The Best Rolls Royce

Sir Frederick Henry Royce was born in 1863 to James and Mary Royce. He was the youngest of five children. His parents ran a flour mill however their business failed forcing them to move to London. Then in 1872 his father died. After only a year of formal schooling, young Royce had to drop out and start selling newspapers and delivering telegrams.

However in 1878 an aunt provided some financial support and he was able to start an apprenticeship with the Great Northern Railway at Peterborough, England. But in three years, he was out of money so he came to London and went to work for the Electric Light and Power Co. He then moved to Liverpool where he worked on street and theatre lights.

Royce was thrifty and saved his money. In 1884 he had saved twenty pounds and his friend, Ernest Claremont, had fifty pounds. They merged their savings and started the F H Royce Co. producing electrical fittings. The company was successful and in 1894 became Royce Ltd.

However the economic slump of 1902 together with competition from foreign manufacturers brought hard times. Royce purchased a second hand Decauville and began to toy with it, working out various modifications and improvements. By 1904 he was testing his own engines.

Then in mid-1904 a mutual friend introduced him to Charles Rolls. Rolls was impressed with Royce's two cylinder Royce 10. So much so, that he signed an agreement to purchase all the cars that Royce could make. They would be marketed as a Rolls Royce. Royce now had the financial backing to build a successful company. The first Rolls Royce was displayed at the Paris Salon in December 1904

The two partners were vastly different in personality and background. Rolls was formally educated in Britain's most prestigious schools whereas Royce was self-taught. Rolls was an adventurer who lived life in the fast lane while Royce was a perfectionist who believed, "Small things make perfection but perfection is no small thing." Rolls came from a wealthy family. Royce had been poor. In spite of their differences, however, the two men got along well and were close friends.

In 1906, Rolls and Royce created Rolls Royce Ltd. and Rolls was employed as Technical Manager at a salary of 750 pounds annually and four percent of all profits in excess of 10,000 pounds.

Rolls soon became bored and exchanged his position as Technical Manager for a non-executive manager so he could pursue his flying interests.

Royce was a workaholic who didn't always eat properly and became ill in 1902 and 1911. He also had major surgery in London. But he did not allow his health to interfere with his work.

The night before he died, he sat up in bed and designed an adjustable shock absorber. His motto was, "Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble." He was also the originator of the quotation that "The quality remains long after the price is forgotten."

The automobile he created had a "name that is synonymous with engineering excellence, style and luxury." That reputation continues until this day.

Rent a Car Norcross Car Rental Norcross Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Brenda_Williams

The 1987 Chevrolet Blazer

In 1991, Alex Hardy, 37, was driving his 1987 Chevrolet Blazer through White Hall, Alabama when the Blazer's rear axle broke, freeing the right wheel assembly and sending the vehicle into a roll. When the door flew open, Hardy was thrown 30 to 40 feet through the air and suffered severe injuries that left him permanently paralyzed.

Attorneys representing Hardy filed suit against General Motors. They alleged that the Blazer's faulty door latches contributed to Hardy's injuries, and that GM knowingly sold Blazers with defective door latches that opened in accidents like the one owned by Hardy.

GM denied the allegations, arguing Hardy was to blame because he had been drinking and fell asleep when his Blazer rolled over. Witnesses for GM testified that Hardy flew through a window because he was not wearing a seat belt. GM insisted that their "Type 3" door latch was safe and met all federal safety standards. They further claimed that the rate of side-door ejections from its vehicles involved in fatal accidents was .77 per 100 occupants. Finally, GM experts testified that Hardy's door latch was only slightly damaged, indicating that it had not come open during the accident as he contended.

"Once again, a giant automaker tried to avoid the facts by clouding the issue," noted nationally recognized auto defects attorney, John Bisnar. "Internal GM documents-including a 1982 study estimating such latches could fail some 18,000 times a year-underscored the faulty nature of GM's Type 3 door latch. This latch was installed on some 40 million GM vehicles beginning in 1978. An updated version featuring a support plate was only installed on some 1987 models. Unfortunately, GM opted not to spend the estimated $916 million needed to replace all of the latches. It chose instead to issue a 'quiet recall' where dealers were instructed to replace the latch without telling their customers. Regrettably, there are still some 30 million vehicles on the road that are equipped with these latches."

An Alabama jury awarded $50 million in compensatory damages for Mr. Hardy and his family and $100 million in punitive damages against the automaker for what the jury determined was GM's "guilty knowledge" of the defective latches. This was one of the largest ever verdicts against GM.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began an investigation into what GM knew about the apparent defects in the door latches. A former administrator of the Federal agency said it often took aggressive civil litigation like the Hardy case to unearth evidence and documents that were otherwise hidden from Federal regulators.

"This verdict revealed the reprehensible fact that GM had known for at least 14 years that Americans would be injured and killed as a result of its poorly designed door latch, a part that had failed in accident after accident," observed Brian Chase of the nationally recognized auto defects law firm of Bisnar Chase. "Mr. Hardy's action in taking GM to court is an example of our justice system at work. The jury award is America's message to GM-in this case, quite a substantial message-that their failure to act was not acceptable. Hopefully, this lawsuit will help convince the automaker to respond effectively to known safety defects to prevent further injuries to its customers."

Visit http://www.bestattorney.com or call 888-265-0161

The 1993 Nissan Pathfinder

In 1997, Andrea Alvarez was driving her 1993 Nissan Pathfinder on a highway in Broward County, Florida. When Alvarez inadvertently veered off the road into the center median, she steered to re-enter the roadway, but lost control and rolled over onto the driver's side. During the accident, Alvarez suffered a life altering injury-her left arm was amputated at the elbow.

The Alvarezes filed suit against Nissan, alleging that a design defect caused the Nissan Pathfinder to be unreasonably dangerous and that Nissan's failed in its duty to use reasonable care in the design, manufacture, assembly, distribution, and/or sale of its vehicle. Nissan, it was alleged, was also negligent in that it failed to give proper warnings to car buyers concerning the vehicle's dangerous susceptibility to "rollovers."

The Alvarezes presented expert testimony, including various tests that supported their contention that the Pathfinder was unreasonably dangerous. Nissan countered, presenting its own expert witnesses and evidence that the vehicle did not have a design defect. The automaker insisted that Alvarez caused the accident by incorrectly steering the Pathfinder, saying that no SUV can be designed so that it does not overturn just from steering.

Alvaraz's attorneys insisted that vehicles should and can be designed not to overturn solely based on a driver's steering while on a flat, level, paved roadway. Nissan claimed that the Pathfinder's wheels were off the road when Alvaraz turned over. The plaintiff maintained that she tipped over while on the road and that all four tires were in contact with the road when she turned over.

"Nissan"s own engineers contradicted the automakers assertion," noted nationally recognized auto defects attorney, John Bisnar. "A paper presented at a conference by Japanese Nissan engineers in the 1970s included an experimental safety project that stated the Nissan vehicle 'has over-turning immunity.' The paper proved that Nissan was aware that a vehicle could be designed so it wouldn't roll over based on how it was driven."

Plaintiffs' experts, including an engineer and a test-driver, proved that the 1993 Pathfinder could roll over based on how it was driven. They presented their own rollover tests. Going a step further, they modified the SUV with a wider track and a lowered center of gravity, which during tests, revealed that the SUV did not roll over.

Although the jury found there was no design defect, it did find that Nissan was negligent in its "failure to warn," which does not require a finding of design defect. The trial court agreed with the Alvarezes. In addition, the jury found that Andrea Alvarez was comparatively negligent and assigned her 49 percent fault and Nissan 51% fault. Alvarez was awarded damages of $3,057,000 and her husband was awarded $415,000. The trial court entered a Final Judgment in accordance with the jury verdict.

"How many serious, life-altering injuries must the motoring public endure before a car maker finally decides to adequately warn its publics about the dangers of its SUVs?" exclaimed Brian Chase of the nationally recognized auto defects law firm of Bisnar Chase. "The Alvarezes' action in taking Nissan to court is an example of our justice system at work. The jury's award is America's message to Nissan that their failure to act was not acceptable. Hopefully, this lawsuit will help convince Nissan to properly warn customers about the potential risks in driving rollover-prone SUVs.

Visit the main website at http://www.bestattorney.com or call 888-265-0161