Thanks for supporting the case that juries are incapable of making the right decisions. If they allow emotion and a sales pitch by a personal injury attorney to influence their decision, shame on them. We see it all too frquently; juries CHOOSING to disregard fact over emotion. This is what you get when you end up with a jury pool that is far from any “jury of your peers”. I would NEVER trust my fate to a jury.
OK, enough of these kinds of verdicts that just tick all of us off!! I want to see some defense verdits where the dufus pf’s & their attorneys get NOTHING or very little. Then I might start feeling better about our legal system (opps, sorry, weak moment there).
Don’t hold your breath. Not only is our jury selection process flawed, so are the judges who’s main concern is clearing their dockets of backlogs. I’ve yet to hear a judge tell a plaintiff where to put his groundless case. All you hear is “how can we get this settled?” What they really mean is how much is someone willinig to pay. Attorneys on the contigency fee bandwagon won’t be allowed to go home empty handed by the judges who are also kindred spirit attorneys. In addition, the more compensation that comes from the private sector, the less burden on the public sector.
but are we missing the whole point?! who’s really at fault? afterall, did she not RIDE in the drunks car? did the drunk get behind the wheel? how about, if i draw my share the wealth card and make a civil suit against all the passengers because they allowed him to get behind the wheel. press a civil suit against the party that gave him/her the drinks. we can spin the wheel and point to a variety of faults, but in reality – it was her fault knowing stepping into the vehicle for a ride home with the drunk behind the wheel and knowing that the law states – drinking and driving is against the law. so does that mean the state can no re-charge for negligent assault – conspiracy. can we as (NON) lawyers, think of someone better to sue!…. i think i need to get a law degree and truly sue all those involved. or become a DA and sue everyone that had a partial interest in getting that drunk off the road but did not!… i think that the vw will prevail – there is now way we can keep everyone safe; even w/the new side airbags. so if someone get hurt while the airbags go off to protect them, we are going to sue again?! how far does an automaker have to go? this is one case, where we have gone over the edge. next thing you’ll tell me is that the frame underneath shud have held up against the force that hit the pole. if that frame did not hold, we can sue the maker of the frame – oh, that VW again! truly, i see $$$ i can use various avenues. *** must want to make money and become one of these loving lawyers that are willing to put more money in my pocket no matter the cost to the consumer who hired me…so i can make millions of dollars and live out my life on someone else’s misfortune and company money from VW. so who is the winner, surely not the victim nor the drunk driver – the lawyer, who’ll get a huge portion of the check.
Read the posts in a bit but why wasn’t the driver assigned 100% of the liability as he was drunk and caused the accident. Can’t believe people were as stupid as to assign liability to a stationary pole REGARDLESS of being “too close to the road”. Sorry but unless that pole was right in the middle of the road, it had NO liability in this case.
While I can see your point, there is a defense argument used to defeat subrogation claims by utility companies for poles damaged by vehicles that goes something like this: “you negligently installed your pole within the ways and means of a public thoroughfare, creating a hazard to the foreseeable risk of a vehicle striking it”.
We can’t really say that the girl was at fault for getting in the car w/a drunk driver. The driver apparently owned up to his fault & pleaded guilty–amazing enough in itself–so probably he was appointed/volunteered to be “designated driver” before the others started drinking. As we all know, you can appear sober enough to drive (especially to someone who may have had a few herself) & not be. The passenger probably thought they’d been responsible & named a desig driver & trusted that the driver had kept to not drinking. That being said–the pole??? Gives a whole new slant to all those “I was driving along and a pole jumped out at me” claims. Maybe we should stop holding those drivers at fault, as apparently our poles have the ability to reason & know where to place themselves! And the seatbelt? Did anyone check into whether she would likely be alive at all if she hadn’t worn it? There was no sensational story–for a change, the driver admitted guilt & is apparently paying the cost–so the attorneys and/or whoever started this thing had to look elsewhere to cause a commotion and get enough sympathy for the girl going to get her major money–very, very sad.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Thanks for supporting the case that juries are incapable of making the right decisions. If they allow emotion and a sales pitch by a personal injury attorney to influence their decision, shame on them. We see it all too frquently; juries CHOOSING to disregard fact over emotion. This is what you get when you end up with a jury pool that is far from any “jury of your peers”. I would NEVER trust my fate to a jury.
OK, enough of these kinds of verdicts that just tick all of us off!! I want to see some defense verdits where the dufus pf’s & their attorneys get NOTHING or very little. Then I might start feeling better about our legal system (opps, sorry, weak moment there).
Don’t hold your breath. Not only is our jury selection process flawed, so are the judges who’s main concern is clearing their dockets of backlogs. I’ve yet to hear a judge tell a plaintiff where to put his groundless case. All you hear is “how can we get this settled?” What they really mean is how much is someone willinig to pay. Attorneys on the contigency fee bandwagon won’t be allowed to go home empty handed by the judges who are also kindred spirit attorneys. In addition, the more compensation that comes from the private sector, the less burden on the public sector.
but are we missing the whole point?! who’s really at fault? afterall, did she not RIDE in the drunks car? did the drunk get behind the wheel? how about, if i draw my share the wealth card and make a civil suit against all the passengers because they allowed him to get behind the wheel. press a civil suit against the party that gave him/her the drinks. we can spin the wheel and point to a variety of faults, but in reality – it was her fault knowing stepping into the vehicle for a ride home with the drunk behind the wheel and knowing that the law states – drinking and driving is against the law. so does that mean the state can no re-charge for negligent assault – conspiracy. can we as (NON) lawyers, think of someone better to sue!…. i think i need to get a law degree and truly sue all those involved. or become a DA and sue everyone that had a partial interest in getting that drunk off the road but did not!… i think that the vw will prevail – there is now way we can keep everyone safe; even w/the new side airbags. so if someone get hurt while the airbags go off to protect them, we are going to sue again?! how far does an automaker have to go? this is one case, where we have gone over the edge. next thing you’ll tell me is that the frame underneath shud have held up against the force that hit the pole. if that frame did not hold, we can sue the maker of the frame – oh, that VW again! truly, i see $$$ i can use various avenues. *** must want to make money and become one of these loving lawyers that are willing to put more money in my pocket no matter the cost to the consumer who hired me…so i can make millions of dollars and live out my life on someone else’s misfortune and company money from VW. so who is the winner, surely not the victim nor the drunk driver – the lawyer, who’ll get a huge portion of the check.
Amen, wudchuck.
Read the posts in a bit but why wasn’t the driver assigned 100% of the liability as he was drunk and caused the accident. Can’t believe people were as stupid as to assign liability to a stationary pole REGARDLESS of being “too close to the road”. Sorry but unless that pole was right in the middle of the road, it had NO liability in this case.
While I can see your point, there is a defense argument used to defeat subrogation claims by utility companies for poles damaged by vehicles that goes something like this: “you negligently installed your pole within the ways and means of a public thoroughfare, creating a hazard to the foreseeable risk of a vehicle striking it”.
We can’t really say that the girl was at fault for getting in the car w/a drunk driver. The driver apparently owned up to his fault & pleaded guilty–amazing enough in itself–so probably he was appointed/volunteered to be “designated driver” before the others started drinking. As we all know, you can appear sober enough to drive (especially to someone who may have had a few herself) & not be. The passenger probably thought they’d been responsible & named a desig driver & trusted that the driver had kept to not drinking. That being said–the pole??? Gives a whole new slant to all those “I was driving along and a pole jumped out at me” claims. Maybe we should stop holding those drivers at fault, as apparently our poles have the ability to reason & know where to place themselves! And the seatbelt? Did anyone check into whether she would likely be alive at all if she hadn’t worn it? There was no sensational story–for a change, the driver admitted guilt & is apparently paying the cost–so the attorneys and/or whoever started this thing had to look elsewhere to cause a commotion and get enough sympathy for the girl going to get her major money–very, very sad.