|
this case is CRAP.
I can hear the opening statement now: "Ladies and Gentelman, my client bought a used Porsche, that had no warranty, and after he drove it around, it had engine problems and needs repairs. He wants Porsche to pay for it. Please feel sorry for my Porsche driving client who doesn't want to foot his own repair bill."
As a TRIAL LAWYER - I can tell you that juries vote on emotion, with the law being only PART of the equation. *No one* is going to feel sorry for a guy who drives a Porsche.
This is not some poor innocent soul who had their car blow up because of a design defect in the gas tanks and suffered life threatening burns or death. This is a guy who knowingly and willingly bought a used sports car. It broke.
Even if the engine is designed poorly, and is PRONE to failure - this is a loser case. He bought a used car and it broke. The car comes with a warranty, they warrant it will last for a set period. They have NO obligation to design and sell a product that lasts 100,000 miles. There is no statement by Porsche that they warrant that their cars will last this long.
For every motor that fails, you can find another one that has gone 100k and did not fail. Porsche is in business to make cars that are fun and fast, not cars that are reliable, dependable, and economical.
You buy a used car - you take your chances. Bottom line.
This case is a big fat loser and Porsche knows it and they will tell this guy to pound sand.
sorry but that's my take on it. I do ONLY criminal law, not civil, so any of you civil guys feel free to chime in and correct me if you feel I am wrong. I don't know the "law" of civil like I do criminal - but I know what a jury will do - and they will laugh this plaintiff out of court. I know there are cases where people settle to minimize costs, etc...so sometimes people will "get" something due to a defendant making a decision based on costs/benefits - but I just don't see them paying this guy. that would just encourage anyone with a bad part to start suing Porsche...
|