I was having lunch today with a group of friends, two are car guys and the other five are not. One friend is a lawyer and was telling how a client who was suing a landlord/owner of a 1930's office building where she worked for a permanent injury from a fall on a flight of original great condition stairway. It seems the steps, risers and railings were not todays code in lengthy and height and that is we she fell an incurred the injury. My friend the lawyer said the lanlord/powner should have brought the staircase up to code and is now liable.
I am not a lawyer but felt that as long as the 1930's staircase was in great 1930's condition then the owner is not liable. I feel owner is only obligated to conform to todays code if he was ripping things out to do an addition or renovation and new staircase would have to conform. He tells me that it looks very good that this women may win an award of one million.

This then led me to ask him about old cars. He said that I could be held liable if someone was hurt in your car for many things such as no seatbelts (is there any C1's that did not come with seatbelts?), drum brakes, no collapsable steering column, no safety glass, no airbags...etc...well you get my point. I let him know that many owners take pride in keeping their cars very original. He said he would suggest not allowing anyone in the car so as to avoid liability. Some courts and judges are very "liberal" today. Are there any lawyers out there that can verify this?

 

I can verify that we are certifieably nuts these days.

 

Take your lawyer friend for a ride. Get it into third on a nice straight strech and then stand on that puppy.....See if you can get him to sue ya for whiplash

 

The way things are today, even if you drove a Hummer and your passenger was seperatedly wrapped in one of those fiberglass cockpits that the speedboats use - some attorney out there could create a reason to sue you if your passenger got hurt and wanted to.

 

This just confirms my love for lawyers. EVERYTHING in this world is a liability in the eyes of lawyers. Make sure you never go to the Washington Monument and walk the stairway... its real old.

I once had my lawyer write a real estate purchase agreement for me. The verbage was so convoluted that no one, including my lawyer, could actually determine the agreed closing date. I learned then to frame my questions more carefully and keep the majority of the transaction away from his eyes.

There is very little common sense in their profession. Oops I'd better add the following.

"The previous statements are only opinion and may not represent every Lawyer or his views. Any similarity to actual Lawyers or situation is purely coincidental."

 

You can sue anyone for anything these days. I don't think there would be any merit to a lawsuit for damages as the result of an accident with a car that did not come equipped with seat belts from the factory. The passenger certainly knew that when they climbed in. If you were driving like an idiot there could be a compensable lawsuit.

 

 

An engineer dies and reports to the pearly gates. St. Peter checks his dossier and says, "Ah, you're an engineer -- you're in the wrong place."
So, the engineer reports to the gates of hell and is let in. Pretty soon, the engineer gets dissatisfied with the level of comfort in hell, and starts designing and building improvements. After awhile, they've got air conditioning and flush toilets and escalators, and the engineer is a pretty popular guy.

One day, God calls Satan up on the telephone and says with a sneer, "So, how's it going down there in hell?"

Satan replies, "Hey, things are going great. We've got air conditioning and flush toilets and escalators, and there's no telling what this engineer is going to come up with next."

God replies, "What??? You've got an engineer? That's a mistake -- he should never been sent down there; send him back up here."

Satan says, "No way. I like having an engineer on the staff, and I'm keeping him."

God says, "Send him back up here or I'll sue."

Satan laughs uproariously and answers, "Yeah, right. And just where are YOU going to get a lawyer?"

 

Did you know that the United States has 90% of the world's lawyers?

 

Actaully, attorneys are very good at discussing things at length (and at $300/hour).

I know an ex couple who are stll trying to settle a dispute over $6,000.

Each side is up to about $5,000 in legal bills.

Attorneys provide alot of useful and needed services. However, their best cash cows are:

1.Unreasonable people
2.People without alot of common sense
3. Angry clients

 

How can a stairway cause a fall? It is an inantimate object. The persons carelessness caused the fall!!! The real problem is not taking personable responsibilty for things which are your own fault and not reaching a reasonable settlement. I hope thier lawsuit goes nowhere, How many of you live in old houses?

 

I see how we all feel about this but are there any C1 or C2 owners that are lawyers that can say whether there is potential liability for someone being hurt or killed in an old car that probably would not have happened in a new car? Of course I'm talking about sane driving and a car that is in good working order even though it's old technology.

Did all corvettes (C1's) have factory installed seatbelts?

 

Seat belts weren't factory-installed in Corvettes until 1958.

 

When did they became standard??

 

Lawyers .... bah humbug ....... WE are the one's getting RAPED

Morons and money hungry people are everywhere.

Staircases......once had a gal in a restauraunt I managed long ago sue the chain because the stair case treads were 'worn' and 'slippery' and she feel down the stairs and supposedly had an injury.

SHE WON, workman's comp $$$$$$$

Know a guy who fell at work while standing on a dumpster tripped and hit his head on a dumpster, got 100K.

You DO notice all those 'wet floor' yellow plastic signs in the restaurants and grocery stores don't you?

 

City, State, and sometimes Federal law require buildings that are accessible to the general public comply with standard buiilding codes.

So, a building built in 1930 may not have had to comply with certain statutorily mandated riser height, or be equipped with handrails, etc.

As time progresses, codes change, and often add additional requirements that did not exist. This is typically intended to provide additional safety to the building occupants. If the buildings do not follow the law, and make the lawful, required changes to keep up to code, then they may be held negligent.

Would you be as lenient on a building constructed in 1930 that was not equipped with a code-mandated smoke-detector, or fire/water system and somebody died as a result?

The same holds true for the other building requirements, including the stairs.


As to motor-vehicles - times have changed for them as well. The difference is that, to some extent, antique vehicles may be "grandfathered" to some extent, so that they do not have to comply with all current standards (equipping with airbags, for instance).

However, if state law does not "grandfather" the vehicle (one being used on the public roadway) for items such as 2 (sometimes 3) brakelights, reverse lights, seatbelts, etc., and the failure to have complied with the law and equipped your vehicle with such standard, required safety items, and someone is unjured as a consequence, then yes, you could potentially be held liable.

And probably should be.

 

To try and keep this on point and try and direct this away from lawyer bashing, I will try to be brief. After college I attended law school and became an attorney I suppose in part because that was the family business (dad, grandfather, uncles, cousins were either attorneys and/or judges). My dad hated trial work so I was groomed to handle trial work and after 6 years of pretty much straight trial work I burned out and left the practice. I still have my license and do some of the more inane things that lawyers do but make my living in other ways. There is no one more vocal in the problems brought about by lawyers and the legal system although I feel much could be improved by tort reform. There are many good lawyers and a few good judges out there but you have to sift thru some bad ones. Enough said in that regards.

As to seat belts and the failure to install them and use them, I believe there is substantial exposure by those that refuse to use them. Lawsuits dealing with this would most likely be in the field of torts (civil wrongs) including that large catch-all of negligence. Without getting into the clinical definition and all of the sub issues in this field, the trier of fact, be it the judge or jury, is going to look at what a reasonable man would do in this situation. That is an objective approach and does not include those individuals at opposite ends of the spectrum. A person that says for instance my car is a 57 and so it did not come standard with seat belts may very well be placing themselves in a precarious position because the trier of fact is going to look at the reasonable man. You have every right to leave your car stock as it left the factory but that issue is separate from whether it is reasonable to drive the car without seatbelts in todays traffic, environment, legal morass etc. I can imagine that the attorney representing the aggrieved will march numerous examples of individuals that restore and drive their classic 57 and earlier automobiles with seat belts before the jury. To say it will never get to the jury is simply not a hard and fast rule because we could fill volumes with cases that should have been dismissed but for a craftly legal argument it did not. Also many car organizations have allowed the installation of seat belts without point loss in judging which is a very wise choice from a liability standpoint. The field of negligence is a field that allows a great deal of creativity in lawyers and many lawyers use their creativity often to the point of absurdity, but keep in mind there is a lot of grey area. I would suggest the wise man would implement the basic safety requirements that the "reasonable restorer or classic car driver would do", whatever the hell that means. Now if you want all to sign releases then you may have another story. We have horses at our house and I have a file with release forms that I have people sign when they are exposed to our horses with anything more than petting or feeding them apples. A pain but there are a bunch of sharks out there just waiting for that ripe lawsuit that comes thru the door. If you are adamant about not having seat belts and have some concerns about your exposure, keep a few releases in your glove box and point out to them that they are being made aware of the risks and accepting the consequences of such. -Jim

 

1958.

 

I did it for me and my passengers

 

If someone got killed or seriously injuried, your insurance company would probably pay its policy limits to the other person's family, and you wouldn't even be sued. If you were sued, you might have a good "assumption of the risk" defense. Sort of like when you go to the baseball game, you assume the risk of getting hit on the head with a fly ball. When you get in an old car with no seat belts and 50s technology, you know you are not going to be as safe in a crash, but you take the risk anyway because you want to ride in an old car.

Nonetheless, the people suing you would probably accept your policy limits, as opposed to trying to win a judgment, and then trying to collect on your non-exempt assets over an above the amount of the judgment. It's a lot of work to try the case, and 99% of the time the attorney for the person suing you will want to get the quick policy limits and go on to the next case.

I can just speak for Texas, but in Texas between the tort-reform laws that have been passed in the past decade, the conservative elected Republican judges, and the conservative juries, a plaintiff cannot recover near what he/she could 15 or 20 years ago. So again, if the attorney can talk sense into the client, they will take the quick policy limits in a death case or serious injury case instead of rolling the dice and hoping a jury gives more money two years down the road. So just make such you have a good amount of liability coverage, and then try not to worry yourself sick about it. I have max liability coverage, plus a $1 million umbrella over all of my policies, and it doesn't cost that much more to be maxed out for coverage. The bulk of the insurance cost is for the minimum coverage cost and your comprehensive coverage; extras are not that much more and it would give you peace of mind.