Sue 'em all!!

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/28/husband-of-wrong-way-motorist-who-killed-seven-sues-state-other/

This doesn't even sound right to me!

If you were looking for a new definition of the word "mess," this is probably it...

^ speaks volumes

yep, just another fabulous argument for tort reform. And forced sterilization.......

Guy I work with was towing his hot rod boat behind his hot rod '69 Camaro up the Taconic (you can't). Gets stopped by New York's finest, argues, wrestles with the Trooper on the side of the road, Cop Dog eats the inside of the Cop SUV because his wife shut the door on the dog.

He got a lawyer. Didn't do any time but paid a bunch.

It's illegal to tow on the Taconic, it's illegal to beat a cop with his own billy club and there's probably something about interfering with the duties of a cop dog but lawyers are whores.

Whores in that ethics aren't an issue, cash = a way to twist the facts or evidence enough to get what they want.

Mr. Schuler knows this.

As much as this particular story is ridiculous, anyone who is worried about tort reform, I suggest watching the documentary 'Hot Coffee' and it will change your view on how many frivolous lawsuits actually exist. I agree that this argument sounds asinine and is a mess, but tort reform laws only hurt those who really do deserve compensation from business/doctors/etc...

Sounds like an all new definition for clusterberkely

flountown wrote: As much as this particular story is ridiculous, anyone who is worried about tort reform, I suggest watching the documentary 'Hot Coffee' and it will change your view on how many frivolous lawsuits actually exist. I agree that this argument sounds asinine and is a mess, but tort reform laws only hurt those who really do deserve compensation from business/doctors/etc...

There have to be quite a few since I'm involved in two, and many other drivers in my company are as well.

PA seems to specialize in ramps designed to confuse you and send you up the wrong direction. There may be a bit of validity to the claim about the state doing a lousy job of laying out the ramps and signs.

This is obviously an extreme (and very tragic) example, but this kind of stuff is very common place in the auto insurance world. Ever wonder why your premiums are so high? This is a HUGE part of the reason. It will cost millions upon millions to defend this case. As long as there are lawyers out there to take cases like this and people to run to them, this will continue to happen...tort reform or not.

wanna end frivolous suits? Mandate that if you go after someone, and LOSE, you owe them what you were trying to get. Better, the lawyer who took your case owes the other guy...you will start to see waaaay fewer PI lawyers in the field willing to take up these e36m3 cases.

There's a lot of bad stuff going on with the accident and that article.

This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Schuler suggests the family of the three victims (in the SUV) are suing the estate of the impaired mother and her brother (owner of the minivan). The woman's husband is NOT filing suit against his BIL.

We're not getting an accurate presentation of things.

914Driver wrote: Guy I work with was towing his hot rod boat behind his hot rod '69 Camaro up the Taconic (you can't). Gets stopped by New York's finest, argues, wrestles with the Trooper on the side of the road, Cop Dog eats the inside of the Cop SUV because his wife shut the door on the dog. He got a lawyer. Didn't do any time but paid a bunch. It's illegal to tow on the Taconic, it's illegal to beat a cop with his own billy club and there's probably something about interfering with the duties of a cop dog but lawyers are whores. Whores in that ethics aren't an issue, cash = a way to twist the facts or evidence enough to get what they want. Mr. Schuler knows this.

that dude's got a good wife!

4cylndrfury wrote: wanna end frivolous suits? Mandate that if you go after someone, and LOSE, you owe them what you were trying to get. Better, the lawyer who took your case owes the other guy...you will start to see waaaay fewer PI lawyers in the field willing to take up these e36m3 cases.

It's a compelling notion, but basically means that a righteous claim would be a scary affair, because if the defendant can afford the lawyer from hell, you end up bankrupt on top of whatever happened to initiate the suit. Moving the onus of repayment to the lawyer would cut down on frivolous suits, but would have a similar problem in terms of only being able to get representation for complete slam-dunk cases.

I was talking about some related stuff with friends last night (learning to drive and flying control-line model planes in random parking lots; not so doable these days). I don't know why we're so much more litigious than we used to be. And I'm not sure how to stop the stupid suits with legislation without creating problems for legitimate suits.

Is there any way to create a disincentive for law school, to get down to the number of lawyers we need for legitimate work in a couple of decades? How much of it is intrinsic attitudes, and how much is ideas planted by an overstaffed legal workforce trying to make a living? We shouldn't be so suggestible, but that's humanity for you...

flountown wrote: As much as this particular story is ridiculous, anyone who is worried about tort reform, I suggest watching the documentary 'Hot Coffee' and it will change your view on how many frivolous lawsuits actually exist. I agree that this argument sounds asinine and is a mess, but tort reform laws only hurt those who really do deserve compensation from business/doctors/etc...

Thank you for reminding me to finish watching that movie. Saw the second half last month...disgusting how many rights are taken away from citizens by decieving contracts.

Cone_Junky wrote: Thank you for reminding me to finish watching that movie. Saw the second half last month...disgusting how many rights are taken away from citizens by decieving contracts.

Caveat emptor - don't bitch if you signed it without understanding.

Duke wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Thank you for reminding me to finish watching that movie. Saw the second half last month...disgusting how many rights are taken away from citizens by decieving contracts.

*Caveat emptor* - don't bitch if you signed it without understanding.

Reminds me of going through the paperwork for a mortgage refi. The attorney hands me the multi-page contract, says "Here it is to read and sign", and leaves the room. She returns about five minutes later and is suprised that I'm still poring over the damn thing. Her quote, "Most people don't do that."

Most people are too trusting, and/or too lazy, or too dumb.

I was browsing HBO today and am currently watching an investigative documentary on this accident now. The husband is fighting the idea that she was inebriated or high. I am not all the way through, but the snippets and witnesses leading up to the accident never recall her being under the influence of anything. Considering the report said BAC was .19, I have a feeling that is a noticeable level of drunkenness and for none of the witnesses recall her being drunk. They also haven't mentioned the lawsuits yet.

Edit: Just finished it, and all the tests are pretty conclusive, but something else had to have been going on, all around just a messed up situation it seems.

oldsaw wrote:

Duke wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Thank you for reminding me to finish watching that movie. Saw the second half last month...disgusting how many rights are taken away from citizens by decieving contracts.

*Caveat emptor* - don't bitch if you signed it without understanding.

Reminds me of going through the paperwork for a mortgage refi. The attorney hands me the multi-page contract, says "Here it is to read and sign", and leaves the room. She returns about five minutes later and is suprised that I'm still poring over the damn thing. Her quote, "Most people don't do that." Most people are too trusting, and/or too lazy, or too dumb.

Actually it's because you can't do anything about it or change even one word. The forms are standardized nationwide. Thank you Fannie & Freddie. Prior to them you HAD to read the forms word for word because they were hiding some way in there to screw you.

Fannie & Freddie gave us the fair mortgage.

don't need tort reform as much as I need to be on a whole bunch of PI juries

I am an independent insurance adjuster and am involved in a somewhat similar lawsuit.

Basically a drunk driver college kid with two other kids in the car crashes head on into a car with 5 other college kids in it. One of those kids dies and the others are injured. It happened in a construction area at night and when the lanes shifted the drunk kid went the wrong way. His passengers stated he had "floored it shortly before the crash". He was only going the wrong way for an 1/8 to a 1/4 of a mile.

The dead kids parents are suing the drunk driver (who received 15 year sentence), his parents, the construction company and all the subcontractors, engineers etc. who were involved in the road construction. They believe that the road was not stripped and marked correctly. Best I can tell so far in the filing it is all accusations with nothing to back it up.

I am investigating the accident for a company that insurers one of the subcontractors. I can tell you my billing on the file will be a couple thousand by the time we obtain the Accident Report, interview the insured and workers, go to the court and go through the files etc and that is only my part of the handling. Now multiply that the dozen or so parties named in the suit. All of this because the a drunk kid was speeding at night wasn't paying attention.

It's called misdirection; keep pointing in several different directions to draw attention away from the facts. That's how OJ got off.

In reply to Greg Voth:

That sounds about right. My bus sideswiped while I was stopped in a bus stop. The car lost it's right side mirror. A passenger in the car is suing the car owner, driver, maker, me, transit authority, bus maker, dot, and nyc. He hopes to make $ 5million from each of us for unspecified injuries and punitive damages

Wally wrote: In reply to Greg Voth: That sounds about right. My bus sideswiped while I was stopped in a bus stop. The car lost it's right side mirror. A passenger in the car is suing the car owner, driver, maker, me, transit authority, bus maker, dot, and nyc. He hopes to make $ 5million from each of us for unspecified injuries and punitive damages

And if all things were fair they would have to pay at least all the expenses of all those who are not found responsible.

carguy123 wrote: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/28/husband-of-wrong-way-motorist-who-killed-seven-sues-state-other/ This doesn't even sound right to me!

There a documentary on HBO about this case, I saw a bit of it:

There's something wrong with aunt diane

Very strange, the bit I saw, the family cannot believe she might have been intoxicated, "she would never do that" sort of thing.