Drunk-driver Suing Victims - WOW!

[righteousdude2]

This is as extraordinary as it is outrageous. I think I have finally heard, seen and read it all, now! :type:

http://autos.aol.com/article/why-a-...id10|htmlws-main-bb|dl6|sec1_lnk3&pLid=128184

 

[TC]

If the judge does not throw this frivolous lawsuit out, he should be disbarred along with the so-called sister lawyer.

 

[righteousdude2]

I Totally Agree, but....

If the judge does not throw this frivolous lawsuit out, he should be disbarred along with the so-called sister lawyer.

....it still amazes me that someone would have the guts to even consider this. They must be members of, or someway related to the Westboro Baptist Church :laugh:

 

[Salty]

In principal - I might side with the drunk driver. Not that he would be relieved all fault.

Look at it this way - suppose he was not DWI and under the same circumstances, would the collision still have happened? That is the bottom legal question. If the first car did make an illegal lane change, especially at the intersection - then they must take responsibility for some of the blame.

Please understand that I do not condone DWI.

I will be keeping my eye on this case.

Just my added thoughts

Salty
certified driving instructor

 

[targus]

I believe that under civil law there exits the concept of contributory negligence where by fault is assigned between the two parties based on the degree of their negligence.

Considering that this guy had multiple previous DUI's, drugs in his system at the time of the accident, was driving between 75 and 85 mph, and struck his victim in the rear...

I really don't see that he has much of a leg to stand on.

The pain and suffering that he is claims to be experiencing are the making of his own doing.

 

[freeatlast]

In principal - I might side with the drunk driver. Not that he would be relieved all fault.

Look at it this way - suppose he was not DWI and under the same circumstances, would the collision still have happened? That is the bottom legal question. If the first car did make an illegal lane change, especially at the intersection - then they must take responsibility for some of the blame.

Please understand that I do not condone DWI.

I will be keeping my eye on this case.

Just my added thoughts

Salty
certified driving instructor

And why should anyone be surprised with this kind of logic? Where have we all seen this kind of logic before?

 

[preacher4truth]

And why should anyone be surprised wiht this kind of logic? Where have we all seen this kind of logic before?

Utterly ridiculous judgment, if you can even call it judgment.

The drunk was going 75-85 approaching behind a vehicle trying to turn, then they decided not to turn and happened to do so right in front of a drunk heading up behind and towards them, going 80, and he rear ends them because they switched lanes, killing them both.

Rear end collisions are automatically the fault of the one who crashed into them in most states and he pleaded guilty to that charge.

This judgment to side with the drunk is about as logical as being in a boat, and a drunk in the boat drills a hole in the bottom of the boat, telling others it's his right, and then suing the passengers because they drowned.

Yeah, makes great logical sense, right?

 

[annsni]

I'm not sure of the laws but in principle, the couple does hold some fault for not making sure the lane they were changing into was clear. You cannot just pull into any lane you feel like it! However I do think that most of the blame falls on the drunk and had he not been drunk and had he been traveling at a safe rate of speed, the accident would have been avoided.

 

[matt wade]

Utterly ridiculous judgment, if you can even call it judgment.
......

This judgment to side with the drunk is about as logical as being in a boat, and a drunk in the boat drills a hole in the bottom of the boat, telling others it's his right, and then suing the passengers because they drowned.

Yeah, makes great logical sense, right?

Where's the judgement?

 

[InTheLight]

I believe that under civil law there exits the concept of contributory negligence where by fault is assigned between the two parties based on the degree of their negligence.

Considering that this guy had multiple previous DUI's, drugs in his system at the time of the accident, was driving between 75 and 85 mph, and struck his victim in the rear...

I really don't see that he has much of a leg to stand on.

This is correct. The people that got hit by the car are (likely) partially at fault simply by the mere fact that they happened to be on the road at the time. I say this as a person that was once rear ended at a stop light. I was found to be 10% at fault because I happened to be there at the time and I should have been alert to the fact that someone was about to hit me and take steps to avoid the collision.

 

[freeatlast]

This is correct. The people that got hit by the car are (likely) partially at fault simply by the mere fact that they happened to be on the road at the time. I say this as a person that was once rear ended at a stop light. I was found to be 10% at fault because I happened to be there at the time and I should have been alert to the fact that someone was about to hit me and take steps to avoid the collision.

Those kind of judges need to be put off the bench.

 

[annsni]

I had an accident last week where I was driving straight on a road and an elderly gentleman came to an intersection with the road I was on, stopped at the stop sign, didn't look my way and floored it to get across the street ahead of another car coming the other way. He hit me directly in the driver's side door and then when his car hooked into my door and was pulled around 90 degrees to my direction then dragged down the side of my car, he then hit the gas and hit me again from behind. According to both insurance companies and the cop at the scene, he was 100% at fault. So even though I 'was there', it was still his fault since I had the right of way.

Fortunately we are OK but very sore. Unfortunately, my minvan was totaled.

 

[billwald]

Accidents should be judged on a case by case basis. I always drove more carefully back in the old days when I drove while drunk and never had an accident or got stopped.

For several years I drove to work in the hour after bar closing when we all know half the drivers were probably legally drunk. The traffic drove much more legally and carefully at 3 AM than at 3 PM.

It is mostly the amateur drunks and young drunks that cause the problems. That is why accidents increase during holidays and when summer break starts.

 

[preacher4truth]

At one point my brother and I lived with our Dad, who unfortunately was a drunk. One time we were on the highway, and he was driving drunk, and floored the vehicle we were in to race another car. I was in the back of the van, no seats. I prayed right then for God to please save us, because we were heading fast to the rear of the car ahead of us...at the last second right before we should've hit the other car, the van ran out of gas, and he pulled off the road.

 

[freeatlast]

It is mostly the amateur drunks and young drunks that cause the problems.

Now that is rich. :laugh:

 

[carpro]

This is as extraordinary as it is outrageous. I think I have finally heard, seen and read it all, now! :type:

http://autos.aol.com/article/why-a-...id10|htmlws-main-bb|dl6|sec1_lnk3&pLid=128184

It's a topsy turvy world.

All they have to do is find the right liberal activist judge and they're home free.