Judge's daughter sues driver she ran into during crash (RO)

[brazil84]

@Swallowed_My_Cellphone

Oh, sorry. It’s not in the article of the OP, I was reading something from an ABC affiliate that gave more details about the background of the suit.

This is what’s happening: in addition to the truck driver, there are four insurance companies being sued. Shelton was driving her mother’s SUV, and her mother had protection of uninsured motorists. If they can prove that someone else is at fault, her mother’s insurance will cover her medical costs, legal fees, the “pain and suffering” as well as pay for the SUV.

So what? If the truck driver was uninsured, it’s clearly and reasonably relevant to the issue of whether the mother’s uninsured/underinsured policy potentially applies.

[Sublight]

@Swallowed My Cellphone

So that means, a jury has already found, beyond any reasonable doubt, she is the one who is responsible.

@tdn

In a criminal trial, not a civil one. Sometimes those things don’t coincide.

Remember OJ?

True, but in this case, she was first found guilty in the trial that required the higher standard of proof. OJ was the opposite.

It’s possible they won’t coincide, but if the prosecution could put together a case that met all reasonable doubt, it would seem that all the driver’s lawyer has to do is just repeat what the prosecutor said.

Can the guilty verdict be used as evidence in the civil trial?

[Clothahump]

@Projammer

Houston isn’t so far away that I can’t drive down there and slap someone. Anyone want to chip in for gas money?

C’mon down. I’ll even buy lunch.

[Caffeine.addict]

@pravnik

As the law is written, it’s possible to imagine a set of facts that could see both the intoxicated driver and another party liable for a death. Say an intoxicated driver speeds up to 55 in a 35 mph zone to make a stale yellow light, and another driver runs a crossways redlight doing 80 in a 35 mph zone, killing a passenger in the first car. The intoxicated driver can be found guilty of intoxication manslaughter, but that won’t necessarily let the second driver completely off the hook in a civil trial; it’s possible they’ll share some proportion of responsibility.

It looks like Texas is a modified comparative negligence jurisdiction. Going from my link, if she can show that she is less than 50 percent responsible, she can recover something. Where the problem comes in for her is convincing a jury that somehow the other guy was more at fault. I have trouble believing that the jury will fall for that.

[pravnik]

@Caffeine.addict

It looks like Texas is a modified comparative negligence jurisdiction. Going from my link, if she can show that she is less than 50 percent responsible, she can recover something. Where the problem comes in for her is convincing a jury that somehow the other guy was more at fault. I have trouble believing that the jury will fall for that.

Fifty percent or less rather than less than fifty, but otherwise that’s correct. If the accident was half her fault and half his, she can recover, but if it was 51% her fault, she can’t. She doesn’t sound like a very sympathetic plaintiff, to put it mildly, but they’re probably hoping they’ll get a settlement long before it ever gets in front of a jury.

[Caffeine.addict]

@pravnik

Fifty percent or less rather than less than fifty, but otherwise that’s correct. If the accident was half her fault and half his, she can recover, but if it was 51% her fault, she can’t. She doesn’t sound like a very sympathetic plaintiff, to put it mildly, but they’re probably hoping they’ll get a settlement long before it ever gets in front of a jury.

:smack:, I should have paid a bit more attention to the link, but then I live in a contributory negligence jurisdiction so to me, its all academic at this point.

The article was really rather vague, but I am wondering if the reason the insurance companies are part of the suit is that they are trying to get a declaratory judgment (or whatever the Texas equivalent is) declaring that the insurance company is liable under some sort of policy.

If this thing really is a nuisance suit, can the defendants file for sanctions?

[Bam_Boo_Gut]

It seems the driver neither owns the truck nor is responsible for its insurance. If so then why sue him and not the company he drives for? Is the onus on the driver to insist his company provides him with proof of valid insurance?