Lawsuit: salesman's statement of trailer suitability

[Bill M.]

Filing a lawsuit is not the same thing as actually winning or forcing a good settlement.
Hope I am still pulling when 80.

[interstateflyer]

How many times have I heard from an Airstream salesman as he glances at my truck......"oh yeah that will pull it".

Last time I heard that was when looking at a 28 foot International. We drove up in a 1500 RAM Hemi. Sure it'll pull it up the grade, it's coming down when it gets a bit dodgy with the minimal weight distribution system that most dealers install, quickly to get you out the door.

Bottom line. Most people don't do the proper research before buying. That's the beauty of AirForums. There is a lot of good advice here.

[splyb]

So I guess you don't have to be respnsible for yourself, you can get a lawyer for that.

Well, lawyers are responsible....

Right?

Jay and Lisa

Right?

[PKI]

So, how does the RV community fix the problem of an 83 year old first time RVer totaling a rig? We can say it's the salesman's fault, but most experienced folks could get down the road without turning a similar rig into scrap metal. They might drive slower. They might install a force projection hitch. They might buy a bigger tow vehicle after scaring themselves on the way home from the dealer. But they very likely would not have had the outcome these people had. So I think the root cause here is a lack of towing and RV experience. The only way I can think of to resolve the problem is a special towing license and I really don't like that thought. Any one got a better idea? Pat

[xrvr]

Referring to post 23. Watched any lawyer ads on tv in fl lately?

[J. Morgan]

Originally Posted by bono

As a foreigner, I guess I will never understand how somebody can sue a salesman for selling something. As OP mentioned, do your homework and be responsible for what you are doing. Use common sense.

As an American I don't understand it either.

It seems the notion that people are not responsible for their own stupidity but somehow others are responsible for others stupidity has prevailed.


Brevi tempore!

[J. Morgan]

The funny thing is, had the salesman said "don't you think you might be a little old to start towing a trailer" the dealership could have been sued for elder discrimination.

The fear of being sued by an out of control legal system has caused Americans to walk ridiculous convoluted paths in trying to avoid the reaper.

Such is the fall of nations.


Brevi tempore!

[rsjmcg]

Not everyone has the same amoiunts of common sense, thus just one of the reasons we have laws that, e.g. protect the "lambs" among us, e.g. those borderline, or clearly, mentally challenged = ~10% of the entire population, per bell curve. And experience/learning affect each of us differently too as we deploy "normal" reasoning abilities to make decisions.

This news article's situation really is exactly why we have judges, juries, and the legal system we have chosen. We (news-hounds in AF w/ spare time ) get to read the brief news article but we don't know any of the rest of the relevant facts. The judge & jury will consider the actual case's individual and provable circumstances/facts. Mere onlookers (us) just get to weigh-in with some of the reasonable/likely possibilities, but any of these possibilities might be the actual case (or, it can easily be that there is actually some other, unconsidered possibility). So....

Scenario 1: Seller is not at all responsible, i.e. Buyer is 100% responsible, because seller ascertained that the buyer is demonstrably "smart enough" and/or "experienced enough" to understand and accept the trade-offs of this TV-TT combination,

Scenario 2: Seller is partially responsible (jury usually apportions how much) due to e.g. seller recognized that the buyer had an impairment in the "smart a/o experienced enough" areas so seller should have delayed, or even declined, the sale pending correction of the concerns,

Scenario 3: Seller completely responsible, perhaps even criminally so, when there is demonstrable seller wanton/reckless disregard/gross negligence (or worse: malice, which is hard to prove, but not impossible).

IMO, even with its flaws, I'm glad we have this legal system where each case will be decided on its individual merits and law (i.e. not decided by the merely gruntled or disgruntled onlookers).

[J. Morgan]

The problem is, with the proper incentive, many decide to play the role of the hapless idiot.

And many do, they work the system because they can.

In America the system is rigged. This is one of the major reasons production has fled our shores.

The instruments of production cant be touched by American lawsuits when production is off shore.

This is a huge disadvantage for those who might want to pursue domestic production.

There is no free lunch.


Talis gentium ceciderunt.

[splyb]

Referring to post 23. Watched any lawyer ads on tv in fl lately?

Well, not in Florida, but many, many other places. Yes, many of them are objectionable in the extreme, but that is because - I think - that many of us see them through the eyes of a generation that once revered the legal profession and we think "Tsk, tsk. Has it come to this?" Gen-Xrs and Millenials have grown up w/ that garbage and probably give it little thought at all, which simply encourages more of it. Bar associations hate it too but are powerless to stop it.

No doubt - lawyers' never-ending quest for a deep pocket produces some perverse results - in the eyes of everyone but the client. And isn't that the person, the sole person, to whom the lawyer owes of duty diligent representation? There are many fine lines here, and, in my mind, no clear cut answers.

Jay and Lisa

[OTRA15]

Originally Posted by avionstream

. . .
Watched any lawyer ads on tv in fl lately?

Like the one showing a dead snake and a dead lawyer on the road?

There were skid marks in front of the snake!

[Denis4x4]

Many can sue...few can collect