So, if Simon had been wearing his seatbelt, everything would be hunky dory?
The best defense is a good offense? Or, in this case, the only conceivable attempt at a defense is by blaming the victim.
NINE license suspensions?!?! I would think you would be perma-banned from driving after your fourth or fifth.
I’d counter sue for hiring a driver like that!
“alleged injuries”? That is an odd concept.
That simply means the injures alleged in the complaint. It encompasses more than the death, and would include things that might be debatable, such as pre-death pain and suffering, and the amount of economic loss.
It is common for defendants to put things like failure to wear seatbelts in their Answer, to preserve the argument on comparative fault. (Some jurisdictions don’t allow a “seatbelt defense,” but some do).
If Bob had been wearing his seatbelt, he might not have died, or his injuries might have been less severe. It is reasonable for the limo company to argue that Bob therefore bore some fraction of responsibility for the accident, and the company’s damages should therefore be reduced by that amount. See comparitive negligence.
An even more important argument if NJ were a strict contributory negligence state. But it’s not.
Walmart’s lawyers filed a similar motion in the Tracy Morgan case (no one in the limo wore a seat belt). They withdrew it within a week or two.
I think both cases were in the same state?
Normally I would imagine this is covered by insurance but given their driver’s sketchy driving record their insurer might be resisting covering them under some clause or other. If that’s the case the judgment against them could easily be in the millions and bust them. They will pull out all the legal stops in this case in trying to mitigate damages.
The driver had “nine license suspensions and two speeding convictions on his record — and was driving with one hand because his right arm had been rendered useless due to a suicide attempt”, not to mention he was veering erratically and other customers had complained about his driving recently … why was this guy even allowed behind a wheel?
Somewhat off topic, but I saw an article in the newspaper this week about some guy who was given a year of jail time after his 17th DUI. My first thought was “it took 17 DUI convictions before he was sent to jail?” and the second was “Only a year?” Actually the article was unclear whether it was the first time he had been sentenced to jail for DUI, but those numbers are still mind-boggling.