nycsteve
NY
Senior Member
Joined: 01/26/2008
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
 Offline
|
Chuck and Di wrote:In you last example, I see the buyer at fault for not having a safety check before driving. You will not be able to come up with an example I'd agree to, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
OK. Agreed. But only to disagree.
|
Raften
Northern Calfornia
Senior Member
Joined: 01/27/2003
View Profile
|
Chuck and Di wrote:Raften wrote:Well he has some time on his hands so to speak while his hands heal so I'd be using that time to have a long talk to the previous owner and then a lawyer.
*sigh* remember when people took responsibility for their own actions instead of trying to find someone else to blame? You know, back before you could turn any unfortunate incident into a payday? I sure miss those days.
Personal responsibility my arse, the previous owner most likely knew of the problem and did not inform the new owner. That is what courts are for, to determine who had personal responsibilty. The lesson here is don't sell anything you might think is defective and if you feel the item has no problems make darn sure the customer knows it is sold 'as is' and do that in writing.
|
wnjj
Cornelius, Oregon
Senior Member
Joined: 01/11/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
While I'm a strong believer in personal responsibility it's simply not practical to inspect every part of every thing you ever buy. The real test that is often used in court is the "reasonable" test. What would a reasonable (i.e. average) person expect this trailer's condition to be in? Having an uncapped gas line hidden behind the fridge is not reasonable and in a way is like booby-trapping the trailer. Whoever unhooked that should have handled it differently or at least notified the new owner.
In this case I think the previous owner is responsible.
|
thebigtiny
Juneau Alaska
Senior Member
Joined: 03/08/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
Hello
None of us truly know the whole story.
It was a old trailer from the looks of it.
Personal responsibility rules here, new owner should have done a pre inspection.
when I sell things I state in the bill of sale as is where is with no warranty implied of any kind.
the whole feeling of entitlement lets call the lawyers is one of the problems with our great country. everybody is entitled to their opinion.
and this is mine.
I hope i did not offend the delicate feelings, I do not want to get sued.
chris
1999 Dodge CTD 4X4 QCLB, 2007 Chevy D/A 4X4 LBCC. 1989 Coachman 9.5 ,2001 Forest river Toyhauler 30 ft, 2005 Harley Road Glide, 2005 Jeep liberty (DW rig) 2 beautiful grandaughters
|
btggraphix
Golden, CO
Senior Member
Joined: 03/08/2005
View Profile
|
nycsteve, I'm well in agreement with most of your comments, and also that there is an obvious need to balance the rights and responsibilities of all of us - and the "reasonable" yardstick is a good, if basic, starting point.
But be careful on deciding things without knowing all the details of a case. For example:
nycsteve wrote:......I agree, today people have problems taking responsibilty for thier own mistakes. And stupid lawsuits. My favorite was the lady who burned her ..... lap area..... with a MacDonalds takeout coffee she drove off with between her legs. The reasoning MacDonalds was at fault, the coffee was hot. Not the lady was an idiot.She got 150,000.....
If you actually care, take a look at this (though granted you can say the reporting here might also be biased as it is a tiral lawyers association website)
coffee case
Here's a little chunk of it:
"McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn."
Anyway, it's amazing how knowing all the details changes an opinion. I personally would refrain from determining how responsible each party was for the safety of this camper.....at first glance, I would think that if the seller knew about it, he sure as heck should have told him about it.
2006 LanceMax 1191 - loaded and well-used
2005 C4500/Kodiak 4x4, GVWR 17,500
|
|
|
|
