I’m going to make my family suffer the loss of thier family member (me)so that she (her family)doesn’t? Why? Because she crossed the line into my lane? Like I said before, he probably reacted without thinking about the lack of land on the side. I’m sure he didn’t think I deserve to die, this other idiot doesn’t.
1) she was 19 and drinking! that is a criminal offense, does not matter if it was .03!
2) UIM coverage would be needed because she had insurance.
3) so she moved to ALASKA, to start her life all over again and in the cold. yes, she will remember the accident and that it could have been her life instead of the trucker.
4) the driver did not drown. he probabaly died on impact. that is a large drop from the bridge into the water. having been an OTR TRUCKER, i can only imagine his thoughts and reactions and any trucker might be.
5) now, they settled with the insurance company did they sign a form saying that could not continue to go after her as well? i mean afterall, she did cause the accident and the loss of life. they could get future earnings. $100k is not enough to pay for a loss of life and his retirement and any future earnings.
truly it was a tragedy but one that could have been avoided if the MINOR under 21 should have not been drinking. yes, this was a criminal offense and including the place that served her the drink!
Apparently, IJ editors don’t know how to Google their sources for background information. This article contains details about the accident that will certainly affect the point of view up in this thread.
To have a .03 alcohol in blood level does not mean she was necessarily drinking. Mouthwash & cold medicines also contain alcohol that could have caused a .03 test result.
However in this case, “Candy Baldwin, 19, had been to a wedding and fell asleep while driving over the bridge.” She was not tested until hours after the accident. One could assume that the alcohol was being served freely as with most weddings I have attended.
When operating a semi-tractor trailer on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and a passenger vehicle coming in the opposite direction swerves into your lane, try to decelerate and brace for impact. In a crash between your truck and a car, I’d bet on the truck every time. The girl’s negligence in dozing off, alcohol related or not, resulted in a death. She should have been charged with failure to control her vehicle, negligent operation, and crossing the center line. She should have been given some jail time as well. The family should be outraged. $100,000 settlment with 40% gone to an attorney while the girl is living happily ever after in Alaska?
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.
I’m going to make my family suffer the loss of thier family member (me)so that she (her family)doesn’t? Why? Because she crossed the line into my lane? Like I said before, he probably reacted without thinking about the lack of land on the side. I’m sure he didn’t think I deserve to die, this other idiot doesn’t.
Good point and his family deserves the max. UM available. That’s what it’s for.
1) she was 19 and drinking! that is a criminal offense, does not matter if it was .03!
2) UIM coverage would be needed because she had insurance.
3) so she moved to ALASKA, to start her life all over again and in the cold. yes, she will remember the accident and that it could have been her life instead of the trucker.
4) the driver did not drown. he probabaly died on impact. that is a large drop from the bridge into the water. having been an OTR TRUCKER, i can only imagine his thoughts and reactions and any trucker might be.
5) now, they settled with the insurance company did they sign a form saying that could not continue to go after her as well? i mean afterall, she did cause the accident and the loss of life. they could get future earnings. $100k is not enough to pay for a loss of life and his retirement and any future earnings.
truly it was a tragedy but one that could have been avoided if the MINOR under 21 should have not been drinking. yes, this was a criminal offense and including the place that served her the drink!
Apparently, IJ editors don’t know how to Google their sources for background information. This article contains details about the accident that will certainly affect the point of view up in this thread.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=1458065
…and here’s the follow-up story to the original news report.
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/17173427/detail.html
To have a .03 alcohol in blood level does not mean she was necessarily drinking. Mouthwash & cold medicines also contain alcohol that could have caused a .03 test result.
However in this case, “Candy Baldwin, 19, had been to a wedding and fell asleep while driving over the bridge.” She was not tested until hours after the accident. One could assume that the alcohol was being served freely as with most weddings I have attended.
When operating a semi-tractor trailer on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and a passenger vehicle coming in the opposite direction swerves into your lane, try to decelerate and brace for impact. In a crash between your truck and a car, I’d bet on the truck every time. The girl’s negligence in dozing off, alcohol related or not, resulted in a death. She should have been charged with failure to control her vehicle, negligent operation, and crossing the center line. She should have been given some jail time as well. The family should be outraged. $100,000 settlment with 40% gone to an attorney while the girl is living happily ever after in Alaska?