Sunday, August 5, 2007
setexasrec: If you disagree, I got 4 brand spankin new ones to put on your family vehicle; oh yeah & one spare just in case you survive the blow out.
So WATT does this mean for Texas?
Who is the author?
After reading this article i got to believe the author is not familiar with the adversarial process or the article is pure prevarication. Who wants to buy a vehicle without laminated windows. I don't, but in Mikal's argument it was just mental re-enforcement for the jury and he is representing his client with zeal. .In layman terms Laminated glass, which is two layers of plate glass with plastic laminate in between, is used on automotive windshields. It has been used for decades to keep objects from easily getting through the windshield and entering the vehicle. The negative is it prevent easy exit should one need to break the glass in order to escape in a submerged situation or something of that nature.
KENEDENO: "I say hot damn we got ourselves a fighter, and advocate. Now there's an attribute money cant buy, a game mentality moving unencumbered through legal birds nests and over hurdles to accomplish results.
"Like a Pitbull in the Middle of a Bunch of Poodles upon Capitol Hill.
The bottom line is the tire is faulty but it is cheaper to pay the injured and dead than it is to replace all of the tires on all of the brand new vehicles. Well, at least that was the word according bean counters (Actuarial Analysts). I bet they dont work there anymore, eh? When an automaker knows there is a faulty product that will "cause a death or two" and they acquiesce, or continue to produce the vehicle with the defective product and they dont recall the defective product for WATT ever reason they need to pay.
Watt if you or your family member purchased a brand new Explorer or Expedition or Excursion. You plan a vacation and plot out your trip planning to stop for the young ones at the rest areas and to stretch the legs and maybe even swap drivers. Everybody has their pillow and their reading material or headphones and music, for the kids you had the video screen and dvd systenm installed and you even went the extra mile and installed a Playstation III for the kids and the kids at heart.
So we are cruising and everyone is commenting on the comfort, the neat features, the enhanced entertainment, and the overall "On The Road" experience the new vehicle provides.
The last thing on their mind is breaking down, needing to check the fluids every few miles, or rolling down the window because the air conditioning dont work. The passengers and the driver feel secure and safe; maybe they dont even buckle up.
The next thing we know the vehicle has become impaired and unstable. The resulting tumbling, sliding, shattering of glass, screaming, and bending of metal that happens in less than a minute (but feels like a lifetime) comes to a rest and there is a eerie silence for a moment. Then the lucky ones can moan in their pain and the silent ones Vaya Con DIOS. How long before the Halo FLight? How long before rescue?
And you come to find out you have lost 1 or 2 or 5 of your loved ones because of something that makes no sense at all.
I am not talking about the Blowout people, I am talking about the decision made by the automaker that your loved ones were just another number, a casualty in the name of profits.
Would you want an advocate fighting for your interests like Mikal Watts fights the giant automakers?
If you disagree, I got 4 brand spankin new ones to put on your family vehicle; oh yeah and one spare just in case you survive the blow out.
Mikal Watts' arguments
8/4/2007 10:58 AM
Three college girls are driving cross-country pulling a U-Haul trailer while simultaneously sharing a bag of marijuana. About 20 hours into the voyage, the driver brakes hard on a hill and loses control, sending the car off the side of the road.
They weren't wearing seat belts.
Was she high? Fatigued? Did she forget that breaking hard on a downslope while pulling a fully-stuffed U-Haul is a big no-no?
Whatever. Represented by Corpus Christi plaintiff's lawyer Mikal Watts in a suburban Houston courtroom, she demanded millions in damages over the accident-- from a tire maker.
No matter that Texas state investigators blamed the wreck on driver error and speeding, concluding the tires remained intact after the crash and worked just fine. Still, Watts argued they were wrong, that it wasn't her fault. He even demanded the judge declare a mistrial when the defense had the nerve to raise the girl's driving-while-pot smoking in court.
Is this the kind of guy-- one who would make such a specious, if self-serving, argument with a straight face-- that we want representing Texas in the U.S. Senate?
Mr. Watts, a 39-year-old mega-millionaire and judge's son who flies private, is traveling the state this summer, raising money and straining to re-define himself as a populist "everyman" in preparation for the Spring 2008 Democrat primary election.
He made his bones making arguments like the aforementioned, suing automakers and other businesses. But suffice to say, he won't be bragging on the campaign trail about the "marijuana mistrial" or his lawsuit blaming Ford for an accident in which the driver was speeding, had been drinking and wasn't wearing a seat belt.
The automaker was at fault because, according to Watts, it didn't laminate its side windows.
Watts will also remain mum about the embarrassing hiccup in that Ford case-- when it was revealed mid-trial that one of his associate lawyers was dating one of the jurors. She had even helped him "recruit" two of the plaintiffs for Watts, evidence showed.
Apparently under no ethical obligation to tell the court about this, Watts remained quiet and steadfast. It paid off-- he won a $31 million verdict.
"Mikal Watts has spent his entire career fighting on behalf of average, working Texans," promised his spokesman in a recent interview.
Don't believe it just because he says so.