Another Florida, "Jury Gone Wild."

Peter Lawrence wrote:

> This link has a bit more detail about the actual accident:
> http://www.news4jax.com/news/10882304/detail.html

No mention of whether she was wearing a seatbelt though.

Suicide by automobile I reckon.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Ulf wrote:
>
>> Judging by the pictures it looks like she pulled out right in front of it too.
>
> Eh ?
>
> It's hardly touched !

What do you mean? The impact was at a 90 degree angle to the Accord. Had
she had a few seconds to get out of the way she would probably been rear
ended instead, or maybe escaped completely. That's assuming she didn't
panic and just stopped right in the trucks path. Either way, had the
truck's bumper been lower to the ground, and/or the car been equipped
with a side airbag she probably would have lived.

>
> Graham
>
Ulf

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article et>,
> necromancer wrote:
>> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Brent P said in
>> rec.autos.driving:
>>> If they can prove:
>>> "Also, in a complaint filed by the family's attorney, they said the
>>> truck
>>> driver had been driving too many hours that day, was speeding and that
>>> the truck only had one working headlight at the time of the crash."
>>
>> I have to disagree on this point. After all, motorcycles only have one
>> working headlight. If could see a motorcycle comming, then she should
>> beable to see the truck. Granted, the trucker probablly was overdriving
>> his sightlines, but he did have right of way, which to me makes the girl
>> 100% at fault for the accident.
>
> Motorcyclists are in the center of the lane and much more visible than a
> single headlamp vehicle.

No, motorcyclists AVOID the center of the lane. That is the worst place to
ride. On a motorcycle, you ride to the right, or to the left, of the lane.
WHICH SIDE is better, is up to debate, still. Only 100% agreed-on view is
that you do NOT ride down the center. I tend to ride on the right, usually,
unless stuck in traffic. Nobody rides a motorcycle down the center of a
lane. -Dave

>> "JB Coxwell Construction was found 25.5 percent at fault. Margie Woods
>> Trucking was found 12 percent at fault. And Brooke Ladue was found 62.5
>> percent at fault in the collision that took her life.
>>
>> The jury awarded the Ladue family $4 million in damages."
>>
>> Let's see here...37.5% of this collision is worth $4 million. $4 mill /
>> 37.5 = $X / 62.5. Unless my math skills are rusty, the dead girl's
>> family
>> now owes about $6.66 million to JB Coxwell Construction and Margie Woods
>> Trucking. Hey, fair is fair. If Brooke Ladue was mostly at fault, and
>> money must change hands, then the Ladue family owes the companies a lot
>> more
>> than the companies owe the Ladue family.
>
> Based on...?
> -----
>
> - gpsman

Try to keep up gps, the jury stated that two companies were PARTLY
responsible for the collision. For their PART in the collision, they were
ordered to pay $4 million. It follows logically that Brook Ladue (or her
family) should also pay for Brook Ladue's part of the collision. Since the
jury decided Brook was mostly at fault, then most of the money should be
paid by Brook's family. Or as I wrote earlier, the Ladue family now owes
just short of 7 million for this collision that was caused by Brook
adue. -Dave

>>
>> The short of it, The teen driver blew a stop sign and got Darwinized for
>> it. Grieving parents sue seemingly everyone in sight and get $4 Million
>> for their daughter's ****ty driving. Ka-CHING!!!
>
> If the kid ran a stop sign how can she be only 62.5% to blame ?

Good question. In my mind, that makes Brook 100% to blame.

>
> Roundabouts would stop this kind of thing happening of course.

You must be from the right side of the pond. On this side of the pond, they
are called rotarys, or more accurately "death traps", as nobody yields to
traffic already in the circle.

> Expect ambulance
> chasers to lobby against them.

Against what? Nobody is calling for more rotarys. -Dave

> Graham
>

In article ews.net>, Mike T. wrote:

>> Motorcyclists are in the center of the lane and much more visible than a
>> single headlamp vehicle.

> No, motorcyclists AVOID the center of the lane. That is the worst place to
> ride. On a motorcycle, you ride to the right, or to the left, of the lane.
> WHICH SIDE is better, is up to debate, still. Only 100% agreed-on view is
> that you do NOT ride down the center. I tend to ride on the right, usually,
> unless stuck in traffic. Nobody rides a motorcycle down the center of a
> lane. -Dave

Only on usenet....

ok... slightly off center... but they damn well don't ride in the right
or left tire tracks like a bicyclist.

>>> Motorcyclists are in the center of the lane and much more visible than a
>>> single headlamp vehicle.
>
>> No, motorcyclists AVOID the center of the lane. That is the worst place
>> to
>> ride. On a motorcycle, you ride to the right, or to the left, of the
>> lane.
>> WHICH SIDE is better, is up to debate, still. Only 100% agreed-on view
>> is
>> that you do NOT ride down the center. I tend to ride on the right,
>> usually,
>> unless stuck in traffic. Nobody rides a motorcycle down the center of a
>> lane. -Dave
>
> Only on usenet....
>
> ok... slightly off center... but they damn well don't ride in the right
> or left tire tracks like a bicyclist.

Well yes, as a matter of fact, they do. I've tried riding down the center
of a lane in a motorcycle, just to see why it is generally agreed upon that
this is NOT a good idea. It's a very uncomfortable feeling, as the bike
will not stay straight, and you constantly feel like you're falling over.
You have to fight the bike constantly to keep it on course. Besides which,
the road is often pretty slippery in the center of a travel lane. Where a
road is "worn" enough to have tire tracks on it, you ride in the right or
left tire track. This takes very little effort, the bike pretty much
handles itself just fine.

There is no such thing as "slightly off center". For each single traffic
lane, there are TWO lanes for a motorcycle (right and left). If you are
riding with other motorcyclists, you are supposed to ride staggered. This
means leaving an appropriate following distance between motorcycles AND
alternating which side of the lane you are riding in. First bike might ride
on the left tire track, next bike is 3 seconds behind in the right tire
track, next one 3 seconds behind in the left tire track, etc. You do this
for an extra margin of safety. You are supposed to leave enough space to
stop if the bike ahead of you has to stop suddenly. But as you are
staggered, you have (theoretically, at least) even more stopping room, if
you need it.

Lots of motorcyclists will ride right beside each other, one in the left
tire track and one in the right tire track. It happens. It's not safe, but
that doesn't stop it from happening. No motorcyclist is stupid enough to
ride anywhere near the center of the lane, though. You try it once, and you
quickly realize that it's not a healthy habit to get into. -Dave

In article ews.net>, Mike T. wrote:
>
>>>> Motorcyclists are in the center of the lane and much more visible than a
>>>> single headlamp vehicle.
>>
>>> No, motorcyclists AVOID the center of the lane. That is the worst place
>>> to
>>> ride. On a motorcycle, you ride to the right, or to the left, of the
>>> lane.
>>> WHICH SIDE is better, is up to debate, still. Only 100% agreed-on view
>>> is
>>> that you do NOT ride down the center. I tend to ride on the right,
>>> usually,
>>> unless stuck in traffic. Nobody rides a motorcycle down the center of a
>>> lane. -Dave
>>
>> Only on usenet....
>>
>> ok... slightly off center... but they damn well don't ride in the right
>> or left tire tracks like a bicyclist.

> Well yes, as a matter of fact, they do.

When two are in the same lane or they are looking to lane split, but
other than that, in a region I consider the center.... sure not dead on,
but not the right or left tire tracks. It's a region that as bicyclist, I
consider the 'center' as it is the location I use when I take the lane.

> I've tried riding down the center
> of a lane in a motorcycle, just to see why it is generally agreed upon that
> this is NOT a good idea. It's a very uncomfortable feeling, as the bike
> will not stay straight, and you constantly feel like you're falling over.
> You have to fight the bike constantly to keep it on course. Besides which,
> the road is often pretty slippery in the center of a travel lane. Where a
> road is "worn" enough to have tire tracks on it, you ride in the right or
> left tire track. This takes very little effort, the bike pretty much
> handles itself just fine.

If motorcyclists were riding in the right tire track they would be passed
like bicyclists get passed in the same lane by many a MFFY driver.
Motorcyclists I see ride in what I consider the center of the lane, a lane
position that is what I use to take the lane to prevent in-lane passing
or the symmetric location to the left, which I use on a bicycle for
making a left turn and preventing in-lane passing. The tire track
locations do not block in-lane passing.

> There is no such thing as "slightly off center". For each single traffic
> lane, there are TWO lanes for a motorcycle (right and left). If you are
> riding with other motorcyclists, you are supposed to ride staggered. This
> means leaving an appropriate following distance between motorcycles AND
> alternating which side of the lane you are riding in.

If were a group there would be MULTIPLE headlamps, not ONE. Thanks for
the non-applicable case.

On Feb 2, 8:32 am, "Mike T." > wrote:
> >> "JB Coxwell Construction was found 25.5 percent at fault. Margie Woods
> >> Trucking was found 12 percent at fault. And Brooke Ladue was found 62.5
> >> percent at fault in the collision that took her life.
>
> >> The jury awarded the Ladue family $4 million in damages."
>
> >> Let's see here...37.5% of this collision is worth $4 million. $4 mill /
> >> 37.5 = $X / 62.5. Unless my math skills are rusty, the dead girl's
> >> family
> >> now owes about $6.66 million to JB Coxwell Construction and Margie Woods
> >> Trucking. Hey, fair is fair. If Brooke Ladue was mostly at fault, and
> >> money must change hands, then the Ladue family owes the companies a lot
> >> more
> >> than the companies owe the Ladue family.
>
> > Based on...?
>
> Try to keep up gps, the jury stated that two companies were PARTLY
> responsible for the collision. For their PART in the collision, they were
> ordered to pay $4 million.

The award is for -damages-, found by a jury to be partially their
faults.

> It follows logically that Brook Ladue (or her
> family) should also pay for Brook Ladue's part of the collision. Since the
> jury decided Brook was mostly at fault, then most of the money should be
> paid by Brook's family. Or as I wrote earlier, the Ladue family now owes
> just short of 7 million for this collision that was caused by Brook
> adue.

That's certainly some extraordinary logic. Ladue is dead, the truck
is slightly bent,
so the Ladue family owes the defendants ~$7M from a trial whose sole
purpose
was to determine liability for the Larue family's damages...?

If the trucking or construction companies wish to seek a remedy for
their damages
they will have to sue for them on their own parts, just as the Ladue
family did.
That's the way it works, Matlock.
-----

- gpsman

>
> The award is for -damages-, found by a jury to be partially their
> faults.

Yes, and damages were caused by Brook Ladue, also. In fact, Brook Ladue
caused MOST of the damages, according to the jury.

>> It follows logically that Brook Ladue (or her
>> family) should also pay for Brook Ladue's part of the collision. Since
>> the
>> jury decided Brook was mostly at fault, then most of the money should be
>> paid by Brook's family. Or as I wrote earlier, the Ladue family now owes
>> just short of 7 million for this collision that was caused by Brook
>> adue.
>
> That's certainly some extraordinary logic.

No, extraordinary logic is saying that Brook Ladue was responsible for Brook
Ladue's death, and then ordering someone unrelated to Brook Ladue to pay for
Brook Ladue's death.

> Ladue is dead

Directly related to Ladue's own stupid and illegal behavior behind the
wheel.

>, the truck
> is slightly bent,

And guess what? Brook Ladue is mostly responsible for that, also.
According to THE JURY.

> so the Ladue family owes the defendants ~$7M from a trial whose sole
> purpose
> was to determine liability for the Larue family's damages...?

YES!!! It makes no fricking sense for the jury to state that Brook Ladue
was mostly responsible for Brook Ladue's death, and then order someone else
to pay for Brook Ladue's death, but let the Ladue's off the hook,
financially.

>
> If the trucking or construction companies wish to seek a remedy for
> their damages
> they will have to sue for them on their own parts, just as the Ladue
> family did.

Hey, I would have counter-sued for damages. I wouldn't have SUED for
damages (as that would have been a bit cold-hearted), but I definitely would
have counter-sued. Somebody bangs up my truck and then her family wants to
sue me for it?!? Ummmm, no, there definitely would have been a
counter-suit.

Why the trucking company did not counter-sue? Well, I'm guessing the
defense lawyer probably advised them that the Ladue's would lose the
lawsuit. (oooops) Hindsight is 20/20. The defense probably was counting
on this case going nowhere, and logically, it should have gone nowhere.
Heck, it should have been tossed in pre-trial motions. -Dave