Another Florida, "Jury Gone Wild."

On Feb 2, 9:54 am, "Mike T." > wrote:
> > 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.

But not all.

> 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.

The Ladue family members were not "on the hook" to begin with.

> > 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.
>
> Why the trucking company did not counter-sue?

1. Not enough damages.
2. Legal fees would exceed the damages.
3. It would be exceptionally stupid.

> Well, I'm guessing the
> defense lawyer probably advised them that the Ladue's would lose the
> lawsuit.

Then you truly are clueless. Every experienced trial attorney knows
"anything can happen in court", and sometimes does.

> 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.

And you have determined that solely from newspaper reports, without
examining a single piece of evidence or discovery. That's quite the
legal mind you got there, Matlock.
-----

- gpsman

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in
rec.autos.driving:
>
>
> necromancer wrote:
>
> > Ref: http://www.news4jax.com/news/10903669/detail.html
> >
> > << note: above was kinda slow to download. >>
> >
> > 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 ?

That's what I'm still trying to figure out. That's FloriDUH for you.

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

Maybe it would or not, but this accident happened in a construction
zone, so normal traffic principless may not apply.

--
necromancer

Criminal Coddler. And Proud of it, Man!!

"gpsman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 2, 9:54 am, "Mike T." > wrote:
>> > 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.
>
> But not all.
>

Well that depends on how you look at it. Brook Ladue used a car and a truck
to kill Brook Ladue. It is bizarre logic in the extreme to state or even
imply that the truck driver or trucking company was even partially at fault,
given the fact that Brook Ladue used the truck as a tool to off
erself. -Dave

"necromancer" > wrote in
message th.net...
> Ref: http://www.news4jax.com/news/10903669/detail.html
>
> << note: above was kinda slow to download. >>
>
> 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!!!

I wonder why they didn't sue Honda also?

Not having seen the intersection, I'd have a hard time judging the
validity of the compliant against the construction company. If the
construction company had cluttered the intersection as stated, I can
see where they might be partially at fault. I don't feel that way
about the truck driver though. If the Honda pulled out in front of the
truck at an intersection where the truck had the right of way, I don't
see how they can determine that the driver could have done better.
From the pictures of the collision, it seems to me that the truck did
not hit the car at a particularly high speed.The girl died because the
bumper of the truck was above the belt line of the car. If she had
been hit by a light truck or another car, I suspect she would not have
died. Is the $4 million the total judgment? If so, I assume the family
only gets $1.5 million since the girl was found to be 62.5 percent
liable. In NC, the family would have gotten $0 with a finding like
that. Probably after lawyer fees, the family wouldn't end up with even
$1M.

Ed

On Feb 2, 12:47 pm, "C. E. White" >
wrote: <brevity snip>

> If the Honda pulled out in front of the
> truck at an intersection where the truck had the right of way, I don't
> see how they can determine that the driver could have done better.

Although unstated I think the premise is the truck driver was beyond
the federal limit for driving hours, so he should not have been -
there-, at that moment, to be involved in the collision.

This is a common method of determining truck drivers' contribution in
crashes. In the event of a fatal crash, cc receipts, cell phone
records, gps tracking records, etc. are used to determine if truck
drivers are where they are legally allowed to be.

Fortunately for many 4-wheeler operators, they are not subject to the
same level of scrutiny.
-----

- gpsman

On Feb 1, 6:59 pm, "Dave" > 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."

There are at least 3 different ways this can be read. In some states,
negligence of 50% or more means you get squat. Zilch. Nada. In some
others, it means you get your judgment reduced by the percentage of
your own fault. I don't know which Florida follows.

In this case, the latter above would leave her heirs 37.5% of the
total award.

It's not quite clear whether this jury award is $4M or 37.5% of
$4M ... but that's just a math problem left unclear by the reporting.
It could be that the jury awarded $4M and found the fault ratios. It
is then up to the court to reduce the award by 62.5%. If not, then I
would suppose that the $4M *is* the 37.5% left and the original award
was somewhat over $10M. The latter seems unlikely to me.

Finally, it could be that the award of damages was $4M, the fault was
62.5% the deceased's, and Florida is one of the former states above.
If so, some defense lawyer did a helluva job getting a set of jury
instructions that resulted in, "Yes; there are $4M in damages here.
Your decedent was over 50% at fault. Therefore you get nothing."
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that)

"Mike T." wrote:

> >> 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.

You need *proper* roundabouts.

Graham

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Mike T." wrote:
>
>> >> 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.
>
> You need *proper* roundabouts.
>
> Graham
>

We've got them. The problem isn't road design, it's driver (lack of)
training. -Dave

On Feb 2, 4:09 pm, "Dave" > wrote:
> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mike T." wrote:
>
> >> >> 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.
>
> > You need *proper* roundabouts.
>
> > Graham
>
> We've got them. The problem isn't road design, it's driver (lack of)
> training. -Dave- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Or excessive MFFY factor. Remember, most drivers display the best
skills at around age 16 during the initial driving test for a
license. That test is on a canned course that bears less relevance to
the real world than politicians.

> Or excessive MFFY factor. Remember, most drivers display the best
> skills at around age 16 during the initial driving test for a
> license. That test is on a canned course that bears less relevance to
> the real world than politicians.
>

Y'know, I was just thinking about that. It's ironic in the extreme that you
are expected to drive, on a road test, the way that you will NEVER drive
again, not even one second, in your entire life, if you live to be a hundred
and sixteen years old. Such as both hands on the wheel at exactly 10 and 2,
never allowing the wheel to slide through your hands, always obeying the
speed limit, stopping BEHIND the stop sign, etc., etc., etc. If you had to
drive like road test all the time, you'd be a nervous ****ing wreck. -Dave