|
we are dealing with a man who's SECOND-HAND car is NINE years old, and we don't know how many miles are on it.
It may be 9 (or 7) years old, but it’s common for chronologically old Porsches to have very few miles. Is it acceptable for a car with 40-50K miles to undergo catastrophic failure, assuming it was maintained properly and not abused. (Like you, I have NO idea how many miles the car in this case had on it, and that figure IS an important one. I’m just playin’ devil’s advocate here.)
if the man's coolant tank blew and he continued to drive the car with the warning light on, the water jacket would empty and the metal matrix composite in the cylinder walll could break down and cause the chunk. this would be an example of how he or the previous owner could be liable
Indeed, but this would be true, would it not, even if the car was still under warranty? An interesting question, I guess. Would an existing and valid warranty cover the cost of engine replacement if the initial problem was easily fixable but the huge majority of the damage was caused by the stupidity of the owner, ie continuing to drive with no coolant? I dunno.
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.
As a TRIAL LAWYER, I doubt you'd proceed along those lines, counselor, were you representing the plaintiff here. I suspect their opening statement will be worded somewhat differently. A jury, some of whom may drive Toyotas or Hondas that have 150K or 200K miles, may well empathize with someone who saved his nickels and dimes for years to be able to afford his “dream car” that turned into a nightmare through no fault of his own. Especially if that car had only 40-50K on it, and it is proven that maintenance was proper and abuse did not occur. It didn’t simply have “engine problems” in need of repair---it self-destructed.
In a David vs. Goliath situation such as this, the jury may well feel sorry for David whether he drives a Porsche or a Dodge Dart.
It ain’t gonna be an easy case to win. As insite said, he may well be gunnin’ for a decent settlement. If not, he’ll have his hands full. Porsche, I have no doubt, has a ton of very talented lawyers. What with discovery, pretrial motions, delay tactics, etc. they can make life miserable for a lesser team of advocates (not to mention expensive for the plaintiff). All that I’m saying is this: Assuming proper maintenance and lack of owner contribution to the problem can be established, a decent argument can be made that an automobile owner should reasonably be able to expect that car to last more than say 40-50K miles. It’s going to have to be a common law kind of case, some sort of implied warranty (implied warranty of merchantability?), bolstered, ideally, by bad faith on the part of Porsche (ie knowingly using substandard components in their cars).
People have come to expect more from a car. A while back, I had my Camry into the Toyota dealership (picking up an oil filter or something…I don’t remember); I told the guy it had 165K miles on it. His response? “Hell, it’s just gettin' broke in.” The expected standards are higher, the bar has been raised. Juries know that. So should Porsche.
|
Hybrid Mode
