Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 04:12:10 -0400
Reply-To: "Samuel L. Walters" <slwalters@EARTHLINK.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: "Samuel L. Walters" <slwalters@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Re: Hydroflame suit- Totally erroneous information
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
While it was a nice effort for Mr. Arnott to try to do some
research on the Hydroflame lawsuit, the information that he
posted on the list is almost totally erroneous and is certainly
misleading.
I am going to assume that Mr. Arnott is not a lawyer and that this
is the reason that he failed to understand what he read and failed
to read the earlier appellate opinion in this case, which is cited
in the opinion that he hyperlinked for us.
First, the fact that the Durden's sued to recover damages for "injuries"
does not have any significance in making an evaluation of whether or not
the lawsuit was frivilous. Injuries could cover anything from Mr.
Arnott's
conjectured "headache" to the Durden's child April being left in a coma
by
the carbon monoxide. We probably can assume that neither Ms. Durden or
April, who are
the two family members alleged to have suffered injuries, did not die
from
carbon monoxide, or there would have been a claim for wrongful death.
It is too bad that too many commercials sponsored by big business, big
insurance companies,
and some right wing politicians who want their money, have been believed
by so many
average people who would (or are) get screwed if tort reform legislation
is adopted on
a widespread basis. To read what was in these two opinions and jump to
a conclusion
that this was friviouls litigation is totally unfounded. Upon
examination, many of the
stories about "frivilous cases" that are told in these tort reform
campaigns turn out to
be extreme exaggerations. This is not to say that there are not some
friviouls cases filed
by lawyers. I have had people come to me looking for a lawyer to file
specious cases
and have turned them down.
On the other hand there are plenty of times that the defendant company
who has been sued
in a products liability case hides information from the plaintiff(and
the public) and makes
incredibly frivilous statements and claims in the defense of a valid
lawsuit against them.
Remember all of the incriminating information that the tobacco and
asbestos industries kept
hidden from the public for years, and fought for years in court to keep
hidden, all the while
claiming that they knew nothing about any dangers posed by their
products. And what about
Ford and Firestone/Bridgestone? Read on, it appears to be part of this
case also.
Back to the Durden's and the lawsuit against Hydro-flame and Chief
Industries.
1) Hydro-flame settled with the Durden's before trial so there never
was a verdict for or
against Hydro-flame. A settlement does not necessarily mean an
admission
of liability, but from the way this case was litigated, with all of the
motions and appeals filed by
the various parties, it does not appear that the Durden's lawyers would
have settled for chump change
or nuisance value money. There likely was something to concern
Hydro-flame that prompted the settlement
for more than nuisance dollars, but we can't be sure. Hydro-flame
almost certainly did not settle
if this was a frivilous lawsuit. Doing that would only invite more
lawsuits.
2) Chief Industries admitted liability on the Durden's claims against
them. In other words, the did not
have any defense which they could make that would disprove the Durden's
claims that "the trailer was designed and manufactured in a defective
and unreasonably dangerous condition because it incorporated a defective
heating system, failed to have carbon monoxide detection devices, and
failed to include adequate and complete warnings," and "that Chief
Industries failed to 'properly inspect and test' the furnace."
3) Chief Industries limited its defense to trying to prove that these
admitted failures were not the source of the
injuries alleged to have been suffered by the Ms. Durden and her
daughter April. At the first trial they were able
to convince the jury that there was no connection, and the jury awarded
no damages to the Durden's despite the admission
of liability by Chief.
4) The Trial Court judge overturned the jury's verdict, instead
granting one for the Durden's by finding that "as a
matter of law" there was not enough evidence to support a ruling in
favor of Chief. The trial court also granted the Durden's motion for
sanctions against Chief's attorney for misconduct at trial and order
Chief to pay the Durden's attorney's fees, costs, and expenses for the
first trial and the motions to obtain a new trial. This type of ruling
is rare and is less likely to be granted against a business entity.
Clearly, it was not the Durdens or their lawyer who were engaging in
inappropriate or frivilous conduct.
5) Chief appealed - but only the trial court's directed verdict against
them. Chief did not appeal, and therefore waived any right to challenge
the award of fees against them for the misconduct of their counsel. The
first appellate court did reverse the directed verdict granted to the
Durden's by the trial court, but this only means that the appellate
court thought that there was at least some evidence, when taken in the
light most favorable to Chief, that warranted letting a different jury
hear all of the evidence at a new trial, which hopefully would not be
tainted by the misconduct of Chief's attorney, and make a decision on
the issue of whether the admittedly negligent actions by Cheif "caused"
the injuries suffered by Ms. Durden and April, and if so, what were the
amount of the damages.
In short, the manufacturer did not want to go to trial and settled. The
rulings in this case tell us nothing definitive about the safety of this
product, but if the company settled, and Chief was willing to bet all of
its marbles on a claim that it could prove that all of the damages that
the Durden's suffered came from Hydor-flames defective product and not
its admitted negligence, I would think carefully about the use of the
product.
Remember, carbon monoxide kills - usually no warning, just sleep and
death. Especially if you are in a camper at night
sleeping anyway, what is going to wake you up?
Sam Walters
84 Vanagon 161k
Original owner
Attorney
20+ years, owned the van most of those
Admitted to practice in:
three jurisdictions, MS, DC, and MD
Over ten US Federal District courts around the U.S.
Four U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals
U.S. Supreme Court
Most of legal career spent representing indigent persons, civil rights
claimants, etc.
That is why my daily ride is in a aging '84 Vanagon, which the list
should help me
to keep running for several more years.