Speed governor has something to do with lawyers...

[Mann Law <mannlaw@indy.net>]

	While I am not sure anyone cares about the info I am about to 
post, somebody might find it interesting, so, here goes.

	You may be right.  Lawyers working for the government, dot, 
whatever, may have something to do with speed gov.  This, however, should 
not be confused with the lawyers so many people like to hate--plaintiff's 
trial lawyers.  We [yeah, I'm one] do catch shi* for many product cases, 
perhaps rightfully so in a very small minority of cases.  However, 
several facts to consider.

	First, there may be no other case as difficult [time, expenses, 
legions of opposing attorneys, etc] than a single plaintiff product case 
involving automobiles.  With rare exceptions.  But, where lawyers would 
be thought to have an impact on say, the 130mph speed governor, the 
plaintiff's product bar really could care less about the top speed of any 
car.  Reason is simple:  In most crashworthiness cases, one defense that 
is constantly raised is assumed risk; another is comparative fault of the 
driver [assuming the driver is the plaintiff--otherwise the driver would 
either be named as a non-party by the manufacturer, or he / she would 
also be sued in the case [unless a "guest" statute would disallow it].  
Anyway, if the driver is the plaintiff--his actions leading up to the 
wreck *will* be examined with a microscope.  Because of this, if the 
driver is driving 130mph, or 180mph, is meaningless [talking non-racing 
here] as it will be contended that such speed is a misuse of the subject 
vehicle, he is solely the cause, on and on and on.  Chances are, if a 
driver was exceeding the speed limit by a factor of nearly 3, and the 
driver is the only one injured / killed, that case won't be filed---cause 
it can't be won [manufacturer will contend that *no* car could withstand 
the impact at 130, 150, 180, etc].  

	I could go on for many more paragraphs here [see above "First"], 
but it will just take up space.  Now, realize, the law regarding 
manufacturing defects varies often times from state to state.  But the 
bottom line to most product cases is:  You have to prove, by expert 
testimony, the injury either would not have occurred, or would not have 
been as severe as it is--BUT FOR the defect, ie., a gas tank which 
explodes when involved in a 20mph side impact; a roof which flattens in 
on the drivers head in a rollover; etc.  

	Sorry for the BW, if you have questions about the above, e-mail 
me, I'll try to fill in the many gaps that exist in what was written.

	Bruce