Here's an interesting accident situation...
#11
08-29-2007, 11:57 AM
Road Captain
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Hollywood, California
Posts: 654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Here's an interesting accident situation...
Ok, Saw iton the news last night here in L.A. (Perris is about 2 hours away near Palm Springs) anyhow, the video tape footage is horrific. Was a Rice Rocket for sure, but the guys body was loged in a crease between the trunk and the rear windshield, smashed in like an accordian, Blood, guts, you get the picture. So the fire station captain where the car driver finally showed up was perplexed as to how this guy could drive home, then drive to the fire station and say "I think somebody hit my car, can you check?" WTF! DUI for sure, got to feel sorry for the kid though, he was just 20.
#12
08-29-2007, 12:12 PM
RE: Here's an interesting accident situation...
I have no idea what the speed limit was where this happened but if a parking lot can empty out onto the street there's a good chance this was a residental/business district with a speed limit of 25-45 mph. I'm not forgiving the drunk but at the same time if I was in my cage and was "cold sober" the same thing could have happened with someone going that fast.
The sad part is that the driver will probably be convicted in criminal court but depending on what the civil laws are in the state this happened, he more than likely will not be found liable in any civil court for any injury or death. It probably would be concluded that the motorcyclist was as much if not more responsible for his own death.
The sad part is that the driver will probably be convicted in criminal court but depending on what the civil laws are in the state this happened, he more than likely will not be found liable in any civil court for any injury or death. It probably would be concluded that the motorcyclist was as much if not more responsible for his own death.
#13
08-29-2007, 12:20 PM
RE: Here's an interesting accident situation...
I'm not so sure about the civil part. You're assuming that the jury in the civil trial would be acting on fact, as opposed to emotion. A juryhearing about a 20 year old kid killed by a drunk driver pulling out in front of him might be willing to ignore the kids speed on the bike.
ORIGINAL: whaap
The sad part is that the driver will probably be convicted in criminal court but depending on what the civil laws are in the state this happened, he more than likely will not be found liable in any civil court for any injury or death. It probably would be concluded that the motorcyclist was as much if not more responsible for his own death.
The sad part is that the driver will probably be convicted in criminal court but depending on what the civil laws are in the state this happened, he more than likely will not be found liable in any civil court for any injury or death. It probably would be concluded that the motorcyclist was as much if not more responsible for his own death.
#14
08-29-2007, 12:33 PM
RE: Here's an interesting accident situation...
That was also my reaction. Had the guy not pulled out in front of him.
Had the biker not been going 80.
There is blame on both sides here.
Had the biker not been going 80.
There is blame on both sides here.
#16
08-29-2007, 01:21 PM
RE: Here's an interesting accident situation...
ORIGINAL: petemac
I'm not so sure about the civil part. You're assuming that the jury in the civil trial would be acting on fact, as opposed to emotion. A juryhearing about a 20 year old kid killed by a drunk driver pulling out in front of him might be willing to ignore the kids speed on the bike.
I'm not so sure about the civil part. You're assuming that the jury in the civil trial would be acting on fact, as opposed to emotion. A juryhearing about a 20 year old kid killed by a drunk driver pulling out in front of him might be willing to ignore the kids speed on the bike.
ORIGINAL: whaap
The sad part is that the driver will probably be convicted in criminal court but depending on what the civil laws are in the state this happened, he more than likely will not be found liable in any civil court for any injury or death. It probably would be concluded that the motorcyclist was as much if not more responsible for his own death.
The sad part is that the driver will probably be convicted in criminal court but depending on what the civil laws are in the state this happened, he more than likely will not be found liable in any civil court for any injury or death. It probably would be concluded that the motorcyclist was as much if not more responsible for his own death.
#17
08-29-2007, 01:45 PM
RE: Here's an interesting accident situation...
You have a different opinion of lawyers and juries than I do. IMO there are plenty of lawyers around here that would take that case and roll the dice on a settlement before trial, or playing it out at trial. A trial case likethis isn't a lot of money for the firm to front.The news says he was doing 80. Is it in a police report? Maybe, maybe not.
The reality is whenever there are deep pockets involved, people will sue and lawyers will take the case. I deal in the aviation field and when there's a plane crash because the pilot ran out of gas,the family sues everycompany that has a component in that plane.Does it make sense?Of course,not. Does it stop lawyers from taking the case? Nope. Do they win, yep and fairly often.
The reality is whenever there are deep pockets involved, people will sue and lawyers will take the case. I deal in the aviation field and when there's a plane crash because the pilot ran out of gas,the family sues everycompany that has a component in that plane.Does it make sense?Of course,not. Does it stop lawyers from taking the case? Nope. Do they win, yep and fairly often.
ORIGINAL: whaap
No, what I'm assuming is that if the kid was going 80 in a 35 (for example) and there were no arguements against that, no attorney would take the case, let alone take it to trial because he would be aware that there was "obvious negligence" on the part of dead rider. No one will argue that there wasn't negligence on the part of the drunk but in many tort states an individual has to be "free of negligence" to recover from the other party and as stated above, I have never met an attorney who would consider the deceased rider to be free of negligence.
ORIGINAL: petemac
I'm not so sure about the civil part. You're assuming that the jury in the civil trial would be acting on fact, as opposed to emotion. A juryhearing about a 20 year old kid killed by a drunk driver pulling out in front of him might be willing to ignore the kids speed on the bike.
I'm not so sure about the civil part. You're assuming that the jury in the civil trial would be acting on fact, as opposed to emotion. A juryhearing about a 20 year old kid killed by a drunk driver pulling out in front of him might be willing to ignore the kids speed on the bike.
ORIGINAL: whaap
The sad part is that the driver will probably be convicted in criminal court but depending on what the civil laws are in the state this happened, he more than likely will not be found liable in any civil court for any injury or death. It probably would be concluded that the motorcyclist was as much if not more responsible for his own death.
The sad part is that the driver will probably be convicted in criminal court but depending on what the civil laws are in the state this happened, he more than likely will not be found liable in any civil court for any injury or death. It probably would be concluded that the motorcyclist was as much if not more responsible for his own death.
#19
08-29-2007, 02:27 PM
RE: Here's an interesting accident situation...
ORIGINAL: petemac
You have a different opinion of lawyers and juries than I do. IMO there are plenty of lawyers around here that would take that case and roll the dice on a settlement before trial, or playing it out at trial. A trial case likethis isn't a lot of money for the firm to front.The news says he was doing 80. Is it in a police report? Maybe, maybe not.
The reality is whenever there are deep pockets involved, people will sue and lawyers will take the case. I deal in the aviation field and when there's a plane crash because the pilot ran out of gas,the family sues everycompany that has a component in that plane.Does it make sense?Of course,not. Does it stop lawyers from taking the case? Nope. Do they win, yep and fairly often.
You have a different opinion of lawyers and juries than I do. IMO there are plenty of lawyers around here that would take that case and roll the dice on a settlement before trial, or playing it out at trial. A trial case likethis isn't a lot of money for the firm to front.The news says he was doing 80. Is it in a police report? Maybe, maybe not.
The reality is whenever there are deep pockets involved, people will sue and lawyers will take the case. I deal in the aviation field and when there's a plane crash because the pilot ran out of gas,the family sues everycompany that has a component in that plane.Does it make sense?Of course,not. Does it stop lawyers from taking the case? Nope. Do they win, yep and fairly often.
ORIGINAL: whaap
No, what I'm assuming is that if the kid was going 80 in a 35 (for example) and there were no arguements against that, no attorney would take the case, let alone take it to trial because he would be aware that there was "obvious negligence" on the part of dead rider. No one will argue that there wasn't negligence on the part of the drunk but in many tort states an individual has to be "free of negligence" to recover from the other party and as stated above, I have never met an attorney who would consider the deceased rider to be free of negligence.
ORIGINAL: petemac
I'm not so sure about the civil part. You're assuming that the jury in the civil trial would be acting on fact, as opposed to emotion. A juryhearing about a 20 year old kid killed by a drunk driver pulling out in front of him might be willing to ignore the kids speed on the bike.
I'm not so sure about the civil part. You're assuming that the jury in the civil trial would be acting on fact, as opposed to emotion. A juryhearing about a 20 year old kid killed by a drunk driver pulling out in front of him might be willing to ignore the kids speed on the bike.
ORIGINAL: whaap
The sad part is that the driver will probably be convicted in criminal court but depending on what the civil laws are in the state this happened, he more than likely will not be found liable in any civil court for any injury or death. It probably would be concluded that the motorcyclist was as much if not more responsible for his own death.
The sad part is that the driver will probably be convicted in criminal court but depending on what the civil laws are in the state this happened, he more than likely will not be found liable in any civil court for any injury or death. It probably would be concluded that the motorcyclist was as much if not more responsible for his own death.
#20
08-29-2007, 02:32 PM
RE: Here's an interesting accident situation...
And now you're retired and living in Tucson. Lucky b***d. 
ORIGINAL: whaap
The only thing you missed in my last post was when I said: and there were no arguements against this - - - Of course if there's a question of fact it might go to trial but when all the parties are in agreement things seldom go to trial unless it's just a case of not being able to agree to the amount of damages. And yes, I'm familiar with what plaintiff attorneys are capable of. I was an insurance claims manager (automobile claims) handling southern California and that included the land of fraud - L.A.
ORIGINAL: petemac
You have a different opinion of lawyers and juries than I do. IMO there are plenty of lawyers around here that would take that case and roll the dice on a settlement before trial, or playing it out at trial. A trial case likethis isn't a lot of money for the firm to front.The news says he was doing 80. Is it in a police report? Maybe, maybe not.
The reality is whenever there are deep pockets involved, people will sue and lawyers will take the case. I deal in the aviation field and when there's a plane crash because the pilot ran out of gas,the family sues everycompany that has a component in that plane.Does it make sense?Of course,not. Does it stop lawyers from taking the case? Nope. Do they win, yep and fairly often.
You have a different opinion of lawyers and juries than I do. IMO there are plenty of lawyers around here that would take that case and roll the dice on a settlement before trial, or playing it out at trial. A trial case likethis isn't a lot of money for the firm to front.The news says he was doing 80. Is it in a police report? Maybe, maybe not.
The reality is whenever there are deep pockets involved, people will sue and lawyers will take the case. I deal in the aviation field and when there's a plane crash because the pilot ran out of gas,the family sues everycompany that has a component in that plane.Does it make sense?Of course,not. Does it stop lawyers from taking the case? Nope. Do they win, yep and fairly often.
ORIGINAL: whaap
No, what I'm assuming is that if the kid was going 80 in a 35 (for example) and there were no arguements against that, no attorney would take the case, let alone take it to trial because he would be aware that there was "obvious negligence" on the part of dead rider. No one will argue that there wasn't negligence on the part of the drunk but in many tort states an individual has to be "free of negligence" to recover from the other party and as stated above, I have never met an attorney who would consider the deceased rider to be free of negligence.
ORIGINAL: petemac
I'm not so sure about the civil part. You're assuming that the jury in the civil trial would be acting on fact, as opposed to emotion. A juryhearing about a 20 year old kid killed by a drunk driver pulling out in front of him might be willing to ignore the kids speed on the bike.
I'm not so sure about the civil part. You're assuming that the jury in the civil trial would be acting on fact, as opposed to emotion. A juryhearing about a 20 year old kid killed by a drunk driver pulling out in front of him might be willing to ignore the kids speed on the bike.
ORIGINAL: whaap
The sad part is that the driver will probably be convicted in criminal court but depending on what the civil laws are in the state this happened, he more than likely will not be found liable in any civil court for any injury or death. It probably would be concluded that the motorcyclist was as much if not more responsible for his own death.
The sad part is that the driver will probably be convicted in criminal court but depending on what the civil laws are in the state this happened, he more than likely will not be found liable in any civil court for any injury or death. It probably would be concluded that the motorcyclist was as much if not more responsible for his own death.