When the parents of the twins sued this lawyer, he claimed no responsibility because the twins “carelessly, recklessly and negligently conducted and maintained themselves” in a way that contributed to the accident."
By the way, the lawyer was 90 years-old at the time of the accident.
So many elderly people behaving so badly recently. I wonder if this has anything to do with the baby boom. Or maybe it’s the elderly boom now?
Well, clearly the twins were the more intelligent party in this event.
The driver was 90 years old in October 2013. That means he was born in 1923 or late 1922. Not a boomer.
How dare those children be on the sidewalk!! Clearly the driver was entitled to use that paved walkway to park his SUV.
:rolleyes:
An original war boomer.
But I digress.
I object to the characterization of my client as a lawyer. This is designed to prejudice the jury against him.
The children involved are aged six, six, and nine. Which means they have a collective age of twenty-one and are therefore an adult and should have acted more responsibly. Standard Chewbacca defense.
Typical BMW driver attitude.
How dare you walk on the sidewalk you should know that the sidewalk is reserved for my BMW when traffic is backed up.
What a horrible thing all around. The poor parents. I also have to feel for the 90 year old too. What a terrible last thing to do during your life. :(. (or anytime of course) I wonder if any family had told him he shouldn’t be driving.
I’m sorry, but at the age of 90 he should have given up driving voluntariily. I’ve known a number of elderly people, with perfect driving records, who did just that, because they didn’t want to take a chance on an accident marring the latter part of their life.
Are you really looking for opinions? This seems more like an RO-style Pitting.
It’s boilerplate language typical of a response to a lawsuit.
$100/hour or more for mindless copy & paste.
Does anybody look at the basic facts and actually craft a reply that fits the situation?
:rolleyes:
Does anyone understand that if you don’t raise a defense in your answer, you’ve waived it?
Sure, it is.
But as noted in the comments section after the news article, it isn’t going to sit well with any jury when it comes time to award damages, punitive and otherwise. Juries can be harsh task-masters, especially when little kids and very stupid lawyers are involved.
So now the old fella is going to be bankrupted AND forever known as a bastard of the first degree instead of just being poor for the remainder of his life.
I know which one I’d choose.
How about “My client suffered a stroke/heart attack/angina/case of the stupids.” rather than “The six years old boy recklessly stood on the sidewalk when my client lost control and drove into a store wall?”
Which one comes across as less assholish and less of a PR disaster?
This case probably won’t go to trial. Few of them do, particularly with facts like this. It will probably settle after the parties complete discovery.
Which one admits liability before the discovery phase is even fucking started, and borders on malpractice?
This, or maybe he might just suck it up and actually NOT defend his actions?
Y’know, sometimes, just sometimes, culpability is so obvious and without mitigating circumstances that pleading guilty is the right thing to do. But of course, doing that means the pockets of umpteen defense lawyers aren’t going to be lined.
:rolleyes:
Did you see the photo in the article? That’s all the discovery anyone fucking needs.
:rolleyes:
A defendant attempting to plead guilty in a civil action would be amusing to Plaintiff’s attorneys, the court clerks, and anyone else that wasn’t the defense attorney’s malpractice carrier, but otherwise a spectacularly boneheaded move.
The defendant’s insurance company is obligated to defendant to provide a defense to the lawsuit once filed. This includes raising the comparative negligence issue in their Answer.
Really? Tell me, only from looking at that picture, who are the plaintiffs? What were their injuries? What were their medical bills? What, if any, future medical costs can they reasonably anticipate as a result of this accident? Could the vehicle have been defective in some way, to such an extent that someone other than this defendant could be partially liable for the injuries?