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

rollover comments

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.