Nice. I didn’t know that.
Do you have a cite for that? Because I don’t think that’s necessarily the case.
I think that the ordinary rules of negligence (and negligence per se) would apply.
Here’s a hypothetical: Suppose that a child is a passenger in a car being driven by an intoxicated person. A speeding UPS truck (with a sober driver) runs into the car, seriously injuring the child. By your rule, which puts 100% of the fault on the drunk driver, the child’s only claim would be against the driver of his or her car. The child would have no claim against the speeding UPS driver.
From the linked article…
He noted that Shelton named 16 defendants, including insurance companies and banks. “They’re just throwing everything against the wall to see if anything sticks,” Havins said.
Seems that thy are just throwing poop on the wall. I’ll bet they are hoping the defendants are willing to throw a few bucks their way to avoid having to defend themselves in court. I doubt she could ever win with a jury, after all, she was 3 x the legal limit for alcohol.
Note that this ‘evidence’ is alleged by the girl’s lawyer. Whether there is any evidence, or even something that can be twisted into evidence is still uncertain. Right now, that evidence is in the FUD category from my point of view.
One of the comments references that a friend of the father removed the black box from the SUV the girl was driving before it could be reviewed. No cite, but I’m assuming he was refering to an earlier news article.
No cite, hence the word “thought” and the “?”
But I do seem to recall cases where someone was driving drunk and it was CLEARLY totally the other persons fault and the drunk driver was hung out to dry.
Never said it was fair either. Or my idea for that matter. But it does make sense from a social standpoint to keep people from drunk driving. Kinda like you can get in big trouble just from waving a gun around even if you never hurt anyone or intend to.
In theory, yes, it can be completely the fault of the sober driver. The trick is proving that in court. If you’ve got one sober driver, and one completely snookered driver, it’s going to be hard to prove that the accident would not have happened had the other driver’s reflexes not been impaired. Unless the sober driver was doing something incredibly egregious, like driving on the wrong side of the street, most juries are going to put the blame on the drunk.
So, a judges friend tampered with evidence?
yeah, between the lawsuit and the tampering, this is one judge I’d have alot of respect for.
It was the “last year” thing that confused me. Next time I’ll try reading for comprension.
My bad.
The other thing is, drunk driving is illegal not JUST because drunks cause accidents, they are much more likely to be in a condition that makes it much more likely they won’t be able to prevent one, even if the other party makes an error, either large or small. So that there also takes away some of the “its the OTHER guys fault” aspect of defense.
No, but I’ll join you for a couple rounds before you leave, and even buy you one for the road.
Enjoy,
Steven
And in the very next sentence it says:
“An expert for the prosecution, however, said there wasn’t evidence that Bennett got in her way.”
Also, the truck driver wasn’t responsible for the insurance on the vehicle. It was a company vehicle and the company he was working for had let the insurance lapse.
Shelton was already convicted of intoxication manslaughter. The truck driver wasn’t. So that means, a jury has already found, beyond any reasonable doubt, she is the one who is responsible.
ETA: And she was 20 at the time of the accident so drinking underage.
My mistake, the girl was 19 at the time she ran into the back of the truck.
Interesting.
There was an independent witness to the accident, and he rushed to give Shelton assistance. But the witness testified that he was driving at 60mph when the girl blew right past him then lost control and hit the truck. Daddy Judge accused him of being an illegal immigrant.
Daddy Judge also falsely accused the truck driver of being the subject of a “hot check warrant” and for failing to stop at the scene. So it seems he was making all sorts of baseless allegations on his daughters behalf. And on the witness stand he testified that at the hospital, she told him that the truck had swerved… which was directly refuted by a doctor who was present in the room at the time, who said she kept telling her parents: “Wah! It’s all my fault! I want to die!”"
I bet she was eating Buckeyes at the time to boot 
Frylock, that was one of my Pit threads. AIUI the officer in question was being covered by Worker’s Comp for her immediate health care needs, but was suing, on her own, for unspecified future needs. (Which isn’t entirely unreasonable - a broken joint like that is nearly guaranteed to be facing severe arthritis as the person ages.) When the story generated a huge amount of backlash, the cop involved did pull the suit.
Here’s the Pit thread which chronicles the whole thing.
Not doubting you Swallowed My Cellphone, but could we get a cite for your info? Thanks.
And as Morganstern pointed out. Listing 16 defendants reeks of throwing out as big a net as possible to see what they can catch. I’m guessing they’re hoping someone will decide that settling is cheaper than litigation.
I’m just trying to think of 16 potential defendants.
Truck driver.
His company.
The lapsed insurance provider.
The bank holding the note on the truck.
Whomever served her the alcohol
Umm. drawing blanks now.
Lexus for manufacturing her SUV.
Jack Daniels for making whiskey.
TXDOT for authorizing a road be built there.
That’s 8 or 9 and I’m out of ideas.
Oy! I was Googling old news stories and went through a pile. I’ll see if I can go back and dig them up…
Correct. She was (as you added) 19 at the time. In Texas, “… no one under the age of 21 is allowed to purchase, posses, or consume alcohol. Possession and consumption of alcohol is legal for minors if under the supervision of a parent, guardian or spouse. Anyone under the age of 21 can not drive a motor vehicle with any traceable amounts of alcohol in the blood stream.”
More information on the case:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907571/posts
http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/txcn/houston/stories/khou061025_jj_judgesdaughter.7292698d.html
http://lastrow.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/elizabeth-shelton-and-justice/
From these, both the woman and her father come off as assholes…
Drat, this is going to take awhile. But this blog copies in its entirely an [link deleted - see note below] article by the Houston Chronicle’s Rick Casey. You may be able to see the same article in Google’s cache but the original isn’t on the Chronicle site anymore and it’s easier to read on the blog site.
There are similar comments regarding the Judge’s behavior on a lawyers blog (the lawyer is based in Amarillo. Another [link deleted] copy of an Houston Chronicle article which is a little pro-judge, IMHO, and starts off with the defense expert (who was contradicted by the prosecution expert as well as witnesses) mentions:
Saying officals “refused to look at the date” sounds all conspiracy-like, but the data was no longer reliable once the evidence chain was so severely compromised (anyone could have mucked with it). How did a defense attorney manage to get to the black box first? Dumbass cops didn’t take the SUV to a police lot. :smack:
Another article says it was the girl’s SUV that in fact swerved across two lanes of traffic to hit the truck. (Note: the article may be confusing because it talks about witnesses and then quotes the truck driver, but as far as what I saw in other articles they were two separate statements from two separate people.)
Since the 19-year-old boyfriend was hanging out the window, he was almost decapitated.
[Mod note: Folks, not to get all legal on you, but please don’t link to pirated copies of copyrighted articles - this is a major problem for Straight Dope columns, and we don’t want to encourage it. Link to the original or to the Google cache. The Google cache may not be strictly legal either, but we’ll let Google and the Houston Chronicle fight it out. -EZ]
In a criminal trial, not a civil one. Sometimes those things don’t coincide.
Remember OJ?