However, the wound would have healed weeks earlier, so Van Gogh would presumably not have been bandaged. Curiously, he recounted that Van Gogh was wearing “the famous headband and cap” and, if so, Signac could not have observed the extent of the loss. In 1921 he wrote to the critic Gustave Coquiot, saying that it was “the lobe of the ear (not the ear)”. Three months after the mutilation, the artist Paul Signac visited Van Gogh for the day in Arles. However, she might have had an interest in minimising the severity of the loss to protect the artist’s dignity following his untimely death. It must have been highly traumatic to see her brother-in-law with the scars, so she would hardly have forgotten the sight. She had met Vincent when he stayed at their Paris apartment for four days in May 1890 and saw him again during two day-visits in June and July. Jo Bonger, Vincent’s sister-in-law, wrote in her memoirs in 1914 that he had “cut off a piece of his ear”. If it was just part of the ear, it could have been more of a plea for help.Īlthough an undeniably gruesome topic, let’s examine the reports of the key witnesses-starting off with those who said it was only part of the ear, the theory generally accepted until recently. If it was the entire ear, it suggests that Van Gogh was determined to cause maximum damage and possibly death. But it would still be instructive to know the extent of his injury. Whether it was the whole ear or part of it is arguably not of fundamental importance, since the main point is that Van Gogh was in such a disturbed state that he severely mutilated himself. Kastigar would be more successful with his case against Mercedes-Benz.Note from Félix Rey to Irving Stone with a sketch of Vincent van Gogh’s mutilated ear, 18 August 1930 Courtesy of the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley In the case of BMW, the judge said “ humans have been slamming their fingers in doors since doors were invented and the doors on BMW's vehicles are no exception.” We doubt Mr. BMW and Jaguar faced similar lawsuits years ago and the judges dismissed them all. Kastigar very much, there are many cases just like his, and some of them went before the court with abysmal results. The system’s power is indeed high enough to break a wooden pencil, let alone a finger.Īlthough this would not help Mr. The system works on a very short travel – a quarter of an inch (6 mm) and this makes it very difficult to detect a foreign object. The problem is that for the soft-close system is almost impossible to detect a finger or other object caught in between the door and the pillar. In its current form, the soft-close system is “nothing short of a modern-day guillotine," according to the plaintiff. Now, he is suing Mercedes-Benz and is asking for compensation, as well as a redesign of the system to include safeguards. In October last year, as he was getting off his vehicle in the garage, he got his right thumb crushed by the door’s soft-close system. Kastigar, Jr., who also happens to be chief deputy of the Pima County Sheriff Department in Arizona, holds a grudge against his family’s 2020 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450 SUV. Reports show several people lost their fingers because of this convenience, and the latest one we know of has sued Mercedes-Benz after his car’s door crashed his thumb. You can add to this list another one, as the soft-close function turns out to be outright dangerous.
Depending on who you ask, the soft-close system's usefulness ranges wildly, from being a must-have feature to a “nice-to-have” status to being completely useless for some people.
0 kommentar(er)
