larrybsp

I’ve received quite a reaction from my posting including Hib’s usual gentlemanly response.

I’ll try to be brief. I’m not a lawyer, I’m an engineer and I abhor the need for litigation. Unfortunately it’s the only way you can get modern American corporations to respond to your complaints. I discovered this several years ago. Corvette and C5 brake problems in particular have been rampant since the Corvette was introduced. That is a fact I don’t have to prove. I was compelled to take action when I realized the cracked rotor on my car could have KILLED ME if it exploded at high speed. That C5 rotors have come apart is also a fact. In addition to being an engineer I have an MBA where I studied product liability law. Its based on the concept of “foreseeability”, i.e., could it be foreseen that a product could be used in a fashion that could injure the user REGARDLESS of the intended use. Given Chevrolets racing involvement, the Z06, the Bragg Smith relationship, advertising, brochures and focus on high performance driving it should have been foreseen by someone at GM that the C5 (and its brakes) would be used in extreme conditions, i.e., on the track, at an autocross, etc. Corvettes over the years have been capable of speeds of 160 mph plus yet look at the Corvette brakes compared to sports cars of equal speed capability, an easy point to prove. The fact that they did not design the product for a foreseeable use is in violation of product liability law. FYI, I had a friend at a local aerospace metallurgy lab analyze the C5 rotor material. It’s junk. That racing is not covered under warranty as stated in the manual does not excuse them from responsibility. The second buyer of the car who does not get the manual would not be informed, another foreseeable action.

The point of my action is to speak out for the average Corvette owner who has spent $50,000 plus to buy a car with components that could fail, injure or and kill him and or others. I will get nothing in monetary gain by my action. In reality small claims suits rarely get to court with big corporations. They’d rather settle, fast. If I have to go to court and lose I still will have won. What I will get, hopefully is the attention of someone at GM that they have a problem that could get someone killed. It will also be on record so that in the tragic event someone is hurt or killed GM can’t say they did not know about the problem. I’d rather do this now than have my wife have to sue GM for product liability in the event I get killed by one of their defective parts. For a $30 filing fee and filling out one form its worth it.

Larry

93Quasar

I'm not a lawyer, and am not trying to be. But I'd learn up on the legal process before proceeding. The reason I say this is my recent experience with "small claims" action. Several people who live in my subdivision decided to sue our builder over certain issues that he was expected to do and did not live up to and they wanted money refunded that had been paid to do those things. These people filed invidual small claims cases. Now, for whatever reason the defendant had the right to say I don't want to handle this in small claims court and filed a motion to have it heard in front of a Jury. I don't understand that process, but it is apparantly their right. So, what started out as a $30 filing fee and small claims court now involves lawyers and a jury trial. Something to think about.

bogus

In Delaware (where I know the system more than just a little bit) you can file a civil complaint in our small claims courts, Justice of the Peace. From there, the defendant can request trial in Court of Common Pleas. Which has yet a high threshold.

Larry - I see what you are arguing. You might want to file a complaint with NHTSA, too. If the problem with C5 brakes is really this bad, NHTSA must know about it. And I think you can get data from them to support your actions.

I have always hated the term "foreseeable". How can one foresee all possible iterations? There is a reality to mass production. If they were genuinely concerned about extreme and foreseeable, they would have put Brembo 6 piston brakes on the car.

Did the maker of my lawnmower foresee me disabling all the OSHA safety crap? Does that make them liable if the system is easily defeated?

However, the reality is different... racing brakes are not good on the street. They require more heat. And that heat is not normally present on the street. So, they must make a comprimise between good street performance (read: low temp operation) or real high performance operation.

I guess my gripe is simple.... You took brakes from one car, put them on another, which they were not designed to be installed on, and had problems. Foreseeable or not, I have issue when parts are modified in this manner... I mean, if you had bought this kit from GM, advertised for this purpose, then sure...

I installed the LTCC(LS1 coils on an LT1) kit on my car. What happens if a coil fails and causes a fire? Is GM still liable? I kinda doubt it. It's the chance I am willing to take for the advantages of no more high voltage going through the opti.

Another aside... if you had purchased a full StopTech system, and it did this, sure, you would have a complaint against StopTech. But DRM didn't build these parts, all they did was facilitate their use. And GM didn't sanction that.

Do you honestly believe that GM felt that the C5's brakes would be adapted to fit a C4? Or that complete C5 drivetrains would be adapted to fit custom tube frame's on C2's and C3's? maybe, C4 drivetrains have been used like that for a while.... but to extend product liabilty to that? Obsurd.

There has to be a point, were us as hobbiest and enthusiast stop bitching and accept that a mod simply didn't work as expected.

save up... get some good brakes. your life depends on it.

85 Dave

If you win your case, then all manufacturers will have to permanently afix a label in a conspicuous place stating the the vehicle is not intended for racing purposes? That'll look good on my minivan. Thanks Larry... :rolleyes:

Arnie

You'll be laughed out of court, buy some brakes designed and built for racing.

larrybsp

Based on the critiques I've received, many with sage advice I am reconsidering my action against GM. The key point is I can't present the metallurgical test evidence. The person who did it for me did it as a favor on company time. I'd need to present his report on company letterhead which would get him fired, something I'm not about to do. I've also asked him to analyze a C4 rotor and Porsche rotor, something he has started but is too busy to finish right now. I need hard facts on the metalurgical make up of the rotors. I can do the rest. As an engineer I'm well aware that using stock parts on a race car is not the proper application but the concept of "foreseeability" has basis in law and sound engineering design and is still applicable even for GM. I think I will bide my time, gather my evidence and reconsider action when I can adequately address many of the issues raised by the comments I received. There is a time to stand your ground and a time to know when to back off. From what I've learned its time to back off.

Larry

85 Dave

You've just gained a lot of respect from me. Good luck! :cheers:

SunCr

With your background you should be able to find another expert. GM cannot remove a Small Claims Action to Superior Court for a jury trial in California. They can file an appeal if they lose that would be heard by a Superior Court Judge, but the trial judge would only review the case for any error in the application of the law; not the facts.

Foreseeability is a question of fact, which in Small Claims Court, would be decided by the Judge because there is no jury. About 10 years ago, the Fourth District Court of Appeals in San Diego ruled that the question of foreseeability was properly submitted to a jury when the removeable roof panel(s) on a Corvette failed to prevent a manhole cover, dropped from an overpass by a couple juveniles, crashed through through the panel injuring the occupants of the Vette (the jury had ruled against GM finding the materials and the panel design were defective).

Product warnings have marginal effect - just ask the tobacco companies - they would be considered with all of the other facts.

93LT1

:lolg:


[Modified by 93LT1, 10:10 PM 10/24/2003]

Jeffvette

:lol: and people wonder why I tell people to stay away from C5 brakes if they are driving high speed events.

Let me just say you are not the first person to have this problem, the calipers spread easily, as you learned the rotors crack and fracture, pads tapper, etc. They do this on a C5 which weighs less than a C4 as well.

onedef92

That WAS funnier' a ****! :rofl: :lolg: :rofl: :lolg: :chill:

all4c4lt4

Ignoring every other issue which exists against you, either in law or in fact, you still will have one major problem (in my personal opinion) with your case. You used a C5 brake part on a C4, i.e. you used a product of GM's that was never intended to be used on that vehicle. This is a major products liability problem for you. Analogy: I used the brakes components for a 1992 Berreta on my 199x C4. The bake component failed, thereby endangering my life. I want to sue GM.

Surely the problem here is apparent. You can argue that the parts are similar because they are for a "Corvette" (but then use C1, C2, or C3 brake parts as an example on your C4 and you have the same problem.) All you will be left with is to claim that at the time the product was designed and manufactured that it was foreseeable that customers would use the C5 brakes on the C4. Remember, not that they actually do use them, but that it was foreseeable to GM. By the time you win this point alone, without even considering all other issues, you will have spent so much time and money it will not be worth it to continue. Everyone wants their day in court until they discover/realize the cost (financially and emotionally) involved. Finally what are your damages? Assuming you beat all odds and win what are you entitled to? What is your injury? The cost of the allegedly defective rotors.

COMPVET

I believe the C5 stuff is probably not as good as the top of the line C4 available. If you want better brakes and still use GM stuff take a hard look at C3 brakes. Granted you would have to fab brackets etc. but you would end up with a better system. IMHO
Pete

loiq

This whole thing kinda reminds me of this past spring and that guy who was going to sue Oreo cookies because they had transfatty acids (or whatever) in them. :rolleyes:

speedjohnson

Larry: It's nice to hear from you. Sorry you're so pissed off!

You must be really laying the juice to those brakes. C4's have such a terrible time with brakes and cooling...all that space...but no room to snake brake ducting around the suspension parts.

It sounds like you need to cool off a little...or at least your brakes do.

I saw that Scotty White had ducted air into the forward framerail and then stubbed a hole straight out into the wheelwell...picked up there with some flex hose to the inner face of the rotor. I think that this was a DRM built car, you might call him on it.

I've got brake troubles of my own. I can drive the car hard for 6-8 laps and then need to lay off the brakes and just lay the car sideways in the corners to scrub off speed after that. When the tires start to get overheated, then my brakes usually have returned...kind of a trade off.

I'm trying the GNIII caliper kit this next season. The 13" rotors are 1 3/8 inches wide and still fit the stock wheels. I'll report back if they work any better.

Chin up buddy. Hope to see you in the sunny state agains soon. Craig Johnson ITE #27 (blk/red C4)