19 and 3:15?"

"I understood what happened, yes," Scheuer said, but he denied any memory of doing so.

​I have walked away from crashes worst than this even with out a belt. {I have since learned better]. My take on this is that they are looking for a settlement from GM. But what really catches me is the lawyers would want to lead with their best case to spur more like this. If this is all they have they do not have much to work with. This was my point that there is so much more to these than you you read in the Yahoo stories on the web or papers in many cases. The little details can really change things here.

From the photos I have seen he hit a tree on the right side of the car and it did some damage  but keep in mind this car had a plastic nose and fender. Also thw windshield here is removed from when they worked on him. Might also notice they did not cut the roof off as they normally do if there is a back or neck injury. 

​I just find it funny that I have followed up with many of the high profile cases in this issue and in most cases there were so many things left unreported and contributing to the cause of the crash or the reality of the crash.

​this really shows how bad our legal system can be at just getting to who was at fault for what. Like I said before I would not totally absolve GM of the problem but I would weight it with the responsibility and the circumstances of the person involved too. Everyone should bear their own responsibility for their contribution here.
 

​We really should read up on what is going on as it make the point many of us have been stating and shows how flawed the legal system is to companies. This is another case of guilty till proven innocent.

Thanks for the updates Hyper.  Those cases do seem like someone hunting for a winning powerball ticket.

GM has to be careful here so as not to impugn the cases where they are still partially liable.  It is best to approach this with the attitude that the customer should not suffer due to mechanical failure on behalf of GM, even if there are traces of DUI, which includes narcotics.  Depending on the case of course.  So IOW, if Mary took pain killers at noon and has to pick up her kid from school at 4:00, she is technically breaking the law.  But is it entirely her fault if the ignition fails, she crashes and air bags don't deploy?  This is a slippery slope for GM.  Clearly the drugs would have little if anything to do with it, but a good lawyer can work his magic and save GM a few $$.  But is that in their interest?  We all drink. Many take pain relievers.  Are automakers exempt from fault, when there are clear and proven mechanical deficiencies that have failed so many times prior?  Is this good for GM's image to keep fighting these cases, rather than just pay?  Within reason, case by case of course.

GM has to be careful here so as not to impugn the cases where they are still partially liable.  It is best to approach this with the attitude that the customer should not suffer due to mechanical failure on behalf of GM, even if there are traces of DUI, which includes narcotics.  Depending on the case of course.  So IOW, if Mary took pain killers at noon and has to pick up her kid from school at 4:00, she is technically breaking the law.  But is it entirely her fault if the ignition fails, she crashes and air bags don't deploy?  This is a slippery slope for GM.  Clearly the drugs would have little if anything to do with it, but a good lawyer can work his magic and save GM a few $$.  But is that in their interest?  We all drink. Many take pain relievers.  Are automakers exempt from fault, when there are clear and proven mechanical deficiencies that have failed so many times prior?  Is this good for GM's image to keep fighting these cases, rather than just pay?  Within reason, case by case of course.

Well you have to take the full case into perspective here.

​GM has pointed out

​#1 the guy took pills that are of the nature that you do not drive or operate machinery with.

#2 The driver claims he did not lose power steering. This means the key did not go off.

#3 The driver claims to have been knocked cold for 3 hours but yet made several phone calls while as he claims he was knocked cold and not seen by other drivers.

​#4 The car as you can see did not take a major hit. Many times they can take a hit like this and off to the side and not set the bags off.

​#5 GM could not be given the car to check as it was done away with fast so there is no way to check the original ignition. It is just assumed and alleged that the key went to accessory.

#6 This guy already claimed back issues before the accident. I would be interested to see if he has already gone after the Postal Service on that.

#7 where is this car that ran him off the road? What kind of car and is there any proof it even existed.

There are just a lot of holes here and the thing is you can take about any of these cases and find many holes. Some to provide that GM may not have even been a factor or they were just part of the factor.

I would love to see it that if someone was fully in control not under any influence. That they were belted in and not speeding. These folks be considered for full comp. But for those who very well made many mistakes that made the difference of an accident going from minor to death share in the reason they died.

Just because people drink and Take drugs or belted in and die GM should not be fully held for their death. They should share in this and the amounts should be reduced and if in a case like this one very circumstantial with really no real evidence be tossed out.

Wings the problem here is if you let cases like this go through then you can see people going back on automakers for not having side air bags in older cars knowing it would save lives. Some of these cases have already been heard and some have already gotten settlements just to save the cost of a long trial.

​The reality is yes companies do bad things and should be held responsible for their part. But lawyers also do things self serving and are out to milk the system that is stacked against the companies. Just look at all the commercials that the first words are you may already be a victim. This is wrong and should not be.

​If you have a legitimate case it should be heard. You go to court you win you get the money. If you have a poor case you should not be let to settle and take the money. You should lose and you should pay the court cost involved and in some cases damages done to the company if you lied.

I just want to see a fair system where both sides are treated equal. Now as it is many cases are false or poor and they are just looking to black mail the companies into a settlement as it is cheaper to settle than to win.

The lawyers are just laughing all the way to the bank.

​Tort reform may never happen as most elected officials are getting many donations from legal firms and organizations. In fact they are some of the leading lobbyist and so few people know it. In fact most of your elected officials are lawyers. Some are not even legal to practice anymore due to their past.

Lmao, knocked unconscious for 3 hours. This is a Hollywood myth and the case should be thrown out based on that alone. You can't get knocked out for extended periods without anesthesia.

Lmao, knocked unconscious for 3 hours. This is a Hollywood myth and the case should be thrown out based on that alone. You can't get knocked out for extended periods without anesthesia.

That is factually not true. Look up "coma" which can be a few hours up to many years. Not saying that this case is not full of BS in that regard, but had to clarify that you can, in fact, be out cold for an extended period of time.

If he was knocked out for 3 hours from a blow to a head he would be eating from a tube.

If he was knocked out for 3 hours from a blow to a head he would be eating from a tube.

That is true and he is full of it if he says otherwise. You have no control over your muscles when your unconscious so "force feeding" becomes necessary.

 

Lmao, knocked unconscious for 3 hours. This is a Hollywood myth and the case should be thrown out based on that alone. You can't get knocked out for extended periods without anesthesia.

That is factually not true. Look up "coma" which can be a few hours up to many years. Not saying that this case is not full of BS in that regard, but had to clarify that you can, in fact, be out cold for an extended period of time.

 

You're trying to correct me here, and you're not understanding the context. The person in the story says they were knocked unconscious for several hours, and awoke in the car. That is medically IMPOSSIBLE. It's a phony plot device exclusively in movies and TV that the majority of people think is true.

When someone is knocked out in a fight, their brain immediately "reboots" and you see them start coming out of it in less than a minute. If they do not wake up within moments, it's life threatening head trauma that requires hospitalization, like someone taking a full-on baseball bat swing to the skull.

If something knocks you out, you wake up moments later a bit foggy and soon come back to a state of normal awareness. If something knocks you into a coma, you're fighting for your life.

 

 

Lmao, knocked unconscious for 3 hours. This is a Hollywood myth and the case should be thrown out based on that alone. You can't get knocked out for extended periods without anesthesia.

That is factually not true. Look up "coma" which can be a few hours up to many years. Not saying that this case is not full of BS in that regard, but had to clarify that you can, in fact, be out cold for an extended period of time.

 

 

You're trying to correct me here, and you're not understanding the context. The person in the story says they were knocked unconscious for several hours, and awoke in the car. That is medically IMPOSSIBLE. It's a phony plot device exclusively in movies and TV that the majority of people think is true.

 

When someone is knocked out in a fight, their brain immediately "reboots" and you see them start coming out of it in less than a minute. If they do not wake up within moments, it's life threatening head trauma that requires hospitalization, like someone taking a full-on baseball bat swing to the skull.

 

If something knocks you out, you wake up moments later a bit foggy and soon come back to a state of normal awareness. If something knocks you into a coma, you're fighting for your life.

 

You're not understanding me. I'm not disagreeing about this case. The person is full of it. However, you said that you could not be knocked out that long without anesthesia and I simply said that was not true with an example of why. My statement was not in reference to this person's case, to reiterate. 

 

 

 

Lmao, knocked unconscious for 3 hours. This is a Hollywood myth and the case should be thrown out based on that alone. You can't get knocked out for extended periods without anesthesia.

That is factually not true. Look up "coma" which can be a few hours up to many years. Not saying that this case is not full of BS in that regard, but had to clarify that you can, in fact, be out cold for an extended period of time.

 

 

You're trying to correct me here, and you're not understanding the context. The person in the story says they were knocked unconscious for several hours, and awoke in the car. That is medically IMPOSSIBLE. It's a phony plot device exclusively in movies and TV that the majority of people think is true.

 

When someone is knocked out in a fight, their brain immediately "reboots" and you see them start coming out of it in less than a minute. If they do not wake up within moments, it's life threatening head trauma that requires hospitalization, like someone taking a full-on baseball bat swing to the skull.

 

If something knocks you out, you wake up moments later a bit foggy and soon come back to a state of normal awareness. If something knocks you into a coma, you're fighting for your life.

 

You're not understanding me. I'm not disagreeing about this case. The person is full of it. However, you said that you could not be knocked out that long without anesthesia and I simply said that was not true with an example of why. My statement was not in reference to this person's case, to reiterate. 

 

A coma is not an example of getting knocked out. That would be severe head trauma. People don't refer to coma patients as having been "knocked out." Enough with the stupid semantics.

 

 

 

 

Lmao, knocked unconscious for 3 hours. This is a Hollywood myth and the case should be thrown out based on that alone. You can't get knocked out for extended periods without anesthesia.

That is factually not true. Look up "coma" which can be a few hours up to many years. Not saying that this case is not full of BS in that regard, but had to clarify that you can, in fact, be out cold for an extended period of time.

 

 

You're trying to correct me here, and you're not understanding the context. The person in the story says they were knocked unconscious for several hours, and awoke in the car. That is medically IMPOSSIBLE. It's a phony plot device exclusively in movies and TV that the majority of people think is true.

 

When someone is knocked out in a fight, their brain immediately "reboots" and you see them start coming out of it in less than a minute. If they do not wake up within moments, it's life threatening head trauma that requires hospitalization, like someone taking a full-on baseball bat swing to the skull.

 

If something knocks you out, you wake up moments later a bit foggy and soon come back to a state of normal awareness. If something knocks you into a coma, you're fighting for your life.

 

You're not understanding me. I'm not disagreeing about this case. The person is full of it. However, you said that you could not be knocked out that long without anesthesia and I simply said that was not true with an example of why. My statement was not in reference to this person's case, to reiterate. 

 

 

A coma is not an example of getting knocked out. That would be severe head trauma. People don't refer to coma patients as having been "knocked out." Enough with the stupid semantics.

 

Dude. No need for the drama. We were saying the same thing in a different way. No sweat off my ass.

Well here is the latest. 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/judges-comments-could-abruptly-end-gm-ignition-switch-215601859.html

The Judge appears to be unimpressed with the case the so called victim has. He is not buying this story and told them it may be in their best interest to reach a settlement vs, going up to a Jury. 

This is good for GM but the Judge really should have thrown this case out as it is pretty much fraud from what evidence that has been provided. 

Just another case of cooperate blackmail.