So who needs TCP?

Ronstang said:

Sorry, disclaimers don't mean anything.....ask a lawyer. COVER YOUR BUTT!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Funny, but I don't remember ever learning that in law school.

dolfan87 said:

We have talked with several of the fab shops that do both design, and copying of others designs. Patents are basically worthless in this field. All one has to do is change a single bend, or use a different tube, and they are in the clear.
87

Click to expand...

Martha Stewart admitted that her famous "Martha Stewart Recipes" were lifted straight from copyrighted cook books. All she had to do avoid a CR infringement was to change "1/4 tsp of salt" to "1/8 tsp of salt" and send her cookbook to the printer.

jerry S said:

Funny, but I don't remember ever learning that in law school.

Click to expand...

You are in the Netherlands right? Dutch law is different from US law. Unless of course you went to law school in the US.

skywalker said:

You are in the Netherlands right? Dutch law is different from US law. Unless of course you went to law school in the US.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that there are huge differences between Dutch and US law. There are even huge differences between the US States. I may intelligently opine on such things as I am admitted in Michigan (1997), Illinois (1994), and Pennsylvania (1993).

jerry S said:

I agree with you that there are huge differences between Dutch and US law. There are even huge differences between the US States. I may intelligently opine on such things as I am admitted in Michigan (1997), Illinois (1994), and Pennsylvania (1993).

Click to expand...

Stop it with your fancy words Mr. Smarty-Pants!!

Greetings,

I found this thread (well whole forum actually) while looking for pricing and info on replacing my shot upper control arms... I love the internet, it always provides a better / more expensive solution

I just wanted to say that I applaud you guys on your work, and have decided to await the outcome of your efforts (and live with some steering wobble) before reaching a decision!

Oh, BTW.....

dolfan87 said:

bnickle, you asked if you were close on price, and I will say this much, your first estimate was close.

87

Click to expand...

bnickel's first estimate seems to be:

bnickel said:

i'll give ya a case of beer and some pocket lint for one of em

Click to expand...

I will gladly raise that to THREE cases of the finest lager, and the contents of the ashtray in my mustang!


-Aaron

------------------------------------------------------------------------
'68 coupe White w/ black vinyle top
302 / t-5 tranny

"bought the car as a 'finished project', so of course the first thing I did was rip the engine out and rebuild it "

Looking good...

jerry S said:

I agree with you that there are huge differences between Dutch and US law. There are even huge differences between the US States. I may intelligently opine on such things as I am admitted in Michigan (1997), Illinois (1994), and Pennsylvania (1993).

Click to expand...

Understood! I figred you were admitted to the bar here, I was just trying to draw that out after your prior statement as I had no doubt someone else would point it out.

Now correct me if I am wrong. But a disclaimer such as wilwood uses, except on a sticker around the parts, wouldn't that be so obvious to force is to be read, so that a lawsuit trying to pin liability on the manufacturer would have a really tough time if it didn't get thrown out?

You are correct about state laws...It never ceases to amaze me hgow different law in Georgia is from law in Alabama - and I'm NOT a lawyer!

bnickle, you asked if you were close on price, and I will say this much, your first estimate was close.

Click to expand...

I just thought that with all this talk of fabrication thread was in order. I don't pretend to completely understand all aspects of a front-end, but here is a thread that raises a-lot of eyebrows when concerning a front coil-over and most any front mods. Hope this answers some questions, and brings to light questions that need to be asked concerning redesigning a front suspension. This is meant to help by adding info that may have been looked over during the design.
http://corner-carvers.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=2336&highlight=TCP

Not real sure if this has been asked yet, but what kind of rod-ends are you using or planning on using?


As before, awesome job, thanks for taking the time to develop a really cool addition to our hobby. Now I just hope you can handle influx of questions with great customer service that is what killed tcp anyway.kep up the good work!!

Also, the majority of that thread focused on the TCP racecar, not our cars. I tried to get it back to our cars several times with no luck. Most of the flaws and fixes were based on the pieces on the TCP racecar.

and a good majority of that thread is on the TCP rear suspension alone, i like dolfans's rear a lot better that tcp's anyway

Any chance the kit would work with Granada spindles?

skywalker said:

Understood! I figred you were admitted to the bar here, I was just trying to draw that out after your prior statement as I had no doubt someone else would point it out.

Now correct me if I am wrong. But a disclaimer such as wilwood uses, except on a sticker around the parts, wouldn't that be so obvious to force is to be read, so that a lawsuit trying to pin liability on the manufacturer would have a really tough time if it didn't get thrown out?

You are correct about state laws...It never ceases to amaze me hgow different law in Georgia is from law in Alabama - and I'm NOT a lawyer!

Click to expand...

the measure of negligence can even vary even within one state. Take medical care, for example. What would pass for an an acceptable level of care in a rural county in a big state might be considered negligent in a more urban county.

For product liability, mfg can be negligent in PL for defective design, defective manufacture, or for failing to disclose to the consumer "issues" that are known to the mfg. There are also other things that relate to marketing/labeling (this is PL in a very small nutshell). As for what Wilwood does, this well could be sufficient to limit its liability. Some states even go so far as to codify in its statutues the effect of warnings.

600.2948 Death or injury; warnings as evidence.
Sec. 2948.

(1) Evidence is admissible in a product liability action that, before the death of the person or injury to the person or damage to property, pamphlets, booklets, labels, or other written warnings were provided that gave notice to foreseeable users of the material risk of injury, death, or damage connected with the foreseeable use of the product or provided instructions as to the foreseeable uses, applications, or limitations of the product that the defendant knew or should have known.

(2) A defendant is not liable for failure to warn of a material risk that is or should be obvious to a reasonably prudent product user or a material risk that is or should be a matter of common knowledge to persons in the same or similar position as the person upon whose injury or death the claim is based in a product liability action.

(3) In a product liability action brought against a manufacturer or seller for harm allegedly caused by a failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions, a manufacturer or seller is not liable unless the plaintiff proves that the manufacturer knew or should have known about the risk of harm based on the scientific, technical, or medical information reasonably available at the time the specific unit of the product left the control of the manufacturer.

(4) This section does not limit a manufacturer's or seller's duty to use reasonable care in relation to a product after the product has left the manufacturer's or seller's control.


History: Add. 1978, Act 495, Eff. Dec. 13, 1978 ;--Am. 1995, Act 161, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 ;--Am. 1995, Act 249, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 .




Below, there is another of the relevant sections from Michigan's PL law. Take a look at paragraph 2 below. It says that in order for a mfg to be liable for a defect, the plaintiff has to prove that the product was not "resonably safe" when it left the factory. There is a huge difference between "safe" (relatively absolute) and "resonably safe." The plaintiff also has to prove that an alternative production technique could have made the product safer. Dolfan will have to keep testing his products as well as keep abreast of generally accepted mfg techniques in the industry. Keep in mind that the burden of proving the product is not safe is on the plaintiff. It is not enough for a consumer to say "I was hurt in an accident. Gimmee, gimmee, gimmee!!!" What this means is that Dolfan has to do a manufacturing survey of like products and make sure that his production techniques are in line with what everyone else does and keep records of this. If nobody else is using poly bushings in their strut rods, then you should not do so either. Dolfan will also have to do some engineering studies to evalute the cost, performance, and safety of different designs or production techniques (and keep records). One design might be safer than another. However, if it costs 3x the price, then it might not be negligent to produce the less safe design. But if it costs only a few bucks more, then an injured consumer might have a better claim. Dolfan will have to keep surveying the industry to make sure that his mfg techniques are consistent with what everyone else is doing (and keep records). If all others change to a new welding technique that results in a stronger product that is less prone to fail and he does not change his own mfg techniques as well, this could be evidence of a defective product. It is best to involve a lawyer and cost accountant at the early stages of your design to document the costs of each design or mfg technique for the simple reason that it is cheaper to do it up front and not 5 years down the road when you get sued by some bone head.

All this is a pain to deal with but once you conquer the learning curve, you are good to go. It may be possible to get PL insurance. The rates will be commensurate with the carrier's risk of loss. Proper mfg techniques and warnings can keep the carrier's risk to a minimum and the rates can be reasonable.

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961 (EXCERPT)


Act 236 of 1961

600.2946 Product liability action; admissible evidence.
Sec. 2946.

(1) It shall be admissible as evidence in a product liability action that the production of the product was in accordance with the generally recognized and prevailing nongovernmental standards in existence at the time the specific unit of the product was sold or delivered by the defendant to the initial purchaser or user.

(2) In a product liability action brought against a manufacturer or seller for harm allegedly caused by a production defect, the manufacturer or seller is not liable unless the plaintiff establishes that the product was not reasonably safe at the time the specific unit of the product left the control of the manufacturer or seller and that, according to generally accepted production practices at the time the specific unit of the product left the control of the manufacturer or seller, a practical and technically feasible alternative production practice was available that would have prevented the harm without significantly impairing the usefulness or desirability of the product to users and without creating equal or greater risk of harm to others. An alternative production practice is practical and feasible only if the technical, medical, or scientific knowledge relating to production of the product, at the time the specific unit of the product left the control of the manufacturer or seller, was developed, available, and capable of use in the production of the product and was economically feasible for use by the manufacturer. Technical, medical, or scientific knowledge is not economically feasible for use by the manufacturer if use of that knowledge in production of the product would significantly compromise the product's usefulness or desirability.

(3) With regard to the production of a product that is the subject of a product liability action, evidence of a philosophy, theory, knowledge, technique, or procedure that is learned, placed in use, or discontinued after the event resulting in the death of the person or injury to the person or property, which if learned, placed in use, or discontinued before the event would have made the event less likely to occur, is admissible only for the purpose of proving the feasibility of precautions, if controverted, or for impeachment.

(4) In a product liability action brought against a manufacturer or seller for harm allegedly caused by a product, there is a rebuttable presumption that the manufacturer or seller is not liable if, at the time the specific unit of the product was sold or delivered to the initial purchaser or user, the aspect of the product that allegedly caused the harm was in compliance with standards relevant to the event causing the death or injury set forth in a federal or state statute or was approved by, or was in compliance with regulations or standards relevant to the event causing the death or injury promulgated by, a federal or state agency responsible for reviewing the safety of the product. Noncompliance with a standard relevant to the event causing the death or injury set forth in a federal or state statute or lack of approval by, or noncompliance with regulations or standards relevant to the event causing the death or injury promulgated by, a federal or state agency does not raise a presumption of negligence on the part of a manufacturer or seller. Evidence of compliance or noncompliance with a regulation or standard not relevant to the event causing the death or injury is not admissible.


History: Add. 1978, Act 495, Eff. Dec. 13, 1978 ;--Am. 1995, Act 249, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 .