Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

rollover comments

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    Both Jill and Jack Jill for breach of contract (give keys to Mary), drunk driving, and endangerment, allowing passengers to ride in an unprotected condition
    Message 1 of 7 , May 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Both Jill and Jack

      Jill for breach of contract (give keys to Mary), drunk driving, and
      endangerment, allowing passengers to ride in an unprotected condition
      (no seat belts). Ten years in the slammer. No question.

      Jack for reckless endangerment (grabbing the wheel) and being the
      immediate cause of the roll, Five years?

      Pretty well cut and dried IMO

      I don't care if Peter was an axe murderer (you say he's antisocial -
      irrelevant) - he is not at fault except for willingly riding in an
      unprotected vehicle.

      Otherwise I'd give him two zillion bux against Jill by way of
      compensation. As it is a zillion from Jill and half a zillion from Jack
      as the immediate cause of the roll.

      <bangs gavel>

      Hangin' judge mac

      _____________________
      sadly they are all fools.
      but legally only the driver would be at fault i would think.





      ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jurydoctor@aol.com
      Jill is the Captain of the ship. As owner and operator of the vehicle, I initially place 100% responsibility on Jill for the safe transport of all passengers.
      Message 2 of 7 , May 3, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Jill is the Captain of the ship. As owner and operator of the vehicle, I
        initially place 100% responsibility on Jill for the safe transport of all
        passengers. This includes the decision to allow passengers in an area
        designed for
        cargo only, i.e., no seatbelts (how about seats?) in the back.

        HOWEVER, the entire group had a clear intent for this trip, and that intent
        was to get drunk in a rural area. The alcohol use/abuse was not a by-product
        of
        the trip...it was clearly the intent of the trip. Therefore, I feel each
        person contributed to their own [potential] injuries by making the decision
        to go
        on this specifically-intended joy ride.

        It doesn't really matter to me who ended up drunk and who remained sober...or
        the return-trip actions/inactions of the participants...the intent of the
        trip was clear. BUT, I'll try to assign some percentage of responsibility
        based
        on the facts presented.

        SO...

        Jill was the owner and operator and initially 100% responsible. If she had
        been transporting children (minors), she would have remained 100% responsible
        for all facets of this incident.

        * Tally at this point: Jill = 100%, others = 0%

        The other 3 people, as adults, also agreed to go on the joyride. The lack of
        safety equipment for 2 people did not deter them nor alter their decision to
        participate. Each person shares an equal responsibility for their own
        potential
        injuries, but Jill is still the Captain and she facilitated the journey.

        I place no additional responsibility on Mary for her inaction. It is not
        realistic to think she could have altered the course of events given the
        demeanor
        of the participants and their remote location.

        Barring any other circumstance, a crash at this juncture places the greater
        responsibility on Jill.

        * Tally at this point: Jill = 40%, Jack = 20%, Mary = 20%, Peter = 20%

        Now considering the additional element of Jack's behavior and crash-inducing
        action, I certainly think Jack's contribution to the crash is greater than
        any
        other element. Jill continues to bear responsibility for the trip as a whole,
        plus she had prior knowledge of Jack's behavioral tendencies.

        * Tally at this point: Jill = 40%, Jack = 40%, Mary = 10%, Peter = 10%

        As a willing negotiator, I'm also willing to entertain a split as high as 60%
        for Jack, i.e., Jill = 20%, Jack = 60%, Mary = 10%, Peter = 10%, but I'm more
        comfortable with a split that distributes the responsibilities more evenly.

        ON THE OTHER HAND, a Miami jury will probably assign 80% blame to the cargo
        van manufacturer for not anticipating the need to have instant, inflatable
        seats and seatbelts for cargo-box passengers...and 20% to the local
        jurisdiction
        (Department of Transportation or Public Works Department) for not having a
        road and shoulder made from foam rubber so as to absorb any errant rollover
        vehicles




        ________________________________________________________________________
        ________________________________________________________________________

        2. rollover
        Date: Thu May 3, 2007 2:24 am ((PDT))




        : rollover
        Date: Wed May 2, 2007 9:11 pm ((PDT))

        Jill is at fault. It's her van and she's driving while intoxicated.

        ______________
        excellent point..but.. (and I can't get past this)

        if Jack didn't grab the wheel (is that illegal?) Peter would not be
        paralyzed.
        when Peter grabs the wheel, who is assuming responibility for driving?
        He grabbed it to be a jerk, not cause she was driving erratically
        ________________








        ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jurydoctor@aol.com
        How drunk was Jill? ...................................not sure Was she more than just a little bit drunker than Mary ? .........................Mary was
        Message 3 of 7 , May 3, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          How drunk was Jill?
          ...................................not sure


          Was she more than just "a little bit drunker than Mary"?

          .........................Mary was sober

          If so, Jill is at fault for not giving the keys to Mary to drive and getting
          behind that steering wheel in a bad condition to be operating a vehicle. I

          would also blame Jack for grabbing at that steering wheel because there was
          probably little that Jill could do to avoid such a quick manuever although the
          driver should be able to have control over the vehicle at all times.
          ......................he grabbed it for no good reason, just cause he is an
          abusinve ass



          Why are there no seat belts in the back of this vehicle? Is that acceptable?

          IT is a cargo van, has no seats either

          Being anti-social and not such a nice guy has "nothing" to do with how Peter
          wound up. If he needed to be belted, that would be an issue but the blame
          falls on the drunk (if she was) driver and Jack.







          ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jurydoctor@aol.com
          Clearly, it was agreed beforehand that Mary would be the return designated driver. Upon arrival, Jill should have turned over her keys to Mary. When she
          Message 4 of 7 , May 3, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Clearly, it was agreed beforehand that Mary would be the return designated
            driver. Upon arrival, Jill should have turned over her keys to Mary. When
            she wouldn't turn the keys over to Mary, then the other 3 should have
            confiscated them from her. Jill chose to drive while impaired, however,
            Jack contributed by grabbing the wheel, and has equal fault in the accident.
            Mary and Peter made their own decisions to ride with Jill driving drunk
            instead of finding a way to get the keys from her. Personally, I would have
            suggested everyone wait so

            Jill and Jack could sober up or pass out! (grabbed keys

            if they passed out)


            ____________________
            Interesting that Jack couldn't get the keys from her, only the steering wheel.
            ______________________
            -to my way of thinking doc, if you decide to get drunk, or you get drunk, you
            and only you
            are responsible for the consequences
            because you have decided to impair your judgement
            -----------------
            That only leaves 1 person not responsible, the designated driver <g>, whose
            judgment was not impaired and got in the car (did she have a choice) with a
            bunch of drunks..
            ____________________
            ______________________





            ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jurydoctor@aol.com
            As the saying goes Stupid is as stupid does seems to me all of them were out of control and NOT one of them deserves any money. _____________________ IMO
            Message 5 of 7 , May 4, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              As the saying goes "Stupid is as stupid does" seems to me all of them
              were out of control and NOT one of them deserves any money.
              _____________________
              IMO Jack & Jill are @ fault. Voluntary ingestion of mind altering
              substances is not mitigating circumstances in an illegal act.
              ______________
              Ever hear the expression: my car, my rules?
              ______________
              I thought the owner of the vehicle is rersponsible no matter what.
              ____________________


              I hold them all responsible with slightly more fault for the accident to
              Jack for grabbing the wheel and Mary for not fighting harder for the keys
              since
              she was the only who did not drink with the intention of being the driver.
              Jill was no more the "captain" of this crew than any one of them and without
              a
              blood alcohol level [or at the least, a breathalizer], we don't know if she
              was driving drunk, or not. If this behavior was known and they were long
              time friends, then there was full disclosure, so to speak, of the risk prior
              to
              the trip
              ________________
              An interesting case, this one. I would note first of all the
              irrelevancies, which amount to a single item of information:
              The fact (be it alleged or proven by any standard of "proof" such as
              we understand the word) of Peter's "anti-social behavior" means
              absolutely nothing when it comes to deciding this case. That's that.

              As far as it goes, it would appear that fault for the accident
              itself lies with Jill. The degree of her intoxication at the time
              may present fodder for debate. However, as "Captain" at the helm,
              she is primarily at fault. Had one of the others been driving at the
              time, the fault would have been theirs. That's just the way it goes.

              Secondary fault appears to lie squarely in the lap of Jack, since
              the account we are given strongly suggests that were it not for Jack
              grabbing the steering wheel, the accident would not have happened.

              Mary *could have* stood her ground and taken the keys, but had no
              legal obligation to do so. If we stray into the realm of "If only"
              we might go so far as to find that there were several effective
              courses. One of these would have meant forcibly throwing Jack out of
              the vehicle the moment the first fight started. ("You can't play
              nice? Get out then and walk!")

              Since we can only operate with what we are given, however, we cannot
              stray there.

              Similarly, Peter bears no fault either. He got into the van of his
              own accord, which was not a wise thing to do. However, since he took
              no part in the operation (or obstruction of the operation) of the
              cargo van, no actionable "fault" may be placed upon his shoulders.

              In a sense, everyone is to blame. However, there are but two
              instances in which "blame" confers actual legal liability – those of
              Jill and Jack, respectively.
              ____________________--
              But isn't the driver responsible for control of the vehicle? I think
              a driver can be ticketed if any passengers are not wearing required
              seatbelts, for example?


              >
              >
              >
              >
              > : rollover
              > Date: Wed May 2, 2007 9:11 pm ((PDT))
              >
              > Jill is at fault. It's her van and she's driving while intoxicated.
              >
              > ______________
              > excellent point..but.. (and I can't get past this)
              >
              > if Jack didn't grab the wheel (is that illegal?) Peter would not
              be
              > paralyzed.
              > when Peter grabs the wheel, who is assuming responibility for
              driving?
              > He grabbed it to be a jerk, not cause she was driving erratically
              > ________________
              >
              ________________________________________________________________________
              Date: Thu May 3, 2007 6:58 am ((PDT))

              Sure, the driver is responsible for driving, but it's not her fault that the
              idiot grabbed the steering wheel! He is responsible.



              But isn't the driver responsible for control of the vehicle? I think
              a driver can be ticketed if any passengers are not wearing required
              seatbelts, for example?




              >
              >
              > : rollover
              > Date: Wed May 2, 2007 9:11 pm ((PDT))
              >
              > Jill is at fault. It's her van and she's driving while intoxicated.
              >
              > ______________
              > excellent point..but.. (and I can't get past this)
              >
              > if Jack didn't grab the wheel (is that illegal?) Peter would not
              be
              > paralyzed.
              > when Peter grabs the wheel, who is assuming responibility for
              driving?
              > He grabbed it to be a jerk, not cause she was driving erratically
              > ________________
              >
              ________________________________________________________________________

              1d. Re: rollover

              Date: Thu May 3, 2007 7:05 am ((PDT))

              They were arguing. Perhaps we'd need to know if arguing between them in the
              past has escalated to such behavior by Jack. The driver might have known he
              was prone to doing something like that if he has in the past. Should she
              have pulled off maybe until he cooled down?



              I keep coming back to the fact Mary was a DD, but couldn't get the keys. To
              me, that says the driver is responsible. If she hadn't been driving in the
              middle of an argument, it might not have happened.



              <________________________________________________________________________

              1e. Re: rollover
              Date: Thu May 3, 2007 8:00 am ((PDT))

              But if Jack hadn't grabbed the wheel, it never would have happened. We are
              not responsible for the bad action of others.

              He's an adult and should be able to control himself. No reason to apologize
              for him, he caused the wreck.

              As for the paralyzed man, he should have worn a seatbelt and been in a seat.
              Personal responsiblity is key here.



              } They were arguing. Perhaps we’d need to know if arguing
              between them in the past has escalated to such behavior by Jack. The driver might
              have known he was prone to doing something like that if he has in the past.
              Should she have pulled off maybe until he cooled down?

              I keep coming back to the fact Mary was a DD, but couldn’t get the keys. To
              me, that says the driver is responsible. If she hadn’t been driving in the
              middle of an argument, it might not have happened.

              ---
              ~
              ________________________________________________________________________

              1f. Re: rollover
              Date: Thu May 3, 2007 8:13 am ((PDT))

              Well, sure I agree. Mary & Peter shouldn't have gotten into a vehicle with
              no seatbelts available for them.



              But Jill could have prevented it by A) giving Mary the keys as originally
              agreed upon or B) pulling over or stopping when it seemed apparent Jack was
              upset. Or gosh even C) not gotten into the car at all until the situation
              was resolved.



              Jill got behind the wheel having been drinking and upset. She is just as
              responsible IMO. I think they're all responsible, truthfully. I know it's
              hard to get keys off a person that doesn't want to give them up, I've been
              there myself.



              Again, I'd like to know if Jack was prone to this type of behavior in the
              past - the OP said he was predictably unpredictable or something.






              But if Jack hadn't grabbed the wheel, it never would have happened. We are
              not responsible for the bad action of others.



              He's an adult and should be able to control himself. No reason to apologize
              for him, he caused the wreck.



              As for the paralyzed man, he should have worn a seatbelt and been in a seat.
              Personal responsiblity is key here.



              <________________________________________________________________________

              1g. Re: rolloever

              Date: Thu May 3, 2007 10:17 pm ((PDT))

              BUT she was drinking. she was impaired

              : Sure, the driver is responsible for driving, but it's not her fault that
              the idiot grabbed the steering wheel! He is responsible.


              But isn't the driver responsible for control of the vehicle? I think
              a driver can be ticketed if any passengers are not wearing required
              seatbelts, for example?



              >
              >
              >
              > : rollover
              > Date: Wed May 2, 2007 9:11 pm ((PDT))
              >
              > Jill is at fault. It's her van and she's driving while intoxicated.
              >
              > ______________
              > excellent point..but.. (and I can't get past this)
              >
              > if Jack didn't grab the wheel (is that illegal?) Peter would not
              be
              > paralyzed.
              > when Peter grabs the wheel, who is assuming responibility for
              driving?
              > He grabbed it to be a jerk, not cause she was driving erratically
              > ________________
              >
              >



              ________________________________________________________________________

              Date: Thu May 3, 2007 10:38 pm ((PDT))

              actually they shouldnt have gotten in the vehicle when the driver is
              drunk--LOL

              } Well, sure I agree. Mary & Peter shouldn’t have gotten into
              a vehicle with no seatbelts available for them.

              But Jill could have prevented it by A) giving Mary the keys as originally
              agreed upon or B) pulling over or stopping when it seemed apparent Jack was
              upset. Or gosh even C) not gotten into the car at all until the situation was
              resolved.

              Jill got behind the wheel having been drinking and upset. She is just as
              responsible IMO. I think they’re all responsible, truthfully. I know it’s hard to
              get keys off a person that doesn’t want to give them up, I’ve been there
              myself.

              Again, I’d like to know if Jack was prone to this type of behavior in the
              past – the OP said he was predictably unpredictable or something.


              From: courttv_2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:courttv_2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
              Of ~~ Gretchen ~~



              But if Jack hadn't grabbed the wheel, it never would have happened. We are
              not responsible for the bad action of others.

              He's an adult and should be able to control himself. No reason to apologize
              for him, he caused the wreck.

              As for the paralyzed man, he should have worn a seatbelt and been in a seat.
              Personal responsiblity is key here.

              G



              ---
              ________________________________________________________________________

              2b. Re: rollover

              Date: Thu May 3, 2007 9:33 pm ((PDT))


              Anyway- I would have to also say its Jills fault- Its her van- she drove
              drunk.
              But I kind of wanted to see what others thoughts were because maybe I was
              missing something..

              Jill is at fault. It's her van and she's driving while intoxicated.






              ________________________________________________________________________

              2c. Re: rollover

              Date: Thu May 3, 2007 9:54 pm ((PDT))


              suspect that she is right about Miami juries, but I still don't see
              any gray in this scenario.




              --- In wrote:
              >

              > Anyway- I would have to also say its Jills fault- Its her van-
              she drove drunk.
              > But I kind of wanted to see what others thoughts were because
              maybe I was missing something..
              >
              > wrote:
              > Jill is at fault. It's her van and she's driving while
              intoxicated.
              >
              > >
              >
              >________________________________________________________________________

              2d. Re: rollover

              Date: Thu May 3, 2007 10:34 pm ((PDT))

              I dont see how it can be anyone else-- well maybe Jack for grabbing the wheel.
              but why the car manufacturer? you take a risk when you drive drunk.

              Jurydoctor@... posted comment:

              Jill is the Captain of the ship. As owner and operator of the vehicle, I
              initially place 100% responsibility on Jill for the safe transport of all
              passengers. This includes the decision to allow passengers in an area designed for
              cargo only, i.e., no seatbelts (how about seats?) in the back.

              HOWEVER, the entire group had a clear intent for this trip, and that intent
              was to get drunk in a rural area. The alcohol use/abuse was not a by-product of
              the trip...it was clearly the intent of the trip. Therefore, I feel each
              person contributed to their own [potential] injuries by making the decision to go
              on this specifically-intended joy ride.

              It doesn't really matter to me who ended up drunk and who remained sober...or
              the return-trip actions/inactions of the participants...the intent of the
              trip was clear. BUT, I'll try to assign some percentage of responsibility based
              on the facts presented.

              SO...

              Jill was the owner and operator and initially 100% responsible. If she had
              been transporting children (minors), she would have remained 100% responsible
              for all facets of this incident.

              * Tally at this point: Jill = 100%, others = 0%

              The other 3 people, as adults, also agreed to go on the joyride. The lack of
              safety equipment for 2 people did not deter them nor alter their decision to
              participate. Each person shares an equal responsibility for their own potential
              injuries, but Jill is still the Captain and she facilitated the journey.

              I place no additional responsibility on Mary for her inaction. It is not
              realistic to think she could have altered the course of events given the demeanor
              of the participants and their remote location.

              Barring any other circumstance, a crash at this juncture places the greater
              responsibility on Jill.

              * Tally at this point: Jill = 40%, Jack = 20%, Mary = 20%, Peter = 20%

              Now considering the additional element of Jack's behavior and crash-inducing
              action, I certainly think Jack's contribution to the crash is greater than any
              other element. Jill continues to bear responsibility for the trip as a whole,
              plus she had prior knowledge of Jack's behavioral tendencies.

              * Tally at this point: Jill = 40%, Jack = 40%, Mary = 10%, Peter = 10%

              As a willing negotiator, I'm also willing to entertain a split as high as 60%
              for Jack, i.e., Jill = 20%, Jack = 60%, Mary = 10%, Peter = 10%, but I'm more
              comfortable with a split that distributes the responsibilities more evenly.

              ON THE OTHER HAND, a Miami jury will probably assign 80% blame to the cargo
              van manufacturer for not anticipating the need to have instant, inflatable
              seats and seatbelts for cargo-box passengers...and 20% to the local jurisdiction
              (Department of Transportation or Public Works Department) for not having a
              road and shoulder made from foam rubber so as to absorb any errant rollover
              vehicles




              ________________________________________________________________________

              4. rollover-comments

              Date: Thu May 3, 2007 9:53 am ((PDT))


              Obviously, the primary fault lies on the drunk driver. However, all the
              others KNEW the driver was drunk, so they're ALL partially to blame.
              ___________
              But they had a designated driver, until Jill changed the rules. Also by the
              time Jill inisted on driving the car back, everyone's judgment was impaired
              but
              Mary's.
              They all got in the cars, cause there is no way to get home from the hills
              and it was starting to get dark.

              I dunno this is an interesting one...
              ___________






              ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jim Parker
              Unfortunately, you
              Message 6 of 7 , May 5, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                <<<< IMO Jack & Jill are @ fault. Voluntary ingestion of mind altering
                substances is not mitigating circumstances in an illegal act. >>>>


                Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. If voluntary ingestion of a mind altering substance is not mitigating circumstances in an illegal act (to which I agree), then voluntary ingestion of a mind altering substance does not exculpate Peter's own act of blatant stupidity.

                He willingly put himself in a dangerous situation by getting into a van which he knew had no safety restraints or even seats, with an intoxicated driver, who was already engaged in a volatile situation with the passenger sitting next to her.

                As someone said, "Personal responsibility is key"

                I'm actually amazed that so few people placed much, if any, blame on Peter himself, but then we ARE talking about American style civil litigation, so perhaps I shouldn't expect too much in the way of true justice.

                It's always someone else's fault.

                Jim
              • suesarkis@aol.com
                Jim - You are so correct and this milquetoast society we have now is truly revolting. God forbid anyone should admit accountability. Aside from what happened
                Message 7 of 7 , May 5, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jim -

                  You are so correct and this milquetoast society we have now is truly
                  revolting. God forbid anyone should admit accountability.

                  Aside from what happened after they got soused, we had Peter and Mary
                  knowingly and willingly allow themselves to ride in a vehicle without any
                  protection when they were stoned sober. They knew or should have known the possible
                  consequences of their actions.

                  Sue



                  ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.