Based on what we know, do you think in this case $50 million is the dollar value on Brandy’s gross negligence and malice?
That is the $50M question. And I think Brandy will settle for a couple mil, tops and that will be the last we hear of it.
I do not. I believe it is a dollar value of her celebrity and what the plaintiffs think they can squeeze out of it.
Yes, you fucking well were, and your continued assertion that you weren’t is starting to piss me off.
You made two contradictory statements. You said:
“I’ve driven over the speed limit once in my life.” (Post 8.) Then you later said:
"When I say I’ve never sped, what I meant was I never did 55 in a 40. I may have thrown caution to the wind, and done a wacky and reckless 42, or even an insane 45, but I always tried to be mindful of the posted limits. I also took the flow of traffic into account, as well as road conditions. When travelling on a 55 highway, I might have done anywhere from 53 to 61, but I always kept in the right-hand lane. . . .Most times, I did well under the speed limit." (Post 51.)
Now the first of these quotes is completely unequivocal. You use the definition of speeding (“driven over the speed limit”) and you state clearly that you have done so once in your life.
Now, here’s the shocker: People took you at your word! Some of them didn’t believe you, but they understood the assertion you were making, because you made it so clearly: “I’ve driven over the speed limit once in my life.” No one was sitting around going, “Gee, I wonder what he means by that. I guess I’d better ask for a clarification in case he actually means something else.” Nobody did that, because they were doing you the courtesy – erroneously, apparently – of assuming that when you say something clear and unequivocal, you mean what you say.
So then you add the second quote, which clearly and completely contradicts the first. “I’ve driven over the speed limit once in my life” becomes “most times I stayed under the speed limit,” “I always tried to be mindful of posted limits,” and “I may have done 45 in a 40 or 61 in a 55.” These statements completely negate your first statement, which is therefore shown to be false.
So then we look at the two statements, both posted by you, and wonder, Why would he post the first statement when it is not true? There are two options:
-
You knew it was untrue when you posted it, and intentionally posted something known by you to be untrue. Conclusion: You are a liar.
-
You did not know the statement was untrue when you posted it, because you were using an understanding or definition of “driving overthe speed limit” that is different than the understanding or definition used by everyone else. Specifically, you are using/defining/understanding “driving over the speed limit” to mean "going up to six miles over the speed limit. Conclusion: You are using a definition that no one else uses, that in fact is contradicted by the true definition, but let’s be kind and call it a miscommunication. However, clearly the fault for the miscommunication is yours, since you are the one who said “I’ve driven over the speed limit once in my life” when what you actually meant was “I’ve driven over the speed limit on several occasions, though not by much and not on purpose.” It is a courtesy to give this interpretation to what happened, because it is a much less credible possibility than the first one. It is effectively saying, “let’s not cross the line of calling the guy a liar and just assume he was somehow mistaken when he posted the first, false statement.”
So the point at which you chap my ass is when far from accepting this lifeline – whoops! I was confused, I was mistaken, my bad – you put the onus on everyone else to figure out what the hell you mean when you make contradictory statements. You say:
As if it is OUR responsibility to make sure you really mean what you say. It is neither logical nor necessary from politesse to ask for further information when someone posts something clear and unequivocal like “I have driven under the speed limit once in my life.” People called you on it – and called you a liar for it – because it was not a credible statement – and, as was later revealed, was in fact a false statement. Yet rather than shutting the hell up over it – “I misspoke, but now I’ve clarified, let’s move on” – you keep posting to imply that the miscommunication was someone’s fault other than your own. It wasn’t.
You should not expect more from this board than that we do you the courtesy of assuming your clear statements are both factual and honest. I would be careful about insisting that people must doublecheck those things in your case, as they must do with a person they know to be stupid or dishonest. In either case, for fuck’s sake, drop it. You were clearly in the wrong, clearly the cause of any miscommunication, and your continued injured whining about the results of your own mistake is completely aggravating.
Most likely you are correct.
Again, most likely you are correct.
On the other hand, sometimes juries really seem to have it in for people with deep pockets! Will be interesting to see how this turns out.
That question is impossible to answer as there has been nothing to show gross negligence and malice.
That’s my thought, too.
Oh, and “$50 million” as a demand in a wrongful death case is not uncommon.
Demands are not made based on what the defendant can afford to pay – the plaintiffs don’t care about that when filing the case. When I defended a mid-sized county government, we routinely got $100 million demands for incidents resulting in death. This is because the law requires that when filing your case you tell the other side how much money you want, but at that point you don’t really know how much money you want, because you haven’t found out just how egregious the defendant’s conduct is, you don’t really know the value of the life of your decedent at that point, and – yes – you haven’t yet guaged the depths of the pockets of your defendant – how much they can afford to pay. BUT under no circumstances can you get more than the amount of your demand, so you just peg it ridiculously high and move on. “$50 millions” means “we want a lot of money. You’re not getting rid of this case for a small amount so don’t think you are.” “$50 million” means “we were really, really injured by the death of our loved one.” “$50 million” means that in the eyes of the plaintiffs’ attorney, this is a big case. But the plaintiffs know they’re not getting $50 mil., the defendants know they’re not paying $50 mil., the judge knows the award won’t be $50 mil, or anything close to it. You just pick a big number out of the air, and it is essentially meaningless. But it is not uncommon for wrongful death cases to have multi-million dollar demands – the death of a human being is a big deal. So the case hits your desk as a defense attorney and you think, "50 million. Huh. Guess were not getting out of this for a couple hundred thou. I better make sure I have really good experts and a great investigator, and I guess I'll be doing a lot of work in this file." " 50 million" means “serious case.” What will it eventually settle for? Since Brandy didn’t actually cause the woman’s death but only pushed her into the median, I’m guessing mid-six-figures. It might be worth more depending on how badly Brandy wants the suit to go away.
Those two sentences right there are a sad commentary on our judicial system.
I don’t see why they would be. If a person is not truly to blame for a terrible outcome, but is only partially to blame, in most jurisdictions she would pay only part of the damages. What is “sad” about that? And it is common for people who would prefer not to deal with the ongoing stress and inconvenience of a lawsuit to sweeten the offer in order to get the matter resolved. I see nothing “sad” or unethical about that either; a lawsuit is a stressful and painful thing for all parties and early settlement in a way that is acceptable to everyone is a good result.
Oh my god get a life.
I understand from a legal standpoint why it happens. I think it’s sad that people are now expecting to get larger settlements from things just because the person will want to make it go away. Not to mention that the suit is being filed by the parents of a 38 year old woman. Unless she is leaving behind minor children that need raised, I really don’t the point of the suit.
The astonishment of the OP is wholly inexplicable in light of that.
Your OP was bitching about there being a max set for the charge in question.
Let me take us back on a fantastical journey into the past. Remember how you once typed “A maximum penalty of one year for plowing into a car and causing a death? HUH???”
So then lets recap how the legal system works: it’s not, in fact, based on some fantasy situation of perfect knowledge from which you hand down the punishments you believe are just. It is instead, in fact, based on the judgment of what the state believes it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The punishments then are, hopefully, in some sense fit to the charges proven. If in fact the court can only establish a certain degree of negligence, and no more, then they select the charge that they feel they can establish, and then that IS “adequate punishment,” regardless of your belief that you know the facts and truth of the matter better than the facts themselves, and believe that they are guilty of a more severe charge.
Ok?
Oh I poorly edited my syntax when dashing off my missive. Boo hoo. You win! You’re not stupid after all! Oh wait, you misspelled “Hunh” in your thread title. Back to stupidtown for you buddy!
OK, Jodi, I can see where you’re coming from. And I’m perfectly willing to let this ugly incident die.
But can you accept that, at least in my own mind, my statements were not at all contradictory, and I never intended to deceive? Because I assure that was the case. I may not have explained myself very well, but I was not trying to fool anyone.
Can you also accept that since I was first accused of being a dangerous driver (which I am not) and a liar (which I also am not), that I had at least some cause to get defensive?
At any rate, I apologize to the board for my part in contributing to this train wreck.
So we good now?
Of course! I didn’t mean to come off so critical. Sorry. 
Don’t worry about it. 
Oh my god fuck right off.
Sure. As I said, I never thought it was anything other than a miscommunication. But then you kept posting things like “I expect better from this board” as if you were not (unintentionally) the cause of the confusion. That was the only thing that bugged me.
Sure, with this caveat, which you may not appreciate: When you first say “I have driven over the speed limit once in my life” and then say “I have driven over the speed limit several times in my life,” it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the first statement is a lie. A more charitable reading is that it was a misstatement or a mistake, but as I’m sure you know, you can’t really count on charity in the Pit. So take the comments in light of the forum, recognizing that some of the people who jumped on you about that probably wouldn’t IRL or even in another forum.
Pax, I hope.
touche