Obey the law......still get sued? (1 Viewer)

[Michael Reuben]

That's certainly a plan, if you don't mind the coma and the permanent brain damage.

M.

 

[Erik.Ha]

Actually, just the opposite is true. By settling before trial, the floodgates stay CLOSED. No precedent is set saying a driver who "stops short" (but doesn't "make a grab") is liable if the pedestrian gets nailed.

 

[Mark Murphy]

I was always taught that if you rear ended someone, no matter the circumstance, you are at fault.

The reason I started this thread was because I thought that it was ridiculous that people are never held responsible for their actions anymore. The kids probably shouldn't have been crossing a busy four lane road. Overweight people should not eat McDonalds. One should assume hot coffee is going to be hot. Cigarettes are no good for you, don't smoke. You shoot someone, its not Smith and Wesson's fault. Bottom line, it was a horrible tragic accident. Accident meaning it was not the Verizon driver's fault.

 

[ChrisMatson]

There is a reason that many hospitals, police departments, and emergency medical workers refer to these as "Motor Vehicle Crashes" instead of "Motor Vehicle Accidents" or the popular "MVA." The term "accident" implies the absence of fault. Accidents do happen, but we do not seem to have enough information from the above article to determine what happened in this case. It is a tragedy for all involved.

EDIT:
I found some more about the case here:
http://www.socialaw.com/appslip/appMay02u.html



I am not a lawyer, but this seems to be a denial for the request from the defendant for a summary dismissal of charges or "stay of proceedings" in 1996. This is a complex case of negligence and contributory negligence. The case would have gone to a jury trial and all parties involved apparently have settled to avoid that possibility. Note that the driver worked for NYNEX, now part of Verizon (GTE/Bell Atlantic/NYNEX).

 

[BrianB]

Nope. Not the case at all.

 

[Chris_Morris]

From some of the Globe's archives (though you have to pay to see the full articles):

"It was the most mundane of gestures, a wave of the hand allegedly from a driver who stopped his van for two teenage girls trying to cross"


Chris

 

[Erik.Ha]

So what happened here is, Verizon moved for summary judgement (basically a fancy way of saying "yes, we agree with you, the driver did exactly what you say he did, but there is nothing wrong with it and no jury can legally say otherwise.") and won. The girl appealed and prevailed, sending the whole mess back to the trial court (hence the 8 year delay since the accident).

Verizon now has an appeal court saying "Nope... if he did what he says he did, he might be legally responsible for her injuries, HAVE THE TRIAL to find out what a jury thinks!"

Verizon says "We fold."




That's a good rule of thumb they teach people in driver's ed. to get people not to tailgate, but it isn't the law in any jurisdiction. If you do anything "negligent", in other words, an act which a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances WOULD NOT DO, (i.e. Slamming on your brakes just for the hell of it when doing so creates the risk of an accident, or to "teach that a-hole on your tail a lesson" ) you're on the hook....

 

[Yee-Ming]

Verizon pays presumably because the driver was on duty at the time, and driving a company van to boot. Vicarious liability, employer is responsible for employee's actions while "on the clock".

It still seems harsh to me, though with the added details I can understand why Verizon might want to settle instead of fighting this at trial. But personally, to my mind if the driver was required by law to stop, his wave-through to the girls to me merely indicated that he was not going to run them down, why should he be responsible for another driver running in the next lane? The girl could and should have stopped at the edge of his van, look, and then continue crossing, instead of dashing straight across.

Oh well, I'm sorry the girl was badly hurt and all, but I don't think it was the Verizon driver's fault.


A friend was once in an accident where his front bashed the rear of another driver's car. But this was in a car park, and the other fellow had reversed into him...

The other driver, some punk kid driving his dad's car, actually had the gall to claim on the basis of the "rear-ending rule" that my friend was at fault. He simply wrote a lawyer's letter of demand (yes, we're all lawyers... :b ), and the kid's parents hauled punk kid to my friend's office, forced him to apologise, and paid all the damages.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Agreed. This is insane. If I see a van stopped in the next lane ahead of me I should be asking myself "Why?" Someone crossing the street should be the first thing I'd think about.

The car that hit her is the only one at fault, but I agree too that she should have looked before she stepped into the next lane.

Just more non-responsibility. Let's sue the company - they have more money. Sick! So the cell phone charges go up. Who cares?

Glenn