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

rollover comments

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    How drunk was Jill? ...................................not sure Was she more than just a little bit drunker than Mary ? .........................Mary was
    Message 1 of 7 , May 3, 2007
      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 2 of 7 , May 3, 2007
        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 3 of 7 , May 4, 2007
          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 4 of 7 , May 5, 2007
            <<<< 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 5 of 7 , May 5, 2007
              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.