Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site oliven.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!oliveb!olivej!oliven!chrisp
From: chrisp@oliven.UUCP (Chris Prael)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Who is Liable, ad nauseum...
Message-ID: <146@oliven.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-May-84 13:38:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: oliven.146
Posted: Fri May 25 13:38:53 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 05:52:58 EDT
Organization: Olivetti ATC, Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 25

>>I maintain that these people were not irresponsible, and could reasonably
>>have expected their cars to stay put when they shifted them into park.
>>....  It's one of those "bug/feature" arguments.
>>Jim Shankland

This discussion really belongs in net.legal or net.flame.

HOWEVER, if you really believe that the "victims" in your two examples were "not
irresponsible" you have NO business behind the wheel of a motor vehicle of any
sort! In both cases, the "victim" clearly failed to take reasonable and prudent
precautions. And that is irresponsible! 1. It is not reasonable and prudent to
leave the engine of an unattended vehicle running. 2. It is not reasonable and
prudent to leave an unattended vehicle without setting the parking brake.

I don't see any functional difference between the two people you cited and the
drunken slob who crashed the Porsche 930 in San Diego. In each case the operator
of the vehicle did not bother to pay attention to business. (Only an ignoramous
would call any of these people drivers.) And that is what kills people.

This does not mean that Ford did not muck it up thoroughly. Obviously they did.
But Ford's foulup does not releave the nerds who got caught out by it from
responsibility for their stupidity.


Chris Prael