Roush crashed my Daytona Coupe, denies responsibility

[Mark]

If I were you, I would make it my priority to ask our host if he would remove this thread and burn any hint of its existance. It may be useful to go public later on.........

[Alex]

That's ghey - I remember when I was building my cobra I had looked at a Roush motor and one thing that attracted me to it was the fact it had a 2yr warranty. Then I read online what their 2yr warranty meant in real life - basically they tell you to f-off. I'd never touch their engines in a million years.

[Alan Watkins]

Originally Posted by EFNFAST

That's ghey - I remember when I was building my cobra I had looked at a Roush motor and one thing that attracted me to it was the fact it had a 2yr warranty. Then I read online what their 2yr warranty meant in real life - basically they tell you to f-off. I'd never touch their engines in a million years.

Me too; the interest in the warranty went up in a puff when I read that the install has to be done by a certified mechanic. I assume that's not you or me. I know it's not me.

FWIW, legal eagles, the OP has posted this same piece all over the ford-engined world, and has also been advised elsewhere that going public with all this is not a good idea.

[Glenn Bilawsky]

The accident with my car occurred 5 months ago. I kept this incident off the web and social media to allow Roush the time and opportunity to provide a fair response and resolution. When the response was finally given, it took the form of a blanket denial to the courts of all of our claims. In effect, they called me a liar. After receiving their response, I felt compelled to shift my personal commitment from protecting Roush's best interests to informing potential purchasers of their products of the type of actions they take in response to their own negligence.

[Alan Watkins]

Originally Posted by Oneofakind

T I felt compelled to shift my personal commitment from protecting Roush's best interests to informing potential purchasers of their products of the type of actions they take in response to their own negligence.

Well, I for one certainly appreciate your doing so. I hope you don't lose any leverage because of it, because I would also like to see you prevail in any action against them.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by awatkins

Me too; the interest in the warranty went up in a puff when I read that the install has to be done by a certified mechanic. I assume that's not you or me. I know it's not me.

I don't even think that matters - 99% of the warranty claims I read about basically turned into them fighting tooth&nail to find a reason why they shouldn't have to warranty it.

[Mike S.]

Glenn I'm certainly no lawyer. But have you actually discussed this avenue of internet "information" with your lawyer? You may well be opening yourself up to a slander/libal suit. Untill you have a court ruling, it's just your word against theirs. They could well bring a counter suit against you for libal & dammage to their professional reputation. This internet & social networking can be very dangerous when you decide to "vent" against a company without hard evidence to support. In this case a court ruling. Even pictures or the physical dammage to the car. It's only your word that it was caused by Rouch. Just some food for thought. I certainly wish you the very best & sucsess.
Mike S

[Ron R.]

Originally Posted by awatkins

Well, I for one certainly appreciate your doing so. I hope you don't lose any leverage because of it, because I would also like to see you prevail in any action against them.

Me, too. I'm glad you posted.

[Ian K]

Originally Posted by Mike S.

Glenn I'm certainly no lawyer. But have you actually discussed this avenue of internet "information" with your lawyer? You may well be opening yourself up to a slander/libal suit. Untill you have a court ruling, it's just your word against theirs. They could well bring a counter suit against you for libal & dammage to their professional reputation. This internet & social networking can be very dangerous when you decide to "vent" against a company without hard evidence to support. In this case a court ruling. Even pictures or the physical dammage to the car. It's only your word that it was caused by Rouch. Just some food for thought. I certainly wish you the very best & sucsess.
Mike S

The onus would be on Roush to prove that Glenn's statements are false, which in effect, would mean that they have to prove they did not damage the vehicle.

Ian

[Alan Watkins]

Originally Posted by iank2112

The onus would be on Roush to prove that Glenn's statements are false, which in effect, would mean that they have to prove they did not damage the vehicle.

That's important if you mainly are interested in whether you would win the case in court. The road to court is long, painfule and expensive, so the key issue is more likely "could be sued" not "could lose in court."

[Mike S.]

Ian I belive the burden of proof would be on Glenn. To proove that Roush did indeed damage the car etc. The burden of proof is on the accuser not the defendant. They can claim the car was already dammaged when they got it. I hope he has a lot of pictures & witnesses that the car was in prime condition when shipped & recieved. The defendant doesn't have to do anything to PROOVE his innocence under our system. You are presumed innocent untill PROVEN guilty. Roush so far has pleaded innocent/not guilty. But on a libal suit, after a person has already spread the "story" all over the internet, has already hung himself. All they need do is print out the evidence. This is my understanding of such things.
Mike S

[Ian K]

Originally Posted by Mike S.

Ian I belive the burden of proof would be on Glenn. To proove that Roush did indeed damage the car etc. The burden of proof is on the accuser not the defendant. They can claim the car was already dammaged when they got it. I hope he has a lot of pictures & witnesses that the car was in prime condition when shipped & recieved. The defendant doesn't have to do anything to PROOVE his innocence under our system. You are presumed innocent untill PROVEN guilty. Roush so far has pleaded innocent/not guilty. But on a libal suit, after a person has already spread the "story" all over the internet, has already hung himself. All they need do is print out the evidence. This is my understanding of such things.
Mike S

I was referring to the libel issue. In that case, the roles are reversed. Roush is the accuser and Glenn is the defendant. So, indeed, Roush has to prove that Glenn's statements are false. The only way to do that is to prove that a Roush employee did not wreck the car.

There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. In the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement.

This is a separate issue from Glenn proving Roush is responsible for the damages to his car in an effort to gain compensation. While the cases are linked, and the proceedings and judgment of one case can be used in the other, if Glenn files suit regarding the damages, and Roush files suit over libel, the cases could be tried separately and the libel case could come to conclusion first.

Ian

[Cliff Beer]

Originally Posted by Mike S.

Ian I belive the burden of proof would be on Glenn. To proove that Roush did indeed damage the car etc. The burden of proof is on the accuser not the defendant. They can claim the car was already dammaged when they got it. I hope he has a lot of pictures & witnesses that the car was in prime condition when shipped & recieved. The defendant doesn't have to do anything to PROOVE his innocence under our system. You are presumed innocent untill PROVEN guilty. Roush so far has pleaded innocent/not guilty. But on a libal suit, after a person has already spread the "story" all over the internet, has already hung himself. All they need do is print out the evidence. This is my understanding of such things.
Mike S

The whole innocent until proven guilty is the proof standard for a criminal case. This is civil law where the claimant has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence. Essentially, Glenn needs to establish the truth of his claims by presenting factual evidence showing those claims are true, or more likely true than not at a minimum. Roush will no doubt have a seasoned attorney trying to shoot holes in Glenn's claims.

Losing one case is not really that much of a penalty for bad behavior by Roush. Losing one's good reputation is a much bigger cost however.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Cliffbeer2

The whole innocent until proven guilty is the proof standard for a criminal case. This is civil law where the claimant has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence.

Thought the criminal burden of proof was "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

Hope I never have to put either to to the test!

K

[Joey Dean]

Beyond a reasonable doubt holds true for criminal trial, not a civil one.

[Mike S.]

Originally Posted by jcdean

Beyond a reasonable doubt holds true for criminal trial, not a civil one.

True O. J. Simpson is a good case in point.
Mike S.

[Ron Earp]

Probably just a matter of time before one attorney or the other comes here and demands this thread to disappear or they'll sue the forum.....

Keep posting away though. This site was created to share information and to do the very thing this thread does - get information out to the community about experiences with companies and suppliers.

[Cliff Beer]

Originally Posted by kcoffield

Thought the criminal burden of proof was "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

K

Yup, exactly right. To be precise that's the evidentiary standard of proof in a criminal trial. Thankfully, Glenn is facing a much easier standard of proof in his civil trial (preponderance of the evidence).

Good luck to Glenn and may justice and truth prevail.

Glenn, you may want to post something on www.complaints.com.

[Robert]

[QUOTE=Good luck to Glenn and may justice and truth prevail.[/QUOTE]

That would be my hope for a resolution.

This seems sad to me on many levels. There's Glenn's dilemma, Roush's dilemma, and now some of us will have a dilemma wondering about Roush engines.

I see things within this saga that disappoints me. I think this is similar to issues that arise when there is a large amount of media hype. Thankfully, there is no media involved, because it would be worse if there were.

Here are some observations, but they are not intended to favor one over the other. They are perhaps reasons that may support the idea that not rushing to the judgement of anyone is likely the best idea, while proclaiming only a universal desire that all individuals are healed financially and otherwise.

I'm guessing that the original race engine that requires 110 octane was only guaranteed for 90-days, while all other pump gas engines are guaranteed for 2-years. Not much was explained about the cause of the failure of the race engine with 4K plus mileage. Thus, this tends to cast an aspersion on the product out of the gate.

I believe the engine company voluntarily stated that one reason for the delay was that their technician had an accident with the vehicle. I'm just thinking the engine company could have made up a variety of excuses: waiting on parts, short on mechanics, equipment failure, etc., if they were dishonest?

Then there was the quick movement toward deciding on an amount of the reduction in vehicle value due to the accident. I understand that aspect and support it. However, the actual damages were not described. Was the frame bent, was the suspension damaged, or was it just fiberglass panel and paint damage?

Then, someone said try this guy's engines. OK, but that guy doesn't make hundreds or thousands of engines per year like the subject company does. It is not unrealistic to have a .05% performance engine failure simply because parts can be defective, and those parts are under a lot of stress. So, between bad parts and perhaps poor workmanship, there may be 5 performance engines bad out of every 1,000. None of us are perfect, at least I know I'm not. It's a bad deal when it happens to us, but @#IT happens. It's then a matter of how things are handled thereafter that counts.

I don't know if a rush to judgement is the best idea, because thus far, we've only heard one side, and there were missing details. But, even with additional details, we should defer to the courts and/or the jury to decide, because only they will eventually see and hear all the facts and expert testimony.

I desire the best for Glenn, as I would for any member or anyone really. I shall pray for this to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. "may justice and truth prevail" [for all], as Cliff so correctly and succinctly stated.

All good things, Robert

[Jeff Young]

I don't know why this is, but this type of thing seems to happen with increased frequency with high end racers/race suppliers. Roaring Forties, Hennessy, shops joy riding in Porsches and Ferraris.

Makes you appreciate guys like Fran Hall.