Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
From: seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Who is Liable??
Message-ID: <1091@ihuxl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-May-84 08:25:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxl.1091
Posted: Tue May  8 08:25:24 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 9-May-84 01:43:47 EDT
References: <2729@alice.UUCP>, <220@drutx.UUCP> <253@felix.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 25

>	His press agent then asked, "Suppose you're coming down a
>	straightaway and a tire blows, how can I say you hit a curb
>	or hit debris?"
>
>	He said Donohue replied: "The risk of tire failure or
>	equipment failure is one of the risks we drivers assume.
>	Even if the tire is defective, we assume that risk."
>
>    By the way, the above exchange was ruled as inadmissible as it
>    was "Prejudicial and irrelevant," and was never heard by the jury 
>    in the Donohue case.

Anyone know *why* this is "Prejudicial and irrelevant" ???
Sounds to me like excluding it is prejudicial.  If Donohue is
sane/competent/etc and makes this statement, looks like Goodyear is
off the hook. (Barring some written agreement between Donohue and
Goodyear (doubtful) or a warranty on the tire - and I suspect racing
tires don't come with much, of a warranty, if any.)

-- 
	_____
       /_____\	   	    That auto-crossing beagle,
      /_______\			      Snoopy
	|___|		    BMWCCA, Windy City Chapter
    ____|___|_____	       ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert