Would be nice to know if she knew he was drunk, or was drunk herself. What percentage was she at fault for getting in the car with a drunk behind the wheel?
The driver was drunk but the utility company is at fault for putting the pole there, they should have known to put the pole further from the road to protect drunk idiots from themselves?
The injured girl got into a car with a drunk driver but it’s Volkswaggon’s fault for not making seatbelts able to protect every person in every instance?
Just goes to show, the deeper your pockets the more your odds of being liabile for something.
Where’s the suit for whoever provided the liquor to someone clearly too stupid to drink responsibly? Must have been a small enough merchant to be insulated from suit… why sue the corner bar with $1000 in the till?
This suit (and others like it) is/are rediculous. The only person or entity that should be sued is the driver who CAUSED the accident.
the sad part about these suits is that OUR commentary does not reach the ears of those who need to be informed: juries. For some reason, our judicial system has been leaning away from personal responsibility and toward……drum roll. please…..MONEY. The banking industry has a big lobby why can’t insurance do better to stop this nonsense. When I was a kid, there was a stigma to being stupid enough to not only drink, drive and get caught; no one in their right mind would have thought to bring a suit like this and incur the unending derision of their friends, neighbors and law enforcement….You were expected to suck it up and play the hand you dealt.
can i put in for a share of the wealth card?! …. but let’s put this in perspective —-
first of all, why did she allow herself to be in the car with a drunk? that in itself is a 100% liab on herself for being in that car.
secondly: what caused the car to lose control and have the accident? the driver who is DRUNK! so, let me see, that makes him 100% responsible. if he was not drunk, then he would have not lost control of the vehicle. if she was smart, she would not have gotten into the vehicle.
thirdly: how can we give a fixed object fault? afterall, it was already in place, it did not move like an animal — or did we purchase an animated pole?!
fourth: seatbelt, glad she wore one, but seatbelts can not always save lives. this was a tragic accident due to the loss of life. but the force generated to produce such wretching experience was caused by whom? the drunk driver for losing control and then hit the pole! seatbelt – is an inanimate object, used to sustain a driver in her position. the failure of the seatbelt – um…was she still in the vehicle? was it now shown that the force of the accident caused the effect? not every situation can be resolved and saved. why should the seatbelt make be responsible? they did not driver the vehicle that caused the crash. the vehicle was made properly but the driver lost control while DRUNK. again, back to the driver.
so why is this society so interested in blaming everyone but who the blame should be? it’s because they know that the JURY can give easily. i know if i was the automaker, i definately would get this tossed out! afterall, i was not responsible for the accident! if we go this far, then why did they not sure the person whom gave that driver a drink? what about the bar and it’s owner or the party host? this is what you call over justice civilly only because people can’t be replaced and i know that it’s hard to lose a loved one. but in reality – the only fault is the driver who was drunk, and partially the her for getting into the vehicle with the drunk driver! DID we forget that issue? afterall, if it is her friend, then she should have made the effort to either take the keys, become the designated driver, or eventually not have ridden in the vehicle.
Wudchuck, your problem is that you are looking at this too sensibly. You’re correct on all counts. The problem is that the jury didn’t see it this way, and sadly, were not capable of seeing it this way. The prevailing thought among most people now is that “someone has to be at fault and someone has to pay for it” and unfortunately this has permiated into the thoughts & minds of jurors. Just becuase they are jurors it doesn’t raise their level of personal responsibility or lower their dislike for large corporations. Everyone loses with verdicts like these.
Minor point wudchuck – she was paralyzed, not killed. But other than that you’re right on.
I am a little surprised they didn’t bring the dram laws into this – which leads me to believe there was nobody to sue there.
I want to know what the make, model and year of the car were (just for yucks and grins). Lap belts in the middle (which is where I’m assuming she was sitting) are still standard on most cars. I don’t even know if VW has a model with center-seat shoulder belts. Since lap belts are and accepted standard, and she was using it, I don’t see how VW comes into play. Since breath-alcohol starters are not standard equipment, I don’t see how VW comes into play. Since VW can’t engineer a seat-belt against drunk drivers going full-speed into a pole, I don’t see how they come into play.
And the pole!? Give me a freakin’ break.
When can we start slapping jurors silly for passing down these ridiculous awards?
The gal has minimal sympathy from me for being paralyzed, but she chose to get into a car with a drunk driver. If anybody pays it should be the driver. Personally, I place 100% on the injured person.
We’re all preaching to the choir. Our legal system is flawed and juries have proven time and time again they are incapable of rendering a common sense, objective, un-emotional verdict. A rear seat belt is neither designed nor intended to be 100% effective when a speeding car slams into a utility pole broadside at a high rate of speed. She was probably hurt most seriously of all because the other un-belted idiots in the back seat got thrown into her. The law of physics does that to you. Money is king.
Pltf attys do this all the time – they have the pltf sitting in her wheel chair sobbing quietly into her handkie all during the trial and then(surprise) the jurors try to do the ‘right thing’ and always get it wrong – VW can and will appeal this to the end of their remedies but will, inevitably pay ‘something’
(which is why Mr. Atty guy took it in the first place) – merits ?? you have GOT to be kidding !
Everyone that has posted so far is correct. But, it’s not the jury’s fault, it’s the legal system. I can hear the girl’s attorney (no doubt Jackie Childs) showing numerous cases brought against utility companies who had been told countless times to move their poles but didn’t. You can also bet that they provided evidence that VW was told to make their seatbelts more adjustable for height or something else ridiculous like that. The bottom line, they plaintiff’s attorneys did a better job making 12 people believe that everyone else was at fault instead of the defense who must not have been as convincing or couldn’t disprove the slickness of who the girl hired. She had everything to gain and nothing to lose. She only had to pay her attorneys “if we get money for you!”
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.
Would be nice to know if she knew he was drunk, or was drunk herself. What percentage was she at fault for getting in the car with a drunk behind the wheel?
Let’s see if I understand this…
The driver was drunk but the utility company is at fault for putting the pole there, they should have known to put the pole further from the road to protect drunk idiots from themselves?
The injured girl got into a car with a drunk driver but it’s Volkswaggon’s fault for not making seatbelts able to protect every person in every instance?
Just goes to show, the deeper your pockets the more your odds of being liabile for something.
Where’s the suit for whoever provided the liquor to someone clearly too stupid to drink responsibly? Must have been a small enough merchant to be insulated from suit… why sue the corner bar with $1000 in the till?
This suit (and others like it) is/are rediculous. The only person or entity that should be sued is the driver who CAUSED the accident.
the sad part about these suits is that OUR commentary does not reach the ears of those who need to be informed: juries. For some reason, our judicial system has been leaning away from personal responsibility and toward……drum roll. please…..MONEY. The banking industry has a big lobby why can’t insurance do better to stop this nonsense. When I was a kid, there was a stigma to being stupid enough to not only drink, drive and get caught; no one in their right mind would have thought to bring a suit like this and incur the unending derision of their friends, neighbors and law enforcement….You were expected to suck it up and play the hand you dealt.
Come on Anon… don’t you know those poles move and can jump out in front of you, especially if you’re drunk…
Let’s face it, the reason that the untility company and VW were found at fault is because they have the money…
can i put in for a share of the wealth card?! …. but let’s put this in perspective —-
first of all, why did she allow herself to be in the car with a drunk? that in itself is a 100% liab on herself for being in that car.
secondly: what caused the car to lose control and have the accident? the driver who is DRUNK! so, let me see, that makes him 100% responsible. if he was not drunk, then he would have not lost control of the vehicle. if she was smart, she would not have gotten into the vehicle.
thirdly: how can we give a fixed object fault? afterall, it was already in place, it did not move like an animal — or did we purchase an animated pole?!
fourth: seatbelt, glad she wore one, but seatbelts can not always save lives. this was a tragic accident due to the loss of life. but the force generated to produce such wretching experience was caused by whom? the drunk driver for losing control and then hit the pole! seatbelt – is an inanimate object, used to sustain a driver in her position. the failure of the seatbelt – um…was she still in the vehicle? was it now shown that the force of the accident caused the effect? not every situation can be resolved and saved. why should the seatbelt make be responsible? they did not driver the vehicle that caused the crash. the vehicle was made properly but the driver lost control while DRUNK. again, back to the driver.
so why is this society so interested in blaming everyone but who the blame should be? it’s because they know that the JURY can give easily. i know if i was the automaker, i definately would get this tossed out! afterall, i was not responsible for the accident! if we go this far, then why did they not sure the person whom gave that driver a drink? what about the bar and it’s owner or the party host? this is what you call over justice civilly only because people can’t be replaced and i know that it’s hard to lose a loved one. but in reality – the only fault is the driver who was drunk, and partially the her for getting into the vehicle with the drunk driver! DID we forget that issue? afterall, if it is her friend, then she should have made the effort to either take the keys, become the designated driver, or eventually not have ridden in the vehicle.
Wudchuck, your problem is that you are looking at this too sensibly. You’re correct on all counts. The problem is that the jury didn’t see it this way, and sadly, were not capable of seeing it this way. The prevailing thought among most people now is that “someone has to be at fault and someone has to pay for it” and unfortunately this has permiated into the thoughts & minds of jurors. Just becuase they are jurors it doesn’t raise their level of personal responsibility or lower their dislike for large corporations. Everyone loses with verdicts like these.
Minor point wudchuck – she was paralyzed, not killed. But other than that you’re right on.
I am a little surprised they didn’t bring the dram laws into this – which leads me to believe there was nobody to sue there.
I want to know what the make, model and year of the car were (just for yucks and grins). Lap belts in the middle (which is where I’m assuming she was sitting) are still standard on most cars. I don’t even know if VW has a model with center-seat shoulder belts. Since lap belts are and accepted standard, and she was using it, I don’t see how VW comes into play. Since breath-alcohol starters are not standard equipment, I don’t see how VW comes into play. Since VW can’t engineer a seat-belt against drunk drivers going full-speed into a pole, I don’t see how they come into play.
And the pole!? Give me a freakin’ break.
When can we start slapping jurors silly for passing down these ridiculous awards?
The gal has minimal sympathy from me for being paralyzed, but she chose to get into a car with a drunk driver. If anybody pays it should be the driver. Personally, I place 100% on the injured person.
We’re all preaching to the choir. Our legal system is flawed and juries have proven time and time again they are incapable of rendering a common sense, objective, un-emotional verdict. A rear seat belt is neither designed nor intended to be 100% effective when a speeding car slams into a utility pole broadside at a high rate of speed. She was probably hurt most seriously of all because the other un-belted idiots in the back seat got thrown into her. The law of physics does that to you. Money is king.
Pltf attys do this all the time – they have the pltf sitting in her wheel chair sobbing quietly into her handkie all during the trial and then(surprise) the jurors try to do the ‘right thing’ and always get it wrong – VW can and will appeal this to the end of their remedies but will, inevitably pay ‘something’
(which is why Mr. Atty guy took it in the first place) – merits ?? you have GOT to be kidding !
Everyone that has posted so far is correct. But, it’s not the jury’s fault, it’s the legal system. I can hear the girl’s attorney (no doubt Jackie Childs) showing numerous cases brought against utility companies who had been told countless times to move their poles but didn’t. You can also bet that they provided evidence that VW was told to make their seatbelts more adjustable for height or something else ridiculous like that. The bottom line, they plaintiff’s attorneys did a better job making 12 people believe that everyone else was at fault instead of the defense who must not have been as convincing or couldn’t disprove the slickness of who the girl hired. She had everything to gain and nothing to lose. She only had to pay her attorneys “if we get money for you!”