5 Mil Lawsuit
- Thread starter Chris A.
- Start date
PL510*Jeff
Well-known member
As a very biased "non-involved party", this suit and the settlement that resukted smells to high heaven. Not one mention of personal ethical resposibility. Why Not?
I'm quite sure that the local citizens would un-elect any offcial that votes for installing a Nascar catch fence and safer barrier along this stretch of road---just incase a car that can perform up to or beyond 200 mph might drive on this road.
The seeming lack of personal responsibility - the parents first of all, an the driver's actions secondly, should overide ANY municipal financial settlement. As has been stated prior, irrsponsible reckless negligent driving was the SOLE reason for this accident.
That's my $ .02.
I'm quite sure that the local citizens would un-elect any offcial that votes for installing a Nascar catch fence and safer barrier along this stretch of road---just incase a car that can perform up to or beyond 200 mph might drive on this road.
The seeming lack of personal responsibility - the parents first of all, an the driver's actions secondly, should overide ANY municipal financial settlement. As has been stated prior, irrsponsible reckless negligent driving was the SOLE reason for this accident.
That's my $ .02.
Granted, the high speed and negligent conduct of the driver would be the cause of the accident initially but perhaps not the only contributing cause to the ulitimate injuries or death that resulted. Think about it. Hypothetical.....Same speeding car but what if it could be proved that the barrier present was not to standard and not to design specs??? That the purpose of the barrier was to prevent cars in an accident from jumping over to the oncoming lanes. Which is one of their purposes as I understand. What if it could be proved that but for the faulty barrier and the car jumping the median and hitting oncoming traffic the driver would have suffered some injury but not death? What about the oncoming drivers???? Are their claims to be limited to the Ferrari driver only not the State which failed to install the proper barrier???
Hypothetically what about if the EMS crew improperly failed to show up timely and proof was adduced that timely help would have meant the Ferrari driver would still be alive today????
I'm sure if a member of your family/child was involved as the Ferrari driver and the above hypothetical questions could be answered in the affirmative so that if the barrier was the right size or EMS timely responded death could have been avoided you would all just chalk it up to your family member's 100% fault in driving that speeding Ferrari and walk away. However, if you were smart by not jumping to conclusions you would consult a good liability lawyer (that would be me) before writting your family member/kid off as being 100% responsible for the end result.
Further, I don't know what the law is in the jurisdiction where the accident happened but if there was no barrier in N.J. and the design plan was approved without a barrier the State in N.J. would have immunity for that.
There are plenty of examples of the State protecting us from us or helping to do so. Warning signs, traffic barriers, speed bumps, salting and sanding in winter, EMS, Firemen, policemen. The list goes on and on. There are plenty of scenarios where others have to protect us from ourselves. In fact, an example is found right on the seats of our FGTs. They're called seat belts. Seat belts weren't always found in cars, were they??? Nope. Pocket's FGT could probably quailfy for a seat belt delete option based on the fact it never moved. :wink
Also, Pockets, you know as well as I do that that tree jumped out in front that drunk. Lets be fair. :lol ....Honestly, I agree. If the drunk hitting the tree was the only reason they cut down such a tree it does seem ridiculous to me.
Anyone want to talk about the McDonalds coffee verdict. It was a good one in my opinion.
Bring it. :biggrin
Hypothetically what about if the EMS crew improperly failed to show up timely and proof was adduced that timely help would have meant the Ferrari driver would still be alive today????
I'm sure if a member of your family/child was involved as the Ferrari driver and the above hypothetical questions could be answered in the affirmative so that if the barrier was the right size or EMS timely responded death could have been avoided you would all just chalk it up to your family member's 100% fault in driving that speeding Ferrari and walk away. However, if you were smart by not jumping to conclusions you would consult a good liability lawyer (that would be me) before writting your family member/kid off as being 100% responsible for the end result.
Further, I don't know what the law is in the jurisdiction where the accident happened but if there was no barrier in N.J. and the design plan was approved without a barrier the State in N.J. would have immunity for that.
There are plenty of examples of the State protecting us from us or helping to do so. Warning signs, traffic barriers, speed bumps, salting and sanding in winter, EMS, Firemen, policemen. The list goes on and on. There are plenty of scenarios where others have to protect us from ourselves. In fact, an example is found right on the seats of our FGTs. They're called seat belts. Seat belts weren't always found in cars, were they??? Nope. Pocket's FGT could probably quailfy for a seat belt delete option based on the fact it never moved. :wink
Also, Pockets, you know as well as I do that that tree jumped out in front that drunk. Lets be fair. :lol ....Honestly, I agree. If the drunk hitting the tree was the only reason they cut down such a tree it does seem ridiculous to me.
Anyone want to talk about the McDonalds coffee verdict. It was a good one in my opinion.
Bring it. :biggrin
Last edited:
Kingman
GT Owner
You can "what if" this all you like from across the continent Mr. Waxer:wink
But around here people are so pissed off that they are emailing the attorney to express their disgust. Did you see the photo I posted? Is a barrier really needed in addition to the center expanse. I think those questions have been asked and the majority of reasonable people have weighed in. Lets see if this makes it in front of a jury....or if it's just a bluff to settle.
Either way I enjoy reading your perspective:thumbsup
But around here people are so pissed off that they are emailing the attorney to express their disgust. Did you see the photo I posted? Is a barrier really needed in addition to the center expanse. I think those questions have been asked and the majority of reasonable people have weighed in. Lets see if this makes it in front of a jury....or if it's just a bluff to settle.
Either way I enjoy reading your perspective:thumbsup
Objection! Seat belts are fastened by the driver...not by someone else (ya, I know, SOME of them fasten automatically - but, don't mess up my argument here!). So, the use or non use of seat belts is THE DRIVER'S decision. Just like the decision to do 200 mph on a public street.
Aaaaaaaaah, shuddup and stick to the gripe at hand!!!:lol
So, you REALLY believe it was Mickey D's fault ol' Stella decided to pry open her coffee cup while driving down the road? And it was Mickey D's fault the clumsy fool spilled it all over herself in the process? AND it was Mickey D's fault that coffee is traditionally served HOT in this country???! I suppose if the ol' broad had choked on a Mc NUGGET - THAT wudda been Mickey's fault too because: 1- Mickey made the nuggets TOO BIG for her to swallow whole...especially 4 at a time, 2- Mickey shudda 'KNOWED' Stella was a glutton, and, 3- Mickey shudda provided an EATING COACH for the dingbat. 'That about sum it up, counselor? :rofl
EDIT: I forgot to ask: where is the law that states HOW HOT a cup of coffee is allowed to be served? What is the max temp allowed by statute? (Maybe there IS one now...but, I betcha there wasn't any legal standard before ol' Stella's case hit the courts.)
EDIT #2: PUHLEEEEEZE tell us you didn't agree with the decision in the case of the I-D-I-O-T who sued the manufacturer of his motor home because his motor home's CRUISE CONTROL didn't steer the vehicle down the road when he LEFT THE DRIVER'S SEAT and went back to make himself a cup of coffee???????!!! :willy:willy:willy:willy:willy
Last edited:
texas mongrel
GT Owner
I'm a dual national (US/UK) and once, during the voire dire for jury duty, the judge heard my 'foreign' accent and asked "so, as a Limey, what do you think of our American Legal system?" Having been involved in a number of cases via my job in the evil oil industry, I replied "Sir, I've noticed that it often gets in the way of justice". I got to go home early that day!
Of course my view is that all lawyers are scum, except when they're representing me in which case they are all princes among men! In other words - I actually sympathise with some of the pro-lawsuit observations on this thread, whilst also acknowledging the apparent ridiculousness of the legal claims - no doubt time will resolve all.
Of course my view is that all lawyers are scum, except when they're representing me in which case they are all princes among men! In other words - I actually sympathise with some of the pro-lawsuit observations on this thread, whilst also acknowledging the apparent ridiculousness of the legal claims - no doubt time will resolve all.
Aaaaaaaah! A fence sitter! :biggrin
In the early days of our country, you'd have been referred to as a "mugrump". Because you sit on the fence on issues, you get hit in the 'mug' by mud thrown from one side, and on the 'rump' by mud thrown from the other! :lol :cheers
('Couldn't agree more with your assessment of our LEGAL (notice I didn't say "justice") system. 'Waaaaaaaaaay too much nuancing, ducking, dodging, and dancing allowed at the expense of the TRUTH, IMO.)
Okay. I'm shuttin' up now... :willy
Gulf GT
GT Owner
If someone makes the logic that there should have been a barrier to handle a 200mph collision, then what about the car's manufacturer for not having a full roll cage, or sueing someone because they were not wearing helmets? Or sueing the manufacturer of the shirts and pants they were wearing because they were not fire proof (i.e firesuits)? The argument can be made, but where can you reasonably stop? If the average person traveling within the speed limit can refrain from such carnage...
Fast Freddy
GPS'D 225 MPH
there are way to many laws in this country. i like mexico better......
follow the 10 commandments and no shirt, no shoes, and no problems :cheers
beach sand and coronas here i come :lol
the only place in america left were i can find any freedom is on the navajo indian reservation :frown
JCSB
Ex GT Owner
Exactly. I get a periodical for an engineering mag that has a section in it about lawsuits brought against manufacturers. About 10-12 years ago there was a law suit filed against Porsche by the deceased wife for allowing a car to be produced that they felt would required a professional driver to drive safely. They also noted that because the brake pedal bent at a 160 mph impact it was not properly designed.
Personal responsiblity no longer applies. Someone else is always responsible. It all makes me a little sick.
John
BlackICE
GT Owner
This is the sad truth about more and more people in the USA. They are given a great shove torward in this direction by the public school system, Federal and state governments, and trial lawyers. :thumbsdow
Last edited:
From the picture, it would appear that the median strip was not installed as a barrier, but rather as a pleasant parkway median to enhance the beauty of the roadway. In many places such as this, no median exists - just a separation of the opposing lanes. I beg to differ that it is to be considered a barrier at all, and that no barrier is necessary on that strip of roadway. Otherwise, we would have to put them everywhere.
Man, you guys crack me up.
Before you rush to lynch the trial lawyers remember if there gone you're left with the insurance industry/companies. They surely have your best interest at heart.:lol. When and if the day comes you are a victim in an accident it doesn't take a genius to figure out whose interests are more aligned with yours. Most lawyers, at least that I know are not "scum". My father was a lawyer and Federal Judge. Very honorable man. Served under Robert Kennedy, served in WWII (1st Rangers), three Purple Hearts. He certainly wasn't scum. In fact not many could fill his shoes. Most lawyers I know are hard working advocates of their clients. There are doctors that are quacks. That doesn't mean all doctors are scum. Point is if we start painting too broadly, one day your likely to be included in broad brush stokes you don't care for.
Fact of the matter is very simple. No one likes frivolous claims. That includes reputable lawyers. Believe it or not there are reputable hard working lawyers out there. Its just like everything else. The bad apples make it hard for the good ones. There are bad doctors, bad engineers, car dealers etc...
Also remember, what you read in the papers (Gazillon dollar verdicts or clearly ridiculous claims) is the exceptional case either good or bad. Thats why it makes the papers. The fact that you read about a stupid claim is not representative of the vast majority of claims. There are idiots out there unfortunately that will file a ridiculous claim that makes the paper or news and poisons the well for all those who have meritorious claims. That is a real problem as evidenced by the vitriol here over the subject suit on this thread. Good lawyers (I know many of you believe thats an oxymoron) understand that frivolous suits are more often then not a loser and a waste of time. Thats a fact. Cases are and can be very expensive to pursue not to mention time consuming. Believe me on this one. You don't want to be involved in a losing case and especially one that exposes you to fees based on frivolous claim statutes or court rule. Does that stop the occasional ridiculous claim. No. But the systems not perfect or idiot proof.
My point is very simple. Be careful about drawing final conclusions from what your read in the paper. Many times facts are left out, misreported or distorted by one side or the other or the reporter.
Most states have statutes dealing with frivolous claims as does the Federal System. Merely because you disagree with the claim or there is a dispute either about the facts or application/interpretation of law doesn't mean its frivolous. This attitude would mean that in every case one side must be frivolous because last I checked nearly every lawsuit involves two sides or more and both/each side/s always thinks they are right and the other wrong.
As to the case in this thread, I'll make clear what I am not saying. I am not saying the State should have had a barrier up to stop a 200 mph crash. That is ridiculous. As to what I've said I can't say it any clearer. Your fee to think its BS but I can assure you its not.
Pockets, I agree, you are responsible for putting your seatbelt on but manufacturers are required to put them in cars based on Federal regulation. This wasn't always so. So, if a car manufactuer puts safety restraints in that don't meet the required standards and your wife or child was injured or killed as a result I guess you would just call it a day since after all self responsibilty would dictate that you should have checked to see the seat belts were the the proper strength and if your wife or child was speeding at the time that would really be frivolous following the logic of some on this thread...:lol
Before you rush to lynch the trial lawyers remember if there gone you're left with the insurance industry/companies. They surely have your best interest at heart.:lol. When and if the day comes you are a victim in an accident it doesn't take a genius to figure out whose interests are more aligned with yours. Most lawyers, at least that I know are not "scum". My father was a lawyer and Federal Judge. Very honorable man. Served under Robert Kennedy, served in WWII (1st Rangers), three Purple Hearts. He certainly wasn't scum. In fact not many could fill his shoes. Most lawyers I know are hard working advocates of their clients. There are doctors that are quacks. That doesn't mean all doctors are scum. Point is if we start painting too broadly, one day your likely to be included in broad brush stokes you don't care for.
Fact of the matter is very simple. No one likes frivolous claims. That includes reputable lawyers. Believe it or not there are reputable hard working lawyers out there. Its just like everything else. The bad apples make it hard for the good ones. There are bad doctors, bad engineers, car dealers etc...
Also remember, what you read in the papers (Gazillon dollar verdicts or clearly ridiculous claims) is the exceptional case either good or bad. Thats why it makes the papers. The fact that you read about a stupid claim is not representative of the vast majority of claims. There are idiots out there unfortunately that will file a ridiculous claim that makes the paper or news and poisons the well for all those who have meritorious claims. That is a real problem as evidenced by the vitriol here over the subject suit on this thread. Good lawyers (I know many of you believe thats an oxymoron) understand that frivolous suits are more often then not a loser and a waste of time. Thats a fact. Cases are and can be very expensive to pursue not to mention time consuming. Believe me on this one. You don't want to be involved in a losing case and especially one that exposes you to fees based on frivolous claim statutes or court rule. Does that stop the occasional ridiculous claim. No. But the systems not perfect or idiot proof.
My point is very simple. Be careful about drawing final conclusions from what your read in the paper. Many times facts are left out, misreported or distorted by one side or the other or the reporter.
Most states have statutes dealing with frivolous claims as does the Federal System. Merely because you disagree with the claim or there is a dispute either about the facts or application/interpretation of law doesn't mean its frivolous. This attitude would mean that in every case one side must be frivolous because last I checked nearly every lawsuit involves two sides or more and both/each side/s always thinks they are right and the other wrong.
As to the case in this thread, I'll make clear what I am not saying. I am not saying the State should have had a barrier up to stop a 200 mph crash. That is ridiculous. As to what I've said I can't say it any clearer. Your fee to think its BS but I can assure you its not.
Pockets, I agree, you are responsible for putting your seatbelt on but manufacturers are required to put them in cars based on Federal regulation. This wasn't always so. So, if a car manufactuer puts safety restraints in that don't meet the required standards and your wife or child was injured or killed as a result I guess you would just call it a day since after all self responsibilty would dictate that you should have checked to see the seat belts were the the proper strength and if your wife or child was speeding at the time that would really be frivolous following the logic of some on this thread...:lol
Last edited:
...you 'ducked' my Stella Liebeck rant, Evan! AND the applicable coffee temp statute! And your opinion on the 'motor home moron' award as well! :lol
Now, to be serious for a moment (and that's about the max time I can handle "serious"!), you stated, "...if a car manufacturer puts safety restraints in that don't meet the required standards and your wife or child was injured or killed as a result I guess you would just call it a day..." That's a whole different kettle of fish for this reason: In THAT scenario, from a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY standpoint, one has no REASONABLE way to know the seat belts are sub par. One cannot "see" the defect...one cannot "see" that one had better not travel over "X" mph 'cause the belts won't hold the G-forces in the event of a crash. So, one WOULD be acting totally "responsibly" if he were to operate that vehicle under the assumption that the belts were "safe". HOWEVER, in the F-car crash situation, it was O-B-V-I-O-U-S there was no barrier...'OBVIOUS if the car were to launch over the median there'd be nothing to prevent a head on crash...'OBVIOUS that one shouldn't use that street as a race track...'OBVIOUS the street was not designed for high speed runs/maneuvers, and it would therefore be IRRESPONSIBLE to drive a car on that street in any sort of reckless manner. The perils in play were totally OBVIOUS to any "reasonable man" (to cite a legal term). IOW, those two cases are apples and ox carts. :wink :cheers
Perry Mason, Esq.
Last edited:
BlackICE
GT Owner
GTdrummer
GT Owner
I was trying to avoid this conversation, but feel compelled to add my 2 cents.
Like Waxer said, most lawyers are good, hard working folks and many don't make much money. Full disclosure--I am a defense lawyer and have been 28 years. I defend primarily manufacturers in product liability suits--many mult-million dollar cases and many in the past, for the car companies. Like Waxer, I have family members who are lawyers, and coincidentally a sister, who is a Federal Judge. I am head of litigation for a 1000 lawyer firm.
At one time or another, I have had cases in almost every state. I have seen a LOT of bad and some good. I have defended cases that would make the infamous McDonald's case seem like the most rational lawsuit you could imagine (in fact, you should read up on that case--it was not at all as advertised by our media)
I have had cases where folks were driving drunk; using power saws while under the influence of drugs etc--you name it. Most of those were wins as they should be but many should have never been filed.
I have been in small towns where the lawyer on the other side and Judge were best friends and on a first name basis. I have even had cases where the law firm on the other side paid for the new courthouse. And most of the time a motion to recuse (remove) the Judge was a waste of time and made things worse. In states with elected judges it can really get out of control.
There are bad (awful) crooked lawyers out there ,but just like as Waxer says there are bad doctors, accountants, brokers--you name it. The law profession does not have the market cornered on bad .Most of these clowns get caught sooner or later, and I know some who I have litigated against who have done hard time--rightly so.
Things have improved--but, as you might imagine it has been at the state level where everything else seems to get done. There has been a lot of state tort reform and it has worked. Also, more and more Judges, state and Federal (especially the latter) seem to have the backbone to dismiss BS cases.
Almost nothing has happened at the Federal level, and, IMO, never will. ATLA (trial lawyers) are too deep in the Dems pockets--hence the reluctance to deal with med mal in the ridiculous health care bill.
Waxer is also right that if you, God forbid, ever need a lawyer because you or a family member has been hurt you will begin to have an appreciation of the legal system. I used to think all folks walking around with neck braces were frauds until I got rear ended once and had awful neck pain for months (I did not sue, however) There are awful cases out there where folks at fault will not own up to it and think they can outspend a poor family whose kid has been hurt. A good lawyer can truly help that family.
Like a lot a lot of big firms, ours does thousands of hours a year in Pro Bono work and so do a lot of lawyers in small firms. You almost never hear about big wins over the bad guys for the poor, that lawyers handle for free.
Finally (and I am rambling) there is a lot of bad in our legal system, but with all its warts I have never seen a better one (and I have had cases in other countries) And, as much as it might pain me to admit, our very liberal product liabilty law has had a real benefit--I have witnessed vast improvements in the safety of products and I doubt they would have happened, but for fear of pattern litigation.
Anyway, the system is far from perfect, and there remain plenty of knuckleheads in the legal profession, but it is better than 10 years ago and you should not believe all you read. As for the suit at hand I would reserve judgement until I knew all the facts--from the few facts given seems like BS.
Like Waxer said, most lawyers are good, hard working folks and many don't make much money. Full disclosure--I am a defense lawyer and have been 28 years. I defend primarily manufacturers in product liability suits--many mult-million dollar cases and many in the past, for the car companies. Like Waxer, I have family members who are lawyers, and coincidentally a sister, who is a Federal Judge. I am head of litigation for a 1000 lawyer firm.
At one time or another, I have had cases in almost every state. I have seen a LOT of bad and some good. I have defended cases that would make the infamous McDonald's case seem like the most rational lawsuit you could imagine (in fact, you should read up on that case--it was not at all as advertised by our media)
I have had cases where folks were driving drunk; using power saws while under the influence of drugs etc--you name it. Most of those were wins as they should be but many should have never been filed.
I have been in small towns where the lawyer on the other side and Judge were best friends and on a first name basis. I have even had cases where the law firm on the other side paid for the new courthouse. And most of the time a motion to recuse (remove) the Judge was a waste of time and made things worse. In states with elected judges it can really get out of control.
There are bad (awful) crooked lawyers out there ,but just like as Waxer says there are bad doctors, accountants, brokers--you name it. The law profession does not have the market cornered on bad .Most of these clowns get caught sooner or later, and I know some who I have litigated against who have done hard time--rightly so.
Things have improved--but, as you might imagine it has been at the state level where everything else seems to get done. There has been a lot of state tort reform and it has worked. Also, more and more Judges, state and Federal (especially the latter) seem to have the backbone to dismiss BS cases.
Almost nothing has happened at the Federal level, and, IMO, never will. ATLA (trial lawyers) are too deep in the Dems pockets--hence the reluctance to deal with med mal in the ridiculous health care bill.
Waxer is also right that if you, God forbid, ever need a lawyer because you or a family member has been hurt you will begin to have an appreciation of the legal system. I used to think all folks walking around with neck braces were frauds until I got rear ended once and had awful neck pain for months (I did not sue, however) There are awful cases out there where folks at fault will not own up to it and think they can outspend a poor family whose kid has been hurt. A good lawyer can truly help that family.
Like a lot a lot of big firms, ours does thousands of hours a year in Pro Bono work and so do a lot of lawyers in small firms. You almost never hear about big wins over the bad guys for the poor, that lawyers handle for free.
Finally (and I am rambling) there is a lot of bad in our legal system, but with all its warts I have never seen a better one (and I have had cases in other countries) And, as much as it might pain me to admit, our very liberal product liabilty law has had a real benefit--I have witnessed vast improvements in the safety of products and I doubt they would have happened, but for fear of pattern litigation.
Anyway, the system is far from perfect, and there remain plenty of knuckleheads in the legal profession, but it is better than 10 years ago and you should not believe all you read. As for the suit at hand I would reserve judgement until I knew all the facts--from the few facts given seems like BS.
Last edited:
GTdrummer: +1.
Like I said, we shouldn't draw final conclusions from New Paper articles for many reasons.
With regard to the case at hand, I agree, seems like a ridiculous claim as reported but based on its severity and the outcome more investigation is needed in my mind as a lawyer before I tell the family...sorry there is no case in MY opinion.
Pockets. I didn't duck the motorhome case. Just forgot to address it. If the "facts" as you state them are accurate, I agree. Stupid claim and I might add it as any frivolous claim would piss me off double because it tarnishes further what people think of lawyers which affects guys like me and GTdrummer and other reputable counsel.
We can talk about the McD's case later, Its been a while and I want to try and recheck my facts before I speak.
Believe it or not my seat belt scenario is analogous to my argument on the speed barrier issue. Very simply, if the sovereign put in a speed barrier that did not meet design specs, or didn't put one in at all but was supposed to based on the approved design plans how is a motorist to know? Makes no difference if the motorist was speeding or not to the extent that it doesn't excuse the States failure to put in the right barrier. The drivers negligence may not let the State off the hook if it could be shown that a proper barrier would have prevented or mitigated the damage/injuries. There would alway be the issue of to what extent did the extra speed play in the injuries or extent thereof.
The plaintiff's negligence in many states does not by statute always mean the defendant is excused from any neglience that contributed to the event or outcome.
I'll be back. :biggrin
Like I said, we shouldn't draw final conclusions from New Paper articles for many reasons.
With regard to the case at hand, I agree, seems like a ridiculous claim as reported but based on its severity and the outcome more investigation is needed in my mind as a lawyer before I tell the family...sorry there is no case in MY opinion.
Pockets. I didn't duck the motorhome case. Just forgot to address it. If the "facts" as you state them are accurate, I agree. Stupid claim and I might add it as any frivolous claim would piss me off double because it tarnishes further what people think of lawyers which affects guys like me and GTdrummer and other reputable counsel.
We can talk about the McD's case later, Its been a while and I want to try and recheck my facts before I speak.
Believe it or not my seat belt scenario is analogous to my argument on the speed barrier issue. Very simply, if the sovereign put in a speed barrier that did not meet design specs, or didn't put one in at all but was supposed to based on the approved design plans how is a motorist to know? Makes no difference if the motorist was speeding or not to the extent that it doesn't excuse the States failure to put in the right barrier. The drivers negligence may not let the State off the hook if it could be shown that a proper barrier would have prevented or mitigated the damage/injuries. There would alway be the issue of to what extent did the extra speed play in the injuries or extent thereof.
The plaintiff's negligence in many states does not by statute always mean the defendant is excused from any neglience that contributed to the event or outcome.
I'll be back. :biggrin
Last edited:
Gulf GT
GT Owner
Oh please... I drive this roadway all the time. Pacific Coast Highway, one of the most beautiful places to drive a car on this planet, and now because idiots want to drive their cars several times the speed limit I would have to look at barriers. Where they installed the barriers in Capistano Beach (Dana Point) where the other accident was a couple years ago it looks like shit.
The point relative to the case at hand, though, is that the F-car pilot COULD SEE there was no barrier at all (and should have been well aware of the other things I mentioned as well). And again, exactly at what point could the state's "prevention/protection" responsibilities be considered fully "met"...and the responsibility for STUPID ACTIONS borne solely by the perp? My contention is there's no way to get to that level as things currently stand in our legal system. Especially as long as the, "it's-the-other-guy's-fault-I-did-something-stupid", lawsuits aren't thrown out the INSTANT they're filed.
Of THAT I have no doubt, sir! :rofl:rofl:rofl :thumbsup:thumbsup :cheers
'Enjoyed the joust!