5 Mil Lawsuit

[Chris A.]

This tragedy happened on Christmas Eve....Some of you might remember the posts.......maybe money will make them feel better:ack

http://www.ocregister.com/news/claim-248804-ferrari-beach.html

http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2010/05/11/opinion/dpt-soundingoff051210.txt

 

[RALPHIE]

What ever happened to personal responsibility for one's actions?? :frown :thumbsdow

:frown Is this why we pay so much for insurance?? :frown

 

[steved57]

I truly hate to see the loss life of from the accident and have compassion for the family but lawsuits like this are a major problem with this country and so are the attorney's who convince them such a lawsuit is ok

 

[Nardo GT]

From what I have read.......my opinion is there are 2 at fault here,

1. The person who bought, allowed use of, gave the keys to an 18yo. and allowed him to drive a high performance vehicle.....just like a gun or alcohol....requires experience.

2. The 18yo. used extreme poor judgment in his driving of the above vehicle.

End of story.

Money will not bring the passenger back nor heal in the sad process of loss.

Case dismissed

Judge Nardo

 

[Nardo GT]

What ever happened to personal responsibility for one's actions?? :frown :thumbsdow

:frown Is this why we pay so much for insurance?? :frown

Ralphie....2 words that are pet peeves of mine (not those 2 lol).

1. Responsiblity. Sadly, with each generation, it gets less understood. They should teach courses in responsibilty in HS and college and they should be REQUIRED.


2. Entitlement. Don't even get me started here. Who the heck said anyone is entitled to anything? :bs Work for it. Simple actually.

 

[Chris A.]

From what I have read.......my opinion is there are 2 at fault here,

1. The person who bought, allowed use of, gave the keys to an 18yo. and allowed him to drive a high performance vehicle.....just like a gun or alcohol....requires experience.

2. The 18yo. used extreme poor judgment in his driving af the above vehicle.

End of story.

Money will not bring the passenger back nor heal in the sad process of loss.

Case dismissed

Judge Nardo

IF this made it front of a jury I suspect the outcome would be the same....but you never know

 

[Nardo GT]

IF this made it front of a jury I suspect the outcome would be the same....but you never know

Depends on if the judge and the attorney are "buddies". :willy

It isn't what you know, but who you know. Sad, but wayyyy too true.

Should never make it to trial:frown

 

[steved57]

Depends on if the judge and the attorney are "buddies". :willy

It isn't what you know, but who you know. Sad, but wayyyy too true.

Should never make it to trial:frown

I completely agree !

 

[MK2_GT]

Horirble story and tragic .

My heart goes out to the family but 18 year olds should not be driving Ferraris unless they are professional drivers on a track.

 

[Kayvan]

"failure to timely respond to the scene," the claim argues.

I remember this one; and even watched the seconds tick on the timeline via youtube cell video (below). EMS/Fire where there in seconds and loaded him in ambulance in something like under 5 min; not sure when cell vid started (ie, 5-10 min aft crash)

However, the first 3 minutes they appeared overwhelmed by the flames, and retreated. Someone did the calculation that the pump truck, was x miles away, got the call at y min, and proceeded at z speed that is below industry standard.

The family is very wealthy, and there are alot of deep pockets around this; thats the problem.

--------------
Dec 26 comments:

Its really revealing because you have the clock ticking and the fireball roaring away;

-A round half minute mark, 1st official arrives stands away about 15 ft reporting into walky-talky extent of damage;

-then around minute 2 two others with fire extinguishers use them intermitently, but back off.

-Finally around minute 3, the large tanker trucks show up; and a tire or pressurized tank blows.

-The first hose opens up at minute 5; flames out under 30 seconds.

-1st body on stretcher, EMS truck off under 8 min's; 2nd carried of at 10th min; that has to be a record.

 

[ObeyMyFast!]

These lawsuits aggravate me

 

[Empty Pockets]

"Although police cited EXCESSIVE SPEED as the accident's cause, the claim – a required precursor to a lawsuit – says otherwise. "Failure to install a proper barrier upon the median/center divider" is responsible, the claim says."

IOW - "It's the OTHER guy's fault (in this case local gov't's) for not doing everything known to man to offset my actions BEFOREHAND so that something would be in place to automatically protect myself and others from whatever goofy thing I may decide to do...as I have no personal responsibility at all for what happens as the result of my own actions."

What's new? :bored



"Failure to install a proper barrier upon the median/center divider" is responsible."

I see. So, in effect, what this claim says is EVERY road everywhere will now hafta have center dividers, or a lawsuit can be justifiably filed against the gov't in all situations like this one! I suppose all ROOFTOPS must have some barrier, too. And all bridges. And all piers. And...

'Unbelievable...

 

[HHGT]

ralphie....2 words that are pet peeves of mine (not those 2 lol).

1. Responsiblity. Sadly, with each generation, it gets less understood. They should teach courses in responsibilty in hs and college and they should be required.


2. Entitlement. Don't even get me started here. Who the heck said anyone is entitled to anything? :bs work for it. Simple actually.

+1,000,000

 

[Nardo GT]

Why thank you Sam....Does that mean I'm "entitled" to a room at your mansion?:wink

 

[Empty Pockets]

Why thank you Sam....Does that mean I'm "entitled" to a room at your mansion?:wink

Hey!!!!! Wifey & I already HAVE 1st 'reezervees' in that dept! :lol

 

[Gulf GT]

Possibly one reason for the lawsuit is another case that was just settled in Dana Point (just a few miles south of this incident) for $50 million involving a "proper barrier" not beiing on Pacific Coast Highway. They have since installed the "proper barrier" and are still facing other lawsuits. Amazing.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-120791-million-insurance.html

 

[Waxer]

Hmmm...First, seems like everyone is rushing to judgment on the "facts" as reported in a newspaper article. Thats a mistake as far as I'm concerned and candidly unfair. While no one, even an personal injury lawyer like me likes to see frivolous lawsuits they are believe it or not in the minority of claims. They do exist but the majority of suits in my 25 years of experience are meritorious and not frivolous.

However, you can't reach a final conclusion that there is no meritorious claim on a Newpaper article.

Second, while there is no doubt that if excessive speed was involved here there is certainly a tremendous level of responsibility on #1 the driver and #2 the parents who entrusted an 18 year old with a car capable of 200 mph. However, if this case came to me I wouldn't necessarily turn it away without a full investigation for the following reasons.

While we all have a responsibilty for our own behavior and conduct (applicable to driver #1 in this case) that doesn't excuse the State or the EMS from discharging their own responsibilty. Stupidity (negligence) is a foreseeable event in the operation of motorvehicle. Not a superseding intervening cause.

If the engineering standards required a particular barrier size on this particular road and if the particular barrier involved did not meet that standard or requirement or if in fact if failed to meet approved design requirements and if an accident reconstruction investigation including a biomechanical evaluation revealed that a proper barrier would have stopped the car from jumping into oncoming traffic even at its given actual speed and if preventing it from jumping the lane would mean the driver would still be alive there is absolutely a meritorious claim. Like it or not.

Second, IF EMS failed to respond in a timely fashion as determined by appropriate accepted standards and if that delay lead to further injury or death that otherwise would have been in all medical probability avoided or reduced bingo another meritorious claim.

A drivers negligence doesn't excuse the the negligence of others who may have contributed or even caused the end result.

I am not saying the barrier didn't meet standards or wasn't appropriate. I don't know. I am not saying EMS didn't respond appropriately or act appropriately. I don't know.

What I'm saying this accident merits further inquiry as to what happened in all regards.

Oh, I would also give thought as to a claim against the parents for supplying the car to this kid...i.e. a negligent entrustment claim.

Believe me, I hate to see lawyers bring bullchit claims, I doesn't help public relations much ...ergo this thread is an example...but I try avoid concluding claims are frivolous just based on a newspaper article.

Also, lets not take out the violins for the insurance companies so quickly. When they stop making money, and they make plenty, you'll know. They'll close shop. Until then don't believe their sob stories either. Don't misread what I'm saying. I believe the insurance companies should and need to make a profits and in fact in most cases do. But they also need to pay meritorious claims.

As to the bike path. Seems to me, as I understand the article... that a path churning out quads and dead people has an issue with it. Call me nuts but thats what I think.

 

[Empty Pockets]

Eeeeeeeeeeeh! Yur talkin' like a LAWYER, Waxer! :lol

We 'civilians' look at a wreck like this simply from the standpoint of cause & effect as it relates to personal responsibility. IOW - how many millions of cars have traveled thru that exact spot on that road, stayed on their own side of that road - barrier or no barrier - and NOT hit another vehicle (oncoming or otherwise)? That tells 'us' civilians that a driver who grossly deviates from this established pattern of normalcy is the source of the problem - not the roadway or it's barriers (or lack thereof).

It could be argued that ALL drivers on any road should be able to SEE the absence of this or that barrier and should therefore drive accordingly, could it not? In fact, there are citations that 'imply' that kind of thinking should be the norm; "Driving too fast for conditions", "reckless driving", "negligent driving", and, "failure to drive with due care & caution" all come to mind here.

And, just where does the state's responsibility to provide protection end? For instance, HOW can the state provide a barrier that'll prevent rear end collisions? Don't people get killed or injured in those, too? Or, does the difference lie in their degree of "dead"?

Anyway, the point is, absent the reckless behavior of the driver in question, the collision wouldn't have happened. He & he alone bears the responsibility for it, IMO.


Judge Pockets



An aside:

Here locally, there >WAS< (past tense) a 300-400 year old tree that use to stand about 30(?) feet off a local roadway where the road made a 90* left hand turn...until a speeding DRUNK failed to negotiate that corner early one morning and piled into it. As a result of this wreck, the tree - THAT HAD STOOD THERE FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS - was cut down 'to ensure no one else could be seriously injured' by crashing into it! Millions of OTHER drivers had passed by that same spot in both cars and horse & buggies since about 1850 without hitting it, so OBVIOUSLY the tree wasn't 'at fault'! But, ONE YO-YO, who never should have been on the road in the 1st place, was all it took to have the tree cut down. And why? TO AVOID A FUTURE LAWSUIT! (IOW, I have the right to sue someone ELSE for failing to protect ME from ME.)

'Ridiculous...

 

[Chris A.]

I guess those questions need to be asked but in this case.....IMHO......it's a BS claim. I drive by this stretch of road weekly, and there is no need for a divider. I saw the skid marks from the point where he lost control to where he jumped the median. Although a divider may have stopped a head-on collision it still would have been a horrific crash. Other forums have mentioned seeing this driver continually speeding up and down the road. It was an accident waiting to happen SOMEWHERE. Perhaps his parents would like us to place a divider up and down the entire coastline to anticipate his recklessness.

IF there are going to be lawsuits here they should be against the driver....from both the deceased passengers family and the tow truck driver who was torpedoed.

 

[Chris A.]

If my google map skills are correct ack) this is an example of the median that exists at the stretch of road where the accident took place.

Looks like plenty to me....larger than most around here.