[TowerTalk] Action against US Tower?

Bill w7vp at comcast.net
Tue Jun 6 09:58:52 EDT 2006


You are very right JC, although they are probably more damned if they don't. 
As a manufacturer they are subject to court developed law called 
"manufacturer's strict liability."  Under that law they are held liable for 
any "defect" in the product whether or not there was any negligence.  Thus 
an injured victim (or his family) only needs to prove that there was a 
"defect," and that it was responsible for the injury or death of the victim. 
A defect can be either a manufacturing defect, a design defect or a "failure 
to warn" defect.  It is this latter category that will bite US Tower if they 
have not provided sufficient detail on the use of their product.  Most 
insurance companies will impose strict conditions on a manufacturer for the 
warnings that are required.  If the data provided by US Tower is not 
complete as suggested that might suggest that US Tower is either not insured 
for product liability or is insured by a company that is not using customary 
practices to limit liability.  I have negotiated some of these insurance 
conditions in the aviation business and believe me they are strict (and 
expensive too).  I have also defended some of these product cases and it is 
a tough position for a company that has not properly developed its 
disclosure policies.

73
Bill
W7VP
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JC Smith" <jc-smith at comcast.net>
To: "'Rick Tavan N6XI'" <rtavan at gmail.com>; <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Action against US Tower?


>I think they are sort of dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. 
>That's
> the nature of our civil court system these days.  I wouldn't want to be a
> crank-up tower manufacturer, especially in CA.
>
> I agree with the fellow who said "if the cable aint broke, don't fix it." 
> I
> have a 20+ year-old UST with the original cable and it still goes up and
> down just fine.  The cable is discolored, but not rusty and all the 
> strands
> are intact.
>
> 73 - JC, k0hps at amsat.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Rick Tavan N6XI
> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 5:50 PM
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Action against US Tower?
>
> Has anyone considered taking legal action to force US Tower to document
> their products?  Their attitude on documentation is despicable. Actually, 
> I
> think they are shooting themselves in the foot. They should incur greater
> liability by refusing to document the products than they would if they
> published decent documentation full of prudent warnings. They actively 
> sell
> this stuff to us, so they have to expect us to install it, use it, 
> maintain
> it and try to repair it. I feel sorry for whoever turns out to be the 
> first
> fatal victim of withheld documentation. The resulting lawsuit may break 
> the
> logjam but it could also break UST.
>
> /Rick N6XI
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk 



More information about the TowerTalk mailing list