[Rob. Smith]

Originally Posted by Rebel1

Exactly Rob....let me play devils advocate here:

1. Beejay said the engineer was driving the car during testing on a track.
2. A tyre blows out at 160Klm just as the engineer gets hard on the brakes.
3. The car turns sideways and rolls several times.
4. The engineer survives but is now disabled and unable to work.
5. Workers Compensation knocks back his claim because the accident was on a track and he was driving over the state posted speed limit.
6. Your insurance refuses your claim to repair the car for the same reasons.
7. The last resort for the engineers family is to take legal action against you as the owner of the car.
8. Because the engineer used to earn nett. $k100 per year and had 20 years before retirement they sue you for $2,000,000.00 loss of income, indexed at the court discretion plus $k10 per year disability support and care. Total about $5,000,000.00 minimum plus distress at court discretion.

Obviously you contest and after 5 years the court awards the family $1,000,000.00 and costs. Your legal costs are $250.000 and theirs $300.000.

There goes the farm.

This is ironic. One point first...the owner did the driving and the engineer did the measuring. Now to the irony. The supposed reason for the RTA's high demands was because an engineer passed a hotrod/modified car and the RTA approved it. The owner crashed the vehicle with his pregnant wife aboard and she lost the baby. The owner sued the Engineer so the engineer sued the RTA... sounds like an internet myth but I heard it first hand from a very good signatory engineer.