[redmenace]

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=businessNews&storyid=2006-09-20T175818Z_01_N20199499_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-AUTOS.xml&src=rss&rpc=23
 

[Polpolion]

"so what are you suing us for?"

"Were suing you because people buy and use your products, and since they provide a quick and easy scource of transportation. And because we have to many people here who use them."

[redmenace]

So it is the companies fault? Hardly, people buy these things, its their fault.

[Mefustae]

California has also issued rules to force automakers to cut tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks. Enforcement of those rules is being delayed by litigation from automakers.

The automakers chose to flip California the bird, so they should be hardly surprised when California flips 'em off right back.

[Kosh]

So it is the companies fault? Hardly, people buy these things, its their fault.

No, but it is the companies faults for not following the rules

[Blue Lion]

A way to reduce greenhouses gases and maybe promote alternative fuels? Youre right, that's just silly.

[NGTM-1R]

Thing is, what California wants, California is ultimately going to get, since it represents the single largest market for cars anywhere. Fighting your main consumers is ultimately futile.

[Kosh]

Thing is, what California wants, California is ultimately going to get, since it represents the single largest market for cars anywhere. Fighting your main consumers is ultimately futile.

Tell that to Microsoft.

[Mefustae]

Thing is, what California wants, California is ultimately going to get, since it represents the single largest market for cars anywhere. Fighting your main consumers is ultimately futile.

Tell that to Microsoft.

ZING!

[NGTM-1R]

Tell that to Microsoft.

I did. Bill Gates said he's already rich so he don't care if MS goes down the tubes.

[Colonol Dekker]

This is the funniest, I got e-mailed this...............

This is 100% true,


A Charlotte, North Carolina lawyer purchased a box of very rare and
expensive cigars and then insured them against fire, among other
things.

Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great
cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on
the policy, the lawyer filed claim against the insurance company.

In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of
small fires."

The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that
the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.

The lawyer sued and WON!

In delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance
company that the claim was frivolous.

The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer "held a policy from
the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable
and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without
defining what is considered to be unacceptable fire" and was
obligated to pay the claim.

Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance
company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his
loss of the cigars lost in the "fires".

NOW FOR THE BEST PART!

After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him
arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!

With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case
being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally
burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail
and a $24,000 fine.

This is a true story and was the First Place winner in the recent
Criminal Lawyers Award Contest.

ONLY IN AMERICA!

[karajorma]

This is 100% true,

Not according to Snopes it isn't.

[Colonol Dekker]

OK, everything after
"This is the funniest, I got e-mailed this..............."
got e-mailed to me...... 

Still a chuckle though.......

[redmenace]

No, but it is the companies faults for not following the rules

They have a right to litigate. It may be an abuse of the law, however. But the lawsuit doesn't entail that they have broken any standing emmission regulations, but they have created a public nuisance relying on english common law of all things to make their case.

California has also issued rules to force automakers to cut tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks. Enforcement of those rules is being delayed by litigation from automakers.

The automakers chose to flip California the bird, so they should be hardly surprised when California flips 'em off right back.

California might have fired the first shot depending how outrageous or ambitious their new emmissions standards are. Then again, I don't know the exact specifics.

But frankly, California's Enviromental Authority should try and work with the Auto Makers instead of being adversarial

[karajorma]

Perhaps they did and this was the last resort.

[redmenace]

Maybe, but considering how adversarial car makers and eviromentalists have been, it wouldn't suprise me if they didn't or won't be willing to sit down with one another and hash out a solution.

[Blue Lion]

So like if California asked real real nice?

[Flipside]

Well, if nothing else, it will at least bring the growing divide in opinion over global warming to the fore in the US.

California is going to have to prove that Global Warming is occuring and being worsened by cars, The Car manufacturers will have to prove that it isn't and/or doesn't. But I'm not sure who the heaviest burden of proof would lay on in this case.

[Prophet]

When will you yanks learn. Just make your cars run on booze, like I have to do soon. Sigh, its a wacky world.
(Prophet is referring to our new factory that makes ethanol that is to be used on cars)

[redmenace]

So like if California asked real real nice?

You get more flies with honey instead of vinegar.