shiningforce
Junior Member
State: California
Two years ago, I was driving an 85 CRX and rear-ended a then newer SUV. My car was totalled but I only damaged the rear bumper of the SUV. My insurance company paid property damage to the vehicle and an additional 10,000 for each person in the car.
Two years later, I received papers for a lawsuit in which the plaintiffs claim:
"Defendants, and each of them, negligently repaired the Defendants FEASTERS' vehicle resulting in the brakes/master cylinder malfunctioning and causing the FEASTERS' vehicle to strike the Plaintiffs' vehicle resulting in their personal injuries and damages."
So, basically, the brakes/master cylinder malfunctioned resulting in Negligenct Infliction of Emotional Distress (Dillon vs. Legg) and Consortium Loss.
The husband of the driver, not in the vehicle at the time nor near the scene, is claiming emotional distress, loss of consortium, etc.
Now, here's the kicker:
The master cylinder and brakes did NOT malfunction. I slammed on my brakes after the first rain of the season when the roads were slick. The car slowed down for a second and then the brakes locked and I went barreling into this SUV with tires squealing. I did not pump the brakes because I was not taught to do so; I sank my foot hard onto the brake pedal and held it up until the crash. I cannot pull out the master cylinder and prove that it was functioning properly because it was totalled and towed away two years ago, but I am certain that it had nothing to do with the accident.
Since the failure of the brakes is what they're basing their whole case on, do they have any leg to stand on in the eyes of the law? Who has to prove it?
Even if they did suffer any sort of whiplash diagnosed a year after the accident, I'm still convinced that they're just another greedy California family that's trying to squeeze blood from a turnip. Even if I win, I'm still out $10,000 in legal fees and lost wages to defend myself, plus I'll be in school at the time the trial finally takes place.
Two years ago, I was driving an 85 CRX and rear-ended a then newer SUV. My car was totalled but I only damaged the rear bumper of the SUV. My insurance company paid property damage to the vehicle and an additional 10,000 for each person in the car.
Two years later, I received papers for a lawsuit in which the plaintiffs claim:
"Defendants, and each of them, negligently repaired the Defendants FEASTERS' vehicle resulting in the brakes/master cylinder malfunctioning and causing the FEASTERS' vehicle to strike the Plaintiffs' vehicle resulting in their personal injuries and damages."
So, basically, the brakes/master cylinder malfunctioned resulting in Negligenct Infliction of Emotional Distress (Dillon vs. Legg) and Consortium Loss.
The husband of the driver, not in the vehicle at the time nor near the scene, is claiming emotional distress, loss of consortium, etc.
Now, here's the kicker:
The master cylinder and brakes did NOT malfunction. I slammed on my brakes after the first rain of the season when the roads were slick. The car slowed down for a second and then the brakes locked and I went barreling into this SUV with tires squealing. I did not pump the brakes because I was not taught to do so; I sank my foot hard onto the brake pedal and held it up until the crash. I cannot pull out the master cylinder and prove that it was functioning properly because it was totalled and towed away two years ago, but I am certain that it had nothing to do with the accident.
Since the failure of the brakes is what they're basing their whole case on, do they have any leg to stand on in the eyes of the law? Who has to prove it?
Even if they did suffer any sort of whiplash diagnosed a year after the accident, I'm still convinced that they're just another greedy California family that's trying to squeeze blood from a turnip. Even if I win, I'm still out $10,000 in legal fees and lost wages to defend myself, plus I'll be in school at the time the trial finally takes place.
Last edited: