Comments for Overlawyered

Comment on Toyota acceleration: why I’m skeptical by Toyota (i.e., the Car; Not the Company) Discriminates against the Elderly | The Barstool Economists

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:29:47 +0000

[...] and, though the Times did not mention it, the ages of the drivers involved were striking. In the 24 cases where driver age was reported or readily inferred, the drivers included those of the ages 60, 61, [...]

Comment on “I am not afraid of my Toyota Prius” by Edward Lunny

Edward Lunny — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:07:43 +0000

There is far more reason to be afraid of the drivers of the Prius, and other Toyotas, than of the vehicles themselves. This situation almost begs for a comprehensive skills test before allowing the purchase of an automobile, let alone the operation of said vehicle on the public roadways.

Comment on Truck-driver father runs over own daughter; guess who is to blame? by John Rohan

John Rohan — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:53:34 +0000

Jerry Vandesic wrote:

If you think that it does matter, to what degree should the law require non-relatedness? How about cousins, 2nd cousins, 5th cousins twice removed?

How is that relevant? Except in unusual circumstances, you are not the legal guardian or spouse of your cousin. When you are dealing with immediate family members, it’s nearly impossible to cleanly divide wealth between one and another.

Comment on “I am not afraid of my Toyota Prius” by Colin

Colin — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:10:31 +0000

You don’t need to turn the engine off!

Shift into neutral.

modern engines are fitted with control units that prevent the engine from revving beyond it’s capability. Certainly, it will be noisier than you’ve heard it before, but it won’t explode…
With the engine running, you have full braking and steering…

(I had a silimar experience with my car – the throttle spring broke when I was driving downhill. After a few moments, I realised what was happening, turned off the engine, clutch disengaged, braked & steered to a halt. No steering lock to worry about, no power brakes fitted, no power steering fitted – no panic!)

Comment on Deep pockets files: 1956 edition by w.rogers turner, Jr.

w.rogers turner, Jr. — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:20:23 +0000

I have to side with John on this…as a worker’s comp practitioner, this is fairly standard. The affair aside, the rule in this case for a traveling employee is essentially the same as present day, at least in Florida. The defense could have argued perhaps intoxication, if that were an affirmative defense at the time. Generally, traveling employees injured or killed in a place they were reasonably expected to be during travel would be (or their estate) entitled to benefits. The exception would be if they substantially deviate from what they were expected to be doing. People injured working out at the Y on a business trip proabably get benefits. Someone traveling 100 miles from where they are supposed to be to go sky diving, less of a chance. Having watched a few episodes of “mad men”, the unfortunate decedent’s actions of being intoxicated, smoking and being with a woman other than his wife could have been wholly expected on an out of town business trip.
The concept of proximate cause is somewhat muddied in workers compensation, which is generally supposed to analyze entitlement to benefits regardless of fault.

Comment on Truck-driver father runs over own daughter; guess who is to blame? by TC

TC — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:41:55 +0000

Just the result of the CA judicial system attempting to do it’s part for the budget crunch.

30% of 24 mill makes for some revenue to the state!

Comment on Truck-driver father runs over own daughter; guess who is to blame? by Jerry Vandesic

Jerry Vandesic — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:57:33 +0000

I was once called for jury duty in VA and the case had some similarities to this one. The case was one where a woman was a passenger in a car, and the driver caused an accident. The woman sued the driver for medical costs and pain & suffering. But the driver was the woman’s husband. The judge made a point of saying that the suit was allowed under the law.

I can certainly understand it. The driver had insurance to cover accidents that he was involved in, whether he caused them or not. The fact that his carelessness caused another person injury was what was covered by the insurance policy, and it didn’t matter that the person he harmed was his wife.

If you think that it does matter, to what degree should the law require non-relatedness? How about cousins, 2nd cousins, 5th cousins twice removed?

ps. I was not selected as a juror so I don’t know what ultimately happened. It would have been interesting to see the conclusion of the case.

Comment on Truck-driver father runs over own daughter; guess who is to blame? by John Rohan

John Rohan — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:27:07 +0000

Eric T. wrote: Yes. I assume the girl had a different guardian for the purposes of the lawsuit. (Certainly in NY that would be required)

I notice you ignored several other questions – but in any case, it doesn’t matter if he had another guardian for the purposes of the lawsuit. The lawsuit eventually ends, and he is (one of) her legal guardians, and stands to make millions off of this.

The father doesn’t stand to gain bupkus. It’s the kid’s money. I would assume that, if CA is similar to NY, the money of a minor is protected. Courts are always worried about this very issue and bend over backwards to protect the kid from relatives who might have an eye on the money.

Sorry, but I’ve seen this happen. Even when the system works, it’s still like trying to only pour water into one side of a bathtub. If this girl needs constant care, her parents are the ones most likely to provide it. They can buy her a huge multimillion dollar estate, with a swimming pool and several cars, all in her name. They will just happen to live there. Even if she’s too injured to enjoy these things, they certainly will. And if the girl dies, who do you think is the next of kin?

Meanwhile, unless this is covered by insurance, it’s certain that the company will have to make layoffs to cover the huge loss. And even if it is covered, premiums will have to be raised. In other words, some people are going to lose their jobs while the guy who ran over the girl is set for life.

The bottom line is, the father is, by far, the most guilty party here, and in a just system, he would be the one to pay damages.

Comment on Toyota acceleration: why I’m skeptical by Charles Platt

Charles Platt — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:09:05 +0000

Always remember the overflow condition of the utterly primitive computer on the lunar lander, during the first attempt to land on the moon. And how many times had that system been tested, in every possible failure mode?

I would bet that car systems are potentially vulnerable to heat, cold, electromagnetic radiation, vibration, G forces, and numerous other external variables, even if the code is absolutely totally bug free.

I would also bet that younger drivers may respond with more initiative to sudden uncontrolled acceleration than older drivers, and thus are less likely to have accidents as a result.

I note also that if you pump the brakes while the throttle is wide open, you deplete the vacuum reservoir within about three brake applications, at which point, you have no power assist anymore. I can certainly imagine someone braking, then releasing the brakes, at which point the car accelerates again, so, the driver brakes again–and so on.

Add it all up and I would guess maybe 20 percent of the reported instances could be real, another 50 percent driver error, and the rest consisting of people angling for damages. And I would guess many more cases that were never reported and never became law suits. Indeed I know of one such case personally.

Comment on Toyota acceleration: why I’m skeptical by MF

MF — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:27:06 +0000

It is possible to “prove” a software program is correct, it is hard to do and I have no idea whether Toyota took the expense and effort to do so here. As systems get more complex they get much harder to prove and this is generally why software development companies don’t go to the expense of doing this proof for everything but good software engineering processes can ensure that you deliver a high quality product.

I am a software engineer and have over 25 years of experience at the very highest of the high tech companies. I can tell you that the statement that it is possible to prove a software program is ridiculous in many instances. When you’re dealing with a finite set of inputs and outputs, I’ll agree. But when you’re dealing with real time programming (in other words, events that happen in real time, and the programming is event-driven, and one operation can interrupt the execution of another based on these events), there are an infinite number of possibilities. One cannot possibly “prove” correctness. It is very difficult even to prove near-correctness.