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

Re: [infoguys-list] Re: broken bones

Expand Messages
  • Bob Hrodey
    ... Unless this driving activity is unlawful, his violation (since we haven t been told WHY he was making the u-turn) means nothing to me. No more so than
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 28, 2010
      On 2/28/2010 12:42 PM, Jurydoctor@... wrote:
      > This case involves an accident on 4/6/07 at 2:41am on SR 56 in the southern state. At that time, my Dana was driving east when a semi-tractor trailer (heading west) made a u-turn in front of her. The police report says that Dana was going 70mph in a 55 mph zone. There was minimal braking before the impact and the crash was almost like an “explosion.” Dana had 32 broken bones and has undergone 7 major surgeries. At the request of the FHP trooper, blood was drawn from her at the hospital. Her BAC was .086% which is slightly over the legal limit.
      > Here is what I need feedback on:
      > The Defendant truck driver said in his deposition that he had never been told that making u-turns in a tractor-trailer was dangerous. In his personnel file we discovered that, 2 years before this accident, his employer had him sign a form stating that he knew that u-turns were dangerous and promising never to do one.
      > Does this matter to you? why or why not?

      Unless this driving activity is unlawful, his "violation" (since we
      haven't been told WHY he was making the u-turn) means nothing to me. No
      more so than his failure to wear the company uniform which may consist
      of a red & white striped shirt and purple trousers.

      > 2. Dana was under age (almost 20 at the time of the accident) and had used a fake ID to get drinks at a bar.
      > What do you think?

      I think Dana's a bad girl. She has made bad choices and is now seeking
      to have the trucking company share responsibility for her unlawful
      conduct. That she was drinking at all is "all on her." Similarly, the
      fact that she was drunk, puts it all on her as far as I'm concerned.

      > There is an issue as to whether Dana was wearing her seatbelt. The investigating officer said she was - the defense expert will say she wasn’t. She has no memory but says she always wears it. Her airbag did deploy.
      > What do you think? also if the airbag deployed does it matter?

      I think that if the crash was "almost like an explosion" there will be
      patterned injuries present unless... strike that, I KNOW there will be
      patterned injuries from the belt across her pelvic, lower abdominal, and
      chest area unless, of course, since it was April in Florida, she was
      dressed up like the Michelin Man in multi-layered, heavily padded
      clothing extending down to mid-thigh. That said, unless she was
      required to take extreme evasive measures immediately prior to the
      collision and failed to maintain control of the vehicle as a result of
      not being properly belted in, this aspect of the case is only
      significant with respect to the severity of injuries.

      Air bag deployment would only be an issue if it failed to deploy.

      > 3. The tractor-trailer was at an angle (ie. not perpendicular) across the roadway. This might help explain why Dana didn’t see it until the last second. It had reflective tape on the side, but not as much as is required. The passenger in Dana’s front seat - who was totally sober – said he could not see the truck until right before the impact. It was very dark out and this area is semi- rural without much street lighting.
      > What do you think about this issue?

      What is the topography in the area of the crash? If it is not more or
      less straight and level, this MAY enter into it. In any event, she
      would appear to be driving beyond the illumination of her headlights.
      Again, her bad. There was some reflective tape on the side of the semi
      but you say it was not the amount required. Tell us what is required
      and what was present. Omitting this fact while asking what we think
      about the issue is somewhat, well, you know. Don't shuck and jive us.
      There either was or was not the required amount of retro-reflective
      marking on the truck/trailer. If you don't wish to tell us that the law
      required 396" of marking and the truck only had 394" tell us!

      Bottom line: You have an under-aged kid drinking, driving drunk,
      speeding, out driving her lights. I'm guessing that her passenger
      doesn't think her pockets (or those of her parents) are any deeper than
      her thought processes. Too bad! I don't see the truck driver and his
      company paying for this one.


      Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
      Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA,
      Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, & P.A.W.L.I.
      Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice
      337-4638 Fax
      email: inquiry@... or rth@...
      Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jurydoctor@aol.com
      The truck driver broke the rules of the road and the rules of the company, the plaintiff broke the rules of the law. I find her 80% negligent and the
      Message 2 of 4 , Mar 2, 2010
        The truck driver broke the rules of the road and the rules of the company, the plaintiff broke the rules of the law. I find her 80% negligent and the truckdriver 20% negligent.

        Even if, as she says, she did not see the truck making a U turn, surely she should have seen his headlights and they would not have been straight ahead if he was already turning at a 45 degree angle.

        By the way, what color was this truck?

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