It's quiet......too quiet.
 

On Feb 5, 5:12 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Bob Weinberger wrote:
strawman snipped
So how does that relate to a loss of power assist systems
by the vehicle that ran out of gas?

Geez Bob, you're starting to sound as pugnaciously obtuse as
the Little Wolfie. The contention was that running out of gas
is, legally speaking, negligent. And according to this case
from the North Cackalacky courts, apparently running out of gas
is indeed, legally speaking, negligent.

Moron. There's nothing in dicklet's little charade that suggests
running out of gas is, legally or otherwise, negligent.

See if you can find someone who reads English to explain it to you.

Wolfgang
anybody else still doesn't get it?

It's quiet......too quiet.
 

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:03:46 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
snip
On 20 December 1997, plaintiff was heading west on a 1986 Honda
motorcycle on the I-277 entrance ramp in Charlotte, North
Carolina. As plaintiff rounded the curve on the ramp, he saw
defendant's van backing down the ramp into his path. Plaintiff,
who was traveling thirty to forty miles per hour, applied his
brakes, which caused his motorcycle to slide on the pavement,
ultimately hitting the rear of defendant's van. As a result of
the accident, plaintiff sustained injuries that required medical
treatment including knee surgery.

Defendant McIlwain disputed plaintiff's version of the
accident, claiming that as he was entering the on-ramp to I-277,
*** his van ran out of gas.*** He was attempting to move the van to the
left shoulder, when plaintiff rounded the corner and ran into his
van." (emp. add.) _Campbell v. McIlwain_, 163 N.C. App. 553,
593 S.E.2d 799 (2004).

There were 200-plus more...wanna read 'em all?

TC,
R

Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR.

If they are similar incidents to the one you cite, why would I want to read
them all. Let's see, you assert that the safety problem with running out of
gas is the loss of control due to loss of power assist systems as a result
of the sudden (as alleged by you) stalling of the engine.

I assert that? When? Where? How?

In support of this you cite a case of a motorcyclist who runs into the back of a van that
the van driver alledges he was manuevering to the side of the road because
he ran out of gas.

I do? When? Where? How?

So how does that relate to a loss of power assist systems
by the vehicle that ran out of gas?

It doesn't, at insofar as is indicated by the except above. That's _a_
hint, not _the_ hint...

HTH,
R

Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR

It's quiet......too quiet.
 

It's quiet......too quiet.
 

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:12:57 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Bob Weinberger wrote:
strawman snipped
So how does that relate to a loss of power assist systems
by the vehicle that ran out of gas?

Geez Bob, you're starting to sound as pugnaciously obtuse as
the Little Wolfie. The contention was that running out of gas
is, legally speaking, negligent. And according to this case
from the North Cackalacky courts, apparently running out of gas
is indeed, legally speaking, negligent.

Not exactly. I didn't contend the mere act of running out of gas is
negligent, legally or otherwise. For example, sorta like Kevin's
version, running out of gas due to a mechanical fault not readily
apparent, such as where a sending unit/float went bad, wouldn't be
"negligent" in the common-usage sense. A finding of legal "negligence"
is a whole 'nuther ball game - it would depend on the jurisdiction, the
circumstances, the finder of facts, etc.

And from what I read (I sorta skimmed the opinion, but really only
_read_ what I posted), the "negligence" was, generally, obstructing a
thoroughfare, not "running out of gas." But the obstructing, in the
Defendant's own words, was a result of running out of gas. As an aside,
I didn't see anything about how smart he was, what he was thinking
about, etc., that might have resulted in his not paying attention to the
gas gauge, or even if he was or wasn't paying it attention.

IAC, the point I was making was that running out of gas isn't
_necessarily_ a "non-event" and if one does so because they weren't
paying attention to something right in front of them, "oops, silly me"
may not cut it excuse-wise.

TC,
R

It's quiet......too quiet.
 

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:59:12 -0500, jeff
wrote:

wrote:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:56:20 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

Seriously, though, my point was that someone who had experience with
older vehicles (without power assist) could be better suited to deal
with having a loss of power assist. IAC, your experiences are simply
anecdotal, and really can't show that an accident can't result from an
engine stall. But even allowing that your "sputtering" is universal (it
isn't, but...), I'd offer that a "sputtering," with the resultant
variation in power assist, would be as potentially dangerous, if not
more dangerous, depending on the skill and experience of the driver.

TC,
R

So, by your reckoning, conjecture that an accident might happen as a
direct result of loss of power assist systems from running out of gas - in
the absence of any examples that such has ever occurred - has higher
significance than numerous "anecdortal" experiences where immediate total
engine stall (while travelling in gear) and the concurrent loss of power
assist systems never occured absent sufficient warning signs from the
engine that allowed travel to the side of the road with all systems
functioning. BTW the thread relates specifically to running out of gas -
not sudden engine stall.


OK. Here's an excerpt from a case at, AHEM, jeff - the NC Court of
Appeals, from 2004 (the first hit on the search terms - and no, NC was
not one of the terms, it just happened that way...ain't that a
chuckler):

"This appeal arises out of an automobile accident that occurred
on 20 December 1997. On 18 December 2000, plaintiff, Jonathan
Campbell, filed a complaint against defendants Johnny McIlwain,
Ethan Allen, Inc., and D.L. Peterson, Inc., alleging that
McIlwain negligently operated a vehicle he was driving during the
course and scope of his employment with the other two defendants.
On 1 July 2002, *** the trial court entered judgment on a jury
verdict finding defendant McIlwain negligent*** and awarding
plaintiff $32,500 in damages. Defendants appeal. For the
following reasons, we find no error.

On 20 December 1997, plaintiff was heading west on a 1986 Honda
motorcycle on the I-277 entrance ramp in Charlotte, North
Carolina. As plaintiff rounded the curve on the ramp, he saw
defendant's van backing down the ramp into his path. Plaintiff,
who was traveling thirty to forty miles per hour, applied his
brakes, which caused his motorcycle to slide on the pavement,
ultimately hitting the rear of defendant's van. As a result of
the accident, plaintiff sustained injuries that required medical
treatment including knee surgery.

Defendant McIlwain disputed plaintiff's version of the
accident, claiming that as he was entering the on-ramp to I-277,
*** his van ran out of gas.*** He was attempting to move the van to the
left shoulder, when plaintiff rounded the corner and ran into his
van." (emp. add.) _Campbell v. McIlwain_, 163 N.C. App. 553,
593 S.E.2d 799 (2004).

There were 200-plus more...wanna read 'em all?

TC,
R

Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR.


um...not sure what the point is on this one either...seems a bit distant
from where this thread started and from our discussion as well. don't
remember the case, but i suspect it was a "sufficient competent evidence
to support the verdict" case and not a "negligent because ran out of
gas" case. weren't any airplanes involved were there? g

OK, first, let's forget about negligence in any legal sense and focus
solely on the common-usage sense. As far as I know, and I'd bet big on
it, there's no statute anywhere that says "If a person who operates a
motor vehicle in this jurisdiction and said person is not afflicted by
stupidity and is not legally blind, shall fail to notice a fuel supply
notification system and in that failure, shall run out of gas while: a)
thinking deep, b) polishing fingernails, c) talking on a device intended
for communications, or d) stuffing their cakehole, said person shall be
****ed..." IAC, see my reply to Ken.

And AFAIK, the Court was silent with regard to airplanes...and it
necessarily follows, screaming lawyers contained therein.

TC,
R

It's quiet......too quiet.
 

It's quiet......too quiet.
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:03:46 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:

SNIP

Let's see, you assert that the safety problem with running out of
gas is the loss of control due to loss of power assist systems as a result
of the sudden (as alleged by you) stalling of the engine.

I assert that? When? Where? How?

OK perhaps assert is slightly too strong a word, but do you remember typing
this?

That aside, I can tell you that when a vehicle with such features runs
"out of gas" (or the engine dies for other reasons) at higher speeds
(say, 50-plus mph/100-plus kph), it is most certainly a situation in
which the controls are affected, and anyone unfamiliar with such failure
could easily cause a, er, less-than-humorous situation. Even given
"safety" systems such as vacuum canisters and the that fact it is easier
to turn an unassisted steering wheel when the vehicle is in motion, the
control can be, and often is, greatly affected. The consequences of
those effects are, of course, subjective to the driver. Comprehensive
driving instruction deals with this very issue.
_____________________________________________

In support of this you cite a case of a motorcyclist who runs into the back
of a van that
the van driver alledges he was manuevering to the side of the road because
he ran out of gas.

I do? When? Where? How?

Is your memory so short that you forgot citing (not in the legal sense, but
in the providing back-up for your arguement sense) _Campbell v. McIlwain_,
163 N.C. App. 553,
593 S.E.2d 799 (2004) and deny that the description you supplied of the
case involves that exact set of circumstances?


So how does that relate to a loss of power assist systems
by the vehicle that ran out of gas?

It doesn't, at insofar as is indicated by the except above. That's _a_
hint, not _the_ hint...

Every post I've made in this thread had to do either with your
characterization of the threat to safety posed by running out of gas while
the vehicle is in motion - from the *immediate* degradation of power
assisted control that ensues - and/or your painting of my responses to that
characterization as esentially hogwash. I think I should have a reasonable
expectation that your replies to those posts address those same issues.


Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR

It's quiet......too quiet.
 

On Feb 5, 6:16 pm, wrote:

...I didn't contend the mere act of running out of gas is
negligent, legally or otherwise....

You're a liar.

But then, you already knew that. :)

Wolfgang

It's quiet......too quiet.
 

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:39:19 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:03:46 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:

SNIP

Let's see, you assert that the safety problem with running out of
gas is the loss of control due to loss of power assist systems as a result
of the sudden (as alleged by you) stalling of the engine.

I assert that? When? Where? How?

OK perhaps assert is slightly too strong a word....

The word "assert" isn't the issue. The word "the" is, well, the issue.
I didn't assert anything was "the" safety "problem," merely that the
loss of power assist could, and for many, would be "a" safety problem. I
didn't, in any fashion, so much as hint that any particular thing was
"the" (only) safety problem. As such, anything that demonstrates that a
safety "problem" resulted from running out of gas was fair evidence.

HTH,
R

It's quiet......too quiet.
 

On Feb 5, 7:52 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:39:19 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"





wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:03:46 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:

SNIP

Let's see, you assert that the safety problem with running out of
gas is the loss of control due to loss of power assist systems as a result
of the sudden (as alleged by you) stalling of the engine.

I assert that? When? Where? How?

OK perhaps assert is slightly too strong a word....

The word "assert" isn't the issue. The word "the" is, well, the issue.
I didn't assert anything was "the" safety "problem," merely that the
loss of power assist could, and for many, would be "a" safety problem. I
didn't, in any fashion, so much as hint that any particular thing was
"the" (only) safety problem. As such, anything that demonstrates that a
safety "problem" resulted from running out of gas was fair evidence.

You're still a liar. Hey, by the way, isn't it about time for you to
make another El Mysterioso diappearance?

Wolfgang
who knows in his hahrt that a boy ain't NEVER gonna gradiate from the
eighth grade if'n he spends all of his'n time round hereabouts.