Raconteur
Nitro Member
Julie Russell has dismissed 1/3 of her Lawsuit in the 274th District Court in Comal County, Texas.
.
.
Julie Russell Settles... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Raconteur
- Start date
HEMI6point1
Nitro Member
The other 2/3's still scare me.
whyisthisarequiredfield
Nitro Member
If this case goes to a jury trial, she WILL win. 
If this case goes to a jury trial, she WILL win.
You never know.............Drag Racing is an "Assumed Risk". The jury might see it that way.
If this case goes to a jury trial, she WILL win.
I wouldn't bet on that if I were you.
its a toss up. There's the obvious risk of driving 300+mph vs a sanctioning body mandating certain products that had a history of issues.
The only thing certain is that a bunch of lawyers are going to make a ton of money. This one could go either way very easily. I wouldn't want to be on that jury
The only thing certain is that a bunch of lawyers are going to make a ton of money. This one could go either way very easily. I wouldn't want to be on that jury
Jet
Nitro Member
I think they will consider that drag racing is an assumed risk however, in looking for fault they will be presented that NHRA and Goodyear knew they had a problem tire and continued to spec it for racing. If Julie's lawyers can prove that, then whole defense train will fly off the tracks.
HEMI6point1
Nitro Member
Wasn't the tire punctured by something that flew off the engine? If that's the case then it really isn't the tire's "fault," right?
Last edited:
I'm don't remember let me double check that report that they were going to do
There is no right or wrong in this one, but its gonna get ugly
r2
Nitro Member
Sorry Pee, you mispelled a word, I fixed it...I'm dumb remember, let me double check that report that they were going to do
There is no right or wrong in this one, but its gonna get ugly
I have no comment on this issue... Other than I miss Darrell Russell...
Last edited:
Jet
Nitro Member
Sorry Pee, you mispelled a word, I fixed it...
I have no comment on this issue... Other than I miss Darrell Russell...
As do we all!
Joker741
Nitro Member
This sport has claimed some great people over the years, Russell happens to be one of them, not the first, not the last (R.I.P. Eric). This sport can be dangerous, I hope a jury see it that way, not that I feel Julie should get nothing, just that she and Darrell knew the risks going in.
megadeth
Nitro Member
I agree to a certain extent Suzie, but the fact that NHRA mandated the use of one specific brand of tire worries me a lot!
The second you start to mandate you inherit a part of the liability. The mandated use of equipment i.e.tires, safety equipment etc. puts you in a tough spot. If I were NHRA and Good Year I would definitely be worried. It wouldn't surprised if they were in litigation to settle as we speak.
Obviously Bell felt the option of risk was there or they wouldn't have settled. Settling isn't an omission of guilt either settling just saves them a lot in legal expenses which could last years and dwarf the settlement.
With the percentage laws even though the entities mention are not deemed 100% at fault they do have a percentage of liability that is why all of our insurance premiums are so high insurance companies will settle just to end the suit and save big dollars in defense it doesn't matter who is at fault and those costs are reflected in your premiums.
It sucks but it's a fact of life!
Last edited:
none
Nitro Member
I won't comment on the suit, but if you scroll down and read the story about Von Smith, I had to laugh. The "Agent" is right on top of that one, Von raced in Tucson and Las Vegas at the LODRS races. As well as the Vegas Nationals. It is the car owned by Rick Jackson and tuned by Steve Boggs. And at their fourth race the agent noticed. Now that I think about it, that's about his batting average.
It's hard to slip anything by that agent.
Alan
It's hard to slip anything by that agent.
Alan
jpee
Nitro Member
MM
Nitro Member
If this case goes to a jury trial, she WILL win.
just like OJ, Michael Jackson and Robert Blake were sure to lose right??
Jenn
Nitro Member
Didn't Von go rounds at both the LODRS and the nat?
d'kid
Nitro Member
Jury of your Peers... IE, someone who understands the sport... as if that's ever going to happen...
I see a jury made up of soccer moms, cab drivers, ect who have no clue of the hows and whys of racing... if so, the NHRA and Good*Year are screwed... and ten thousand side issues like how come the roll cage shields weren't mandatory before....
We miss you DR...
I see a jury made up of soccer moms, cab drivers, ect who have no clue of the hows and whys of racing... if so, the NHRA and Good*Year are screwed... and ten thousand side issues like how come the roll cage shields weren't mandatory before....
We miss you DR...
BlueStangGT
Nitro Member
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought that was kinda weird. I had to go look through some past results to make sure I wasn't hallucinating.
Nitrohelper
Nitro Member
Remember that Amato had bought up many of the "old" model tires, but NHRA wouldn't allow them to be used. After the accident with the mandated tires NHRA & Goodyear went back to the old model. And then also required the head shield , but not on F/Cs.
Try to explain to a jury of housewives that there wasn't any negligence involved in the mandate. Now after another death involving a tire , they require the shields on F/Cs.
The "dangerous knowledge" waiver has been thrown out . So forget the assumed risk, thats been argued already before the Judge.
Looking at the facts in this matter from my eight years as an expert witness (and staying at Holiday Inns), I believe there are many lawyers that would gladly represent the "poor" widow against these two large "unresponsive to danger"companies.
Try to explain to a jury of housewives that there wasn't any negligence involved in the mandate. Now after another death involving a tire , they require the shields on F/Cs.
The "dangerous knowledge" waiver has been thrown out . So forget the assumed risk, thats been argued already before the Judge.
Looking at the facts in this matter from my eight years as an expert witness (and staying at Holiday Inns), I believe there are many lawyers that would gladly represent the "poor" widow against these two large "unresponsive to danger"companies.
