kenmac
Super Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2005
- Messages
- 9,835
- Location
- The Heart of Dixie
- Tractor
- McCormick CX105 Kubota MX 5100 HST, Kubota ZD1021, Kawsaki Mule 4010 trans 4x4
Too many Lawyers in Congress for that law to ever pass.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Yanmar IMPORTANT SAFETY NOTICE
- Thread starter professor
- Start date
- Views: 3201
Jagmandave
Veteran Member
OK, I'm sensing a lot of anger here directed at lawyers in general, but like any part of our current society, they aren't the problem so much as a symptom of the real problem. They're just people trying to make a living, and there's no more reason to tax their earnings at 90% than yours.......the problem is the jury that awards people multi million $$$$ for nothing ie: the lady that got $140,000 out of McDonalds for spilling her hot coffee on her lap. It wasn't the lawyers who got that money for her, it was the jury....
I'm not defending lawyers, because there are some true scumbag lawyers out there (met a prime example at my first divorce), but they are no different than any other segment of our society, there are good people and not so good poeple in all professions. Usually when people need the services of a lawyer it's because they've done something wrong, or at least been accused of it, so I think a lot of the animosity comes from the circumstances for hiring the lawyer, not the person they hired.
Again, down from soapbox now........... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I'm not defending lawyers, because there are some true scumbag lawyers out there (met a prime example at my first divorce), but they are no different than any other segment of our society, there are good people and not so good poeple in all professions. Usually when people need the services of a lawyer it's because they've done something wrong, or at least been accused of it, so I think a lot of the animosity comes from the circumstances for hiring the lawyer, not the person they hired.
Again, down from soapbox now........... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
normde2001
Elite Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 4,163
There is no real animosity. "Lawyers" is just a subject people like to have fun with, (except possibly for a few nut cases that shouldn't be walking around anyway /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif).
kenmac
Super Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2005
- Messages
- 9,835
- Location
- The Heart of Dixie
- Tractor
- McCormick CX105 Kubota MX 5100 HST, Kubota ZD1021, Kawsaki Mule 4010 trans 4x4
I don't think anyone is angry here,(not me anyway) just having fun with Lawyers. I have used them myself. When your in business you just about have to have 1,2,3 or 4 etc, because there is someone out there that wants to sue you for something.
scrinch
Silver Member
Agreed, it is not the lawyers that represent the problem....the problem is the system where a lawyer can convince a bunch of gullible, naive jurors that somebody ought to compensate that poor old lady for those awful, nasty burns in her innocent lap. Why not McDonalds, with all those untold $billions and all that scalding hot coffee? What would you expect when a bunch of normal, sympathetic citizens are put up in front of professional actors who stand to earn a million bucks if they can win over 51% of their audience? You want justice.... set up the system to look like something other than American Idol. But you had better raise a ton of money and develop a h*ll of a campaign to convince legislators of the need for change, because you're going to be going up against every den of sharks, I mean trial lawyers association, in the US!
Oops, maybe I didn't mean what I said in the first part of that first sentence. Ok, down off my detergent crate now. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Oops, maybe I didn't mean what I said in the first part of that first sentence. Ok, down off my detergent crate now. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( OK, I'm sensing a lot of anger here directed at lawyers in general, but like any part of our current society, they aren't the problem so much as a symptom of the real problem. They're just people trying to make a living, and there's no more reason to tax their earnings at 90% than yours.......the problem is the jury that awards people multi million $$$$ for nothing ie: the lady that got $140,000 out of McDonalds for spilling her hot coffee on her lap. It wasn't the lawyers who got that money for her, it was the jury....
I'm not defending lawyers, because there are some true scumbag lawyers out there (met a prime example at my first divorce), but they are no different than any other segment of our society, there are good people and not so good poeple in all professions. Usually when people need the services of a lawyer it's because they've done something wrong, or at least been accused of it, so I think a lot of the animosity comes from the circumstances for hiring the lawyer, not the person they hired.
Again, down from soapbox now........... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif )</font>
It's the jury's fault?????? That's like saying yes, I shot him but I'm not guilty of murder. The bullet didn't kill him.........he bled to death 10 munutes later.
I'm not defending lawyers, because there are some true scumbag lawyers out there (met a prime example at my first divorce), but they are no different than any other segment of our society, there are good people and not so good poeple in all professions. Usually when people need the services of a lawyer it's because they've done something wrong, or at least been accused of it, so I think a lot of the animosity comes from the circumstances for hiring the lawyer, not the person they hired.
Again, down from soapbox now........... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif )</font>
It's the jury's fault?????? That's like saying yes, I shot him but I'm not guilty of murder. The bullet didn't kill him.........he bled to death 10 munutes later.
srscott
Member
My two cents? I don't see this as originating from the liar.. .o' sorry.. I meant "lawyers" at all but from Yanmar proper. They want us all to buy their nice, new, shiny, straight from the line tractors for an arm and a leg. I for one will never be able to afford one of those. But can you imagine the loyalty they would create here if they would support the grey market tractors that are here? wouldn't it be nice? ( I know it's a pipe dream.. but isn't it nice to dream?)
arthr31
Platinum Member
well, first of all, i caught my 1601d sneaking up on me, so i'm scared of him now... he's trying to hurt me!! (too much fun operating) /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Maybe that isn't too unrealistic- yanmar may eventually realize the loyalty of the grays and either offer saftey upgrades, or very decent trade-ins in order to "convert" the following to the new machines, if and when that ever happens...
in the meantime, i'll continue to be suspicious of my 1601....
Maybe that isn't too unrealistic- yanmar may eventually realize the loyalty of the grays and either offer saftey upgrades, or very decent trade-ins in order to "convert" the following to the new machines, if and when that ever happens...
in the meantime, i'll continue to be suspicious of my 1601....
cfoxmd
Silver Member
The problem with Yanmar USA supporting the grey market is that one lawsuit for lack of a ROPS, lack of PTO protection, multiple speed PTO, or backwards throttle will eliminate years of profit on the parts. If they somehow controlled the tractors importation and brought them up to US safety standards, then they wouldn't have a problem. I am sure less than $1000 per tractor would do it.
Of course we know that they don't control these tractors. We buy them to get quality cheaply and either accept the safety limitations or fix the problems ourselves. Still, Yanmar gets sued and probably loses (and even if they don't, Yanmar runs up 100's of thousands of dollars defending the suits).
Blame the lawyers for filing suits where the individual used something improperly. Blame the juries for awarding large sums of money when the company did nothing wrong. Blame the government for allowing the lawyers to sue in this manner. Blame the US populace for being trained to expect every situation to be abolutely safe no matter what the person does. Blame the media for creating an expectation that some corporation or wealthy person must be responsible for any adverse event. Blame the lawyers for taxing society with these suits--which in most countries cannot be taken on a contingency basis.
I have seen the litigation effects on several industries. In airplanes, manufacturers were still getting sued for design defects in the mid 1990's for a 1929 aircraft. Most small aircraft manufactures just stopped making the small airplanes. Only when congress limited the industry to 25 years of libility for the airframe did Cessna restart manufacturing of light piston driven aircraft. Still, over half of the cost of the new airplane is manufacturers liability insurance. These days, kit airplanes, where the individual is the manufacturer (but it still has to pass FAA saftey standards) are 2/3 of the aircraft being produced each year in the US. The kit manufacturer has no assets and carries no insurance--so sue away--there is no money. A whole industry changed because of the legal climate.
Medicine in some states is becoming financially impossible. Florida is terrible for suits. There are only a handful of pediatric neurosurgeons left in Florida. High risk speicalty physicians (OB, orthopedics, neurosurgeons) often pay over $250,000 per year just for $1,000,000 of malpractice insurance coverage. Many physicians are just leaving the states with bad malpractice laws because they cannot afford to practice medicine. Without changes to the laws, some states may have good medical care and others may find themselves without many physicians. Some physicians put all of their assets offshore or in a trust so the lawyers can't get at it and run bare of insurance. Hospitals require insurance so surgeons can't do this.
In any event, the lack of personal responsibility and the societal decision that in any bad occurence there must be someone to sue is a tax on every product, service, and company in the US. The costs are incredible and the attorneys have a vested interest in keeping the current system and exploiting any new theory of a potential lawsuit.
Of course there are many types of law contract, real estate, etc, where the profession provides a needed service.
So much for my legal rant. Yanmar will never support the gray market units unless they are protected from liability. Eventually, you will be unable to insure a gray market tractor because of the liability (or it will be excluded from any homeowneres or business policy).
Of course we know that they don't control these tractors. We buy them to get quality cheaply and either accept the safety limitations or fix the problems ourselves. Still, Yanmar gets sued and probably loses (and even if they don't, Yanmar runs up 100's of thousands of dollars defending the suits).
Blame the lawyers for filing suits where the individual used something improperly. Blame the juries for awarding large sums of money when the company did nothing wrong. Blame the government for allowing the lawyers to sue in this manner. Blame the US populace for being trained to expect every situation to be abolutely safe no matter what the person does. Blame the media for creating an expectation that some corporation or wealthy person must be responsible for any adverse event. Blame the lawyers for taxing society with these suits--which in most countries cannot be taken on a contingency basis.
I have seen the litigation effects on several industries. In airplanes, manufacturers were still getting sued for design defects in the mid 1990's for a 1929 aircraft. Most small aircraft manufactures just stopped making the small airplanes. Only when congress limited the industry to 25 years of libility for the airframe did Cessna restart manufacturing of light piston driven aircraft. Still, over half of the cost of the new airplane is manufacturers liability insurance. These days, kit airplanes, where the individual is the manufacturer (but it still has to pass FAA saftey standards) are 2/3 of the aircraft being produced each year in the US. The kit manufacturer has no assets and carries no insurance--so sue away--there is no money. A whole industry changed because of the legal climate.
Medicine in some states is becoming financially impossible. Florida is terrible for suits. There are only a handful of pediatric neurosurgeons left in Florida. High risk speicalty physicians (OB, orthopedics, neurosurgeons) often pay over $250,000 per year just for $1,000,000 of malpractice insurance coverage. Many physicians are just leaving the states with bad malpractice laws because they cannot afford to practice medicine. Without changes to the laws, some states may have good medical care and others may find themselves without many physicians. Some physicians put all of their assets offshore or in a trust so the lawyers can't get at it and run bare of insurance. Hospitals require insurance so surgeons can't do this.
In any event, the lack of personal responsibility and the societal decision that in any bad occurence there must be someone to sue is a tax on every product, service, and company in the US. The costs are incredible and the attorneys have a vested interest in keeping the current system and exploiting any new theory of a potential lawsuit.
Of course there are many types of law contract, real estate, etc, where the profession provides a needed service.
So much for my legal rant. Yanmar will never support the gray market units unless they are protected from liability. Eventually, you will be unable to insure a gray market tractor because of the liability (or it will be excluded from any homeowneres or business policy).
cwarrix
Silver Member
I don't think this is a marketing driven effort. What it looks like to me is the legal department at Yanmar has uncovered a potential for law suits and they are just doing their jobs (protecting the company) by creating this company stance on greys. That way, they have done their part to warn the public of the dangers of these tractors, therefore limiting their liability.
