# L.A. jury awards $150 million to 13-year-old girl **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 30, 2013, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/l-a-jury-awards-150-million-to-13-year-old-girl/672687 "2013-10-30T21:19:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/l-a-jury-awards-150-million-to-13-year-old-girl/672687/21 "2013-10-31T17:44:11Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > So what? The misreported facts which are detailed in your link are irrelevant. Stupid behavior is still stupid behavior—and McDonalds shouldn’t be held responsible for a woman who spills coffee on her own crotch. So what? This thread isn’t about that case. The point is that the media has a tendency of sensationalizing things, either intentionally or not, and after reading the facts you see that the jury was presented with _some standing_ and not just emotional/sticking it to the man arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/l-a-jury-awards-150-million-to-13-year-old-girl/672687/22 "2013-10-31T17:53:15Z")
> [@zombivqan](#): > > . . . Sorry, if I had been on the jury, I would not have gone so overboard in awards - I am not sure exactly how I would have justified so much against the truck company and so little against the father for not driving responsibly. It might not really make much difference. If the dad and the trucker (truck company) were found to be[jointly and severally liable](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability), then the girl can make the whole claim on the trucking company and the trucking company then has the right to try to get the dad to pay them the percentage of liability that was his. Good luck with that in this case. If they’re only held to be severally liable, though, the percentage matters. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/l-a-jury-awards-150-million-to-13-year-old-girl/672687/23 "2013-10-31T19:40:56Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > It might not really make much difference. If the dad and the trucker (truck company) were found to be[jointly and severally liable](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability), then the girl can make the whole claim on the trucking company and the trucking company then has the right to try to get the dad to pay them the percentage of liability that was his. Is that true in California? There was a ballot proposition years ago where California law was changed to allow juries to determine percentage liabilities; I think it was in response to one too many cases of judgments against multiple defendants ending up being paid 100% by the defendant who was about 1% responsible but, for some reason, the other defendants weren’t forced to pay anything. ---
**Author:** ![Minnie\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Minnie\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Minnie_Luna)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/l-a-jury-awards-150-million-to-13-year-old-girl/672687/24 "2013-10-31T20:06:03Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > That’s my initial reaction as well. The SUV is a long way under the truck - I would like to know the estimated speed it was travelling at. > > On the lack of skid marks - how many cars don’t have ABS now? The lack of skid marks doesn’t tell much at all. Maybe he had pulled to the side of the road and had anticipated slowing down while on the berm and not while in a lane of traffic. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/l-a-jury-awards-150-million-to-13-year-old-girl/672687/25 "2013-10-31T20:37:40Z")
I wonder if the jury just thought big companies have a lot of money and should therefore pay this girl? Who started the lawsuit, the girls family? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/l-a-jury-awards-150-million-to-13-year-old-girl/672687/26 "2013-10-31T20:41:38Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > So what? The misreported facts which are detailed in your link are irrelevant. Stupid behavior is still stupid behavior—and McDonalds shouldn’t be held responsible for a woman who spills coffee on her own crotch. McDonalds wasn’t found liable because she spilled the coffee on herself. It was sued because they served coffee at a temperature so hot that it would have seriously injured anyone who _drank_ it. The fact that the woman accidentally dropped the coffee on herself was not really relevant to the case. The negligent action was the sale of the coffee not the spilling of it. The woman could have bought the coffee, put it down on her table, and walked away - and still have had grounds to sue. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/l-a-jury-awards-150-million-to-13-year-old-girl/672687/27 "2013-10-31T21:06:01Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > But then you add not-boiling water or milk, or leave it to cool, so that it won’t give your face third degree burns when you try to drink it. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to buy a cup of coffee expecting it to be safe for human consumption. The phrase that has stuck with me ever since I first read about that case was, “seared her vagina shut.” ---
**Author:** ![jharvey963](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/54ee81/32.png) [@jharvey963](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jharvey963)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/l-a-jury-awards-150-million-to-13-year-old-girl/672687/28 "2013-10-31T21:25:37Z")
There can be MANY things that we don’t know. The News Media is atrociously bad at getting the facts straight, including incorrect facts, and omitting correct information. It could be that the company has a history of ignoring safety and maintenance work on their trucks. It could be that this specific truck was prohibited to be used by the (what’s the agency for trucking? I forget.) or by OSHA. It could be that the driver was drunk and walked away from the truck after illegally parking it. It could be that this truck was parked there illegally for a long time, been multiply cited for it, and not towed away by the company. It could be the company has been cited many times over the years for lack of maintenance, but has been ignoring the citations. So there are many potential situations that could induce a jury to give a large reward. Reckless actions by the company could encourage the jury to send a message to any other companies that are trying to pull the same shenanigans that this company did. J. ---
**Author:** ![Asimovian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asimovian/32/172_2.png) [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/l-a-jury-awards-150-million-to-13-year-old-girl/672687/29 "2013-10-31T23:24:28Z")
I got curious and looked up the docket for the case, as well as some of the documents filed. Interpret as you wish, and understand that what I’m relaying is incomplete. As nearly as I can tell (without spending the money to download every motion filed – and there are a lot of them), the defense’s theory was that the father fell asleep at the wheel, which would explain the lack of braking prior to the collision. It looks to me like submissions from both sides suggest that everyone else in the vehicle was already asleep. There was apparently evidence that both the father and mother had some alcohol in their systems (though not enough to be in violation of any laws), but that could have contributed to them being asleep. Apparently one of the surviving children claimed to have heard some sort of crash prior to the crash that woke him up, bolstering the theory that the father may have struck something in the road and was trying to get over. But the deposition exerpts I saw make it really unclear whether the crash heard was prior the main event, as it were. I also note that GM (the vehicle manufacturer) was added as a defendant at one point in the case, but was dismissed via Summary Judgment, so I’m guessing the plaintiffs tried to blame some sort of vehicle defect. I know there were motions filed regarding testing of the tires, as well. I’m finding the idea that the father fell asleep to be a pretty likely explanation for why there was no swerving/skidding before the crash. Which I realize will support people who feel like the jury award was excessive. There’s a lot I didn’t look at. And I didn’t look at all of the orders in the case to see what testimony was actually allowed. I’m sure the trial transcripts would be fascinating. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/l-a-jury-awards-150-million-to-13-year-old-girl/672687/30 "2013-11-01T00:43:00Z")
> [@Minnie\_Luna](#): > > Maybe he had pulled to the side of the road and had anticipated slowing down while on the berm and not while in a lane of traffic. Maybe he did - but I think chappachula’s already said it better than I can > [@](#): > > It’s a road, for Og’s sake. Sometimes there are things on the side of roads-- dead squirrels, blocks of wood, and even parked trucks. It doesn’t matter if the parked truck was on the shoulder legally or not. The truck didn’t kill anybody. The driver of the SUV killed people by slamming into the truck at a speed much too high for a responsible driver to be swerving onto the shoulder of a road, at any time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/l-a-jury-awards-150-million-to-13-year-old-girl/672687.md?page=1)