MAFCA lawsuit question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Great Lakes Greg

Great Lakes Greg

Well-known member
I just opened my new issue of The Restorer Magazine and was dismayed to read in the Presidents page, that MAFCA is involved in some kind of lawsuit.
"The lawsuit involving MAFCA is on-going and will continue well into the new year with unknown impact on out budget."
I guess I have been under a rock, because this is the first I have heard of it. Can anybody clue me in to what the issue is?
 
on a thread a while back, it was mentioned that there was a lawsuit on MAFCA because while on a mafca sanctioned tour in california, a modern car ran head on into a Model A that was stopped in a left turn lane at a light. Apparently the family is suing the local club & mafca.

This is all I know and I think it's sad a family is going after the organizations.
 
Hey it's true though **** happens people die there called accidents. They should be going after the guy that hit the A not the club. If it was my farther killed I'd say the same **** happens every day and he was doing somthing he loved. law suites like this are what's wrong with our country.
 
havent gotten the new mafca mag yet, but this isnt even remotely connected with liable parties...man driving has all the responsabilities to have proper operation of vehicle at all times ... sounds like some lawer rewriting the law to suit the occasion...came upon a bad accident one day traveling down the hyway. upon passing thru the accident found a skunk hit in road, a little further down the road saw a lawyer was struck in the road..... which one had the skidddd marks????/ sorry...couldnt help myself....k
 
Does anyone know the Jurisdiction in which the suit is lodged?

And no I am not a lawyer....but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night....

Swoff
 
Well folks, I am a lawyer, and it is incredible how most of you jumped immediately to conclusions without even one solitary fact to support them. If a vehicle hit the Model A head on at a traffic light, there is no liability whatsoever, and the suit would have been dismissed long ago. Could it be the vintage vehicle violated the traffic laws, and the organization participated in the violation through it's own independent actions?

A liability release or indemnification from the owner to the organization would be fairly useless if the owner is uncollectible beyond his or her policy limits. The lawyer isn't "predatory", just (maybe) doing a thorough job for his client. Wouldn't each of you want the same?

I love a good lawyer joke as much as anyone, but someone needs to state the exact factual situation so an unemotional analysis can take place, and then blast whoever really deserves it.
 
MarkR said:
Well folks, I am a lawyer, and it is incredible how most of you jumped immediately to conclusions without even one solitary fact to support them. If a vehicle hit the Model A head on at a traffic light, there is no liability whatsoever, and the suit would have been dismissed long ago. Could it be the vintage vehicle violated the traffic laws, and the organization participated in the violation through it's own independent actions?

A liability release or indemnification from the owner to the organization would be fairly useless if the owner is uncollectible beyond his or her policy limits. The lawyer isn't "predatory", just (maybe) doing a thorough job for his client. Wouldn't each of you want the same?

I love a good lawyer joke as much as anyone, but someone needs to state the exact factual situation so an unemotional analysis can take place, and then blast whoever really deserves it.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with MarkR...Is there anyone out there that can enlighten us on this case? My God...I and I am sure most of you are MAFCA members...we pay our dues to belong to this club...as members, we are entitled to know the facts...is there anyone out there that knows the facts on this lawsuit?

Pluck
 
It is the Speer lawsuit,

http://milpitas.patch.com/articles/ewert-speer-75-ford-model-a-enthusiast
More details

http://findmyaccident.com/californi...rash-involving-1931-ford-model-a-in-mariposa/

http://www.contracostatimes.com/rss/ci_17827482?source=rss

I see no reason for a law suit against MAFCA based on these reports. He was stopped and another car was hit and forced into him. He did nothing and for sure the club did nothing. Again in this country you can sue anyone for any reason as long as you want to pay a lawyer. It is the lawyers that have nothing to lose and everything to gain!

MAFCA calls it the "Speer Lawsuit" but I'm unable to find out who is exactly sueing MAFCA. Is it one of the drivers or the Speer family?

Remember the woman that bought hot coffee, placed it between her legs while driving and won money because it was hot and burned her?
 
Last edited:
Jeff/Illinois said:
But, when are people responsible for their own actions?

I bought a Stihl chain saw years ago. If I am being careless and cut off a hand because I used the chain saw in an unsafe way, is it the Stihl Corp. fault or is it mine?

Evidently, today, it's not MY fault.
Click to expand...

You will find a lawer that will go to court for you and argue that it is an unsafe tool. There are several cases where crime victums are trying to sue gun manufacturers for producing an unsafe product.

In this country it is ALWAYS someone elses fault and you can always find a lawyer that will tell you that you need to be compensated (after their share of course).

True story,

Ron and Kristie Simmons. The couple's 4-year-old son, Justin, was killed in a tragic lawnmower accident in a licensed daycare facility, and the death was clearly the result of negligence by the daycare providers as the owner was mowing the lawn, allowing the mower to move backwards down hill while his wife went inside to change a diaper leaving Justin and others outside alone. The providers were clearly deserving of being sued, yet when the Simmons's discovered the daycare only had $100,000 in insurance, they dropped the case against them and instead sued the manufacturer of the 16-year-old lawn mower because the mower didn't have a safety device that 1) had not been invented at the time of the mower's manufacture, and 2) no safety agency had even suggested needed it to be invented. A sympathetic jury still awarded the family $2 million, 1 million to Justins 1 year old brother.


Chinese Man Sues Wife For Being Ugly
When most people have ugly babies, they hope the kid will grow out of it and move on. But when Chinese man Jian Feng had an ugly baby, he demanded answers from his beautiful wife. She broke down and admitted that she had undergone extensive plastic surgery before she met Feng. Feeling betrayed, Feng divorced his wife and then successfully sued her for $120,000 in damages for marrying him under false pretenses.
 
Last edited:
I don't know the details of this case... but I do think we are slowly losing our ability to know right from wrong.

Judges, juries, lawyers, and ordinary citizens can no longer discern truth from untruth or wrong from right. And, a growing segment of society say there are no absolute "rights" and "wrongs." That every "truth" is relative to every situation and individual. Certainly in the practice of law, the only truth is whether you win or not. Right and wrong has nothing to do with it, so it naturally behooves lawyers to cheat, lie, swindle, and game the system as fervently as possible. Who's to stop them?
 
I know this has turned in to a lawyer thing because they handle lawsuits, but there are honest people and crooked people - lawyers are people.
 
Last edited:
If the facts are accurate as posted above from the various newspapers, the organization would have no liability. Frivolous lawsuits are quickly disposed of by the courts. If lawyers lie, swindle and cheat, they lose their license rather quickly. In 44 years of practice, I find almost all of my colleagues are honorable, and do not lie, swindle and cheat. Next time you get arrested or are seriously injured, who will you call?

The hot coffee case was quickly overturned, as the court documents will readily demonstrate. I am positive in the "lawnmower" case, the suit against the day care center was not "dropped", but settled, and then proceeded against the manufacturer under various theories. If you don't like the liability laws, work with your legislators to change them, the courts just interpret them.

By the way, I'd sue the ugly wife also.
 
Mike V. Florida said:
It is the Speer lawsuit,

http://milpitas.patch.com/articles/ewert-speer-75-ford-model-a-enthusiast
More details

http://findmyaccident.com/californi...rash-involving-1931-ford-model-a-in-mariposa/

http://www.contracostatimes.com/rss/ci_17827482?source=rss


Remember the woman that bought hot coffee, placed it between her legs while driving and won money because it was hot and burned her?
Click to expand...

The reason that've suit was valid, was because the health department had written them up several times for the holding temperature being too hot.
So I was told by a female attorney, when I whined about me not being able to sue the jackass doctor who missed diagnosis me dying off an internal staff infection. (He thought it was gout). Chuck
 
The problem is a large portion of the legislators are lawyers.

There is a local flower shop that was sued by a guy that came to buy flowers for his wife, after making his flower purchase, drove home a good 15 to 20 miles from the flower shop and upon pulling into his driveway got out to check his mailbox, and sprained his ankle in a pothole in his own driveway? the argument was that if he had not gone to the flower shop this wouldn't have happened, WTF the flower shop owner was pressured into paying an out of court settlement for $10,000 plus several thousand for his own attorney fees. he was advised to do this as the cheapest way out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top