RE: Who should be sued

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Who should be sued

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Who should be sued

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Who should be sued - 10/20/2016 5:07:05 PM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

The driver did violate the law. He killed kids and went to jail. Vehicles were brand new and properly maintained. No vehicle failure. Both drivers were drug tested in accordance with 29 CFR - Negative. Not sure how wicked's sink got broken in the accident but I am pretty sure it wasn't connected to the question. LOL Last time I drove an 18 wheeler was 30 years ago. No drugs, no alcohol involved. Psych report came back and the kids were lunatics

(in reply to WickedsDesire)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Who should be sued - 10/20/2016 6:18:39 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

What law ? For you to go to jail you need to be charged with a WRITTEN law. What's more, just not being legal at the time does not make you automatically guilty, some will tell you this but if you talk to a GOOD lawyer they will tell you it is not so. Even cops will say "Because you should not have been there" but that is still bullshit, cops lie all the time.

So, why does the guy go to jail ? Do they say he did it on purpose and have enough evidence to back it up or at least coerce a plea bargain out of him or what ?

What was the charge ?

T^T

(in reply to KenDckey)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Who should be sued - 10/20/2016 7:28:47 PM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

we'll call it vehicular manslaughter. truck driver hit the bus and kids died. The crime he committed isn't really important. He comitted one and that is all that is really germain.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Who should be sued - 10/21/2016 5:17:16 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

The driver did violate the law. He killed kids and went to jail. Vehicles were brand new and properly maintained. No vehicle failure. Both drivers were drug tested in accordance with 29 CFR - Negative. Not sure how wicked's sink got broken in the accident but I am pretty sure it wasn't connected to the question. LOL Last time I drove an 18 wheeler was 30 years ago. No drugs, no alcohol involved. Psych report came back and the kids were lunatics

You have offered no evidence of the driver being charged with anything. The fact that you have posited a bussload full of dead kids is not relevant unless you can tell us the charges against the driver of the truck.

(in reply to KenDckey)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Who should be sued - 10/21/2016 10:08:57 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

The driver did violate the law. He killed kids and went to jail. Vehicles were brand new and properly maintained. No vehicle failure. Both drivers were drug tested in accordance with 29 CFR - Negative. Not sure how wicked's sink got broken in the accident but I am pretty sure it wasn't connected to the question. LOL Last time I drove an 18 wheeler was 30 years ago. No drugs, no alcohol involved. Psych report came back and the kids were lunatics

You have offered no evidence of the driver being charged with anything. The fact that you have posited a bussload full of dead kids is not relevant unless you can tell us the charges against the driver of the truck.

I am going to respond to both of you on this.

First of all, I am getting the impression that this is a hypothetical situation. It mat well just be an expression of how fucked up the law is. Here is a non-hypothetical situation.

A guy is in his pickup truck behind a big rig. He is texting. He gets rear ended by TWO school buses and killed. the school bus drivers were not texting to anyone's knowledge. But TWO of them ? This proves that they were following too close, but it does not prove that about the pickup truck because it has alot less mass than TWO school buses.

The government's reaction ? To try to make a federal law against texting while driving. Far as I know it didn't pass, probably because most of them do it.

Now back to this hardly decipherable OP, for there to be a vehicular manslaughter charge there either has to be intent or negligence. Also, at least here, the criminal case does not prove the criminal case unless you plead guilty. Here, we plead nola contendre which makes the conviction NOT evidence in civil court.

Regardless, if this guy who hit them was in the employ of anyone, the employer is on the hook. And the insurance cannot refuse to pay unless they broke a contract provision, such as they are all drug tested or whatever. If the company was in compliance with the insurance requirements they must pay.

One of the things that matters os what happened when the cops first got there. What did this driver say ? "They pulled out in front of me and I just couldn't slow fast enough because I got ten tons onboard" ? Or maybe "Fukum, they were going too slow so I decided to help them along" ?

you just don't get charged with vehicular manslaughter unless there is (or claimed to be) intent which is malice and almost warrants a urder charge, or negligece, which has to be proven.

Did the bus have proper lights, could he see those lights ? Was it dark and rainy ? Or icy ? My last wreck was caused by ice under water ad I didn't know it. Damage was limited because I was only going 35 on the highway because of poor visibility. Yet since my car hit the other car I had to pay. The other car was at the back of the traffic jam caused by another accident up front, how else do you do this ? But I was not charged with vehicular assault because there was no intent. I had to pay, but what else should have happened ? They pay me for hitting their stationary car ?

There are some things in society you just cannot make perfect. Traffic laws seem to be among them.

I still wonder what Ken is after here. "Who should get sued". If the driver was working for a company, that company. That is the simple (and correct) answer. If he was an owner/operator than he gets sued. And as long as he was in compliance with the insurance policy and DOT regulations the insurance should pay. That's what they're there for.

T^T

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Who should be sued - 10/21/2016 10:40:18 AM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

The driver did violate the law. He killed kids and went to jail. Vehicles were brand new and properly maintained. No vehicle failure. Both drivers were drug tested in accordance with 29 CFR - Negative. Not sure how wicked's sink got broken in the accident but I am pretty sure it wasn't connected to the question. LOL Last time I drove an 18 wheeler was 30 years ago. No drugs, no alcohol involved. Psych report came back and the kids were lunatics

You have offered no evidence of the driver being charged with anything. The fact that you have posited a bussload full of dead kids is not relevant unless you can tell us the charges against the driver of the truck.

I am going to respond to both of you on this.

First of all, I am getting the impression that this is a hypothetical situation. It mat well just be an expression of how fucked up the law is. Here is a non-hypothetical situation.

A guy is in his pickup truck behind a big rig. He is texting. He gets rear ended by TWO school buses and killed. the school bus drivers were not texting to anyone's knowledge. But TWO of them ? This proves that they were following too close, but it does not prove that about the pickup truck because it has alot less mass than TWO school buses.

The government's reaction ? To try to make a federal law against texting while driving. Far as I know it didn't pass, probably because most of them do it.

Now back to this hardly decipherable OP, for there to be a vehicular manslaughter charge there either has to be intent or negligence. Also, at least here, the criminal case does not prove the criminal case unless you plead guilty. Here, we plead nola contendre which makes the conviction NOT evidence in civil court.

Regardless, if this guy who hit them was in the employ of anyone, the employer is on the hook. And the insurance cannot refuse to pay unless they broke a contract provision, such as they are all drug tested or whatever. If the company was in compliance with the insurance requirements they must pay.

One of the things that matters os what happened when the cops first got there. What did this driver say ? "They pulled out in front of me and I just couldn't slow fast enough because I got ten tons onboard" ? Or maybe "Fukum, they were going too slow so I decided to help them along" ?

you just don't get charged with vehicular manslaughter unless there is (or claimed to be) intent which is malice and almost warrants a urder charge, or negligece, which has to be proven.

Did the bus have proper lights, could he see those lights ? Was it dark and rainy ? Or icy ? My last wreck was caused by ice under water ad I didn't know it. Damage was limited because I was only going 35 on the highway because of poor visibility. Yet since my car hit the other car I had to pay. The other car was at the back of the traffic jam caused by another accident up front, how else do you do this ? But I was not charged with vehicular assault because there was no intent. I had to pay, but what else should have happened ? They pay me for hitting their stationary car ?

There are some things in society you just cannot make perfect. Traffic laws seem to be among them.

I still wonder what Ken is after here. "Who should get sued". If the driver was working for a company, that company. That is the simple (and correct) answer. If he was an owner/operator than he gets sued. And as long as he was in compliance with the insurance policy and DOT regulations the insurance should pay. That's what they're there for.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

It is a hypothetical. I was just wondering considering it appears that everything (an overexagefration I know) is someone elses fault. Was wondering what the forum would say since I couldn't make up my mind.

As stated in Post 3 it is hypothetical.

As for insurance paying. I agree that maybe that is where it should end, but I was thinking society seems to blame more than the individual at fault. Hence the thought and questions.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Who should be sued - 10/21/2016 10:47:14 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I was thinking society seems to blame more than the individual at fault. Hence the thought and questions.

No ken you were not thinking, you were projecting. Society does not do what you claim.
Lawyers on the other hand do.

(in reply to KenDckey)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Who should be sued - 10/21/2016 7:37:32 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

FR

Without intent or criminal negligence there is no crime and therefore no charge. Get some law books and read up on it. Even slight negligence doesn't do it, say the truck driver intended to change lanes and pass but someone pulled into that lane and he couldn't slow down enough to avoid hitting the bus. That is a grey area.

I know quite a bit about this, at least in Ohio. Ohio is one of the fucking worst states to drive in. the laws are pretty fucked up when it comes to tickets n shit. the laws are unduly harsh on some people and begets them felonies when they do not deserve them.. We have a for profit prison system partly built by the brother in law of a former governor. We have all kinds of draconian fucked up laws and people do get railroaded as well as coerced into plea bargains. And we have selective enforcement at its finest. (not that I have not benefited from same from time to time)

Even here, which we ourselves used to call "Behind the buckeye curtain" if there is no intent, and no negligence, you do not get charged with a felony. You might get a ticket for "assured clear distance" or "failure to control" or something like that, but if you are sober and legal and tell the cop you simply did ot see them in time, even here, you are not likely to catch a felony charge.

The details that put your hypothetical guy in jail are critical if you want a cogent answer. You put anyone in jail you need an EXACT charge, like 4511.04d or some shit. And there is a book which lists the elements of that crime. It was codified when they wrote the law. If a person does not meet the qualifications of the elements of that crime, no cop in his right mind would charge him with it, even here. What's more, even a public defender could get the guy off. And he could sue the jurisdiction for unlawful arrest.

So you have to bleed some more into this. We all know a vehicle, especially a big truck can be one hell of a weapon. Did he use it that way ? Or was he sitting there with his feet up on the wheel snorting cokje and sexting with his girlfriend ? Or was it just one of those things ?

Was the bus on the road or did it pull out in front of him ? What were the road conditions ?

If it was like Tommy Chong driving his rig all high (the movie Far Out Man) and talking to the ghost of Cheech and drove right into them in broad daylight that is one thing. If he had been driving something with air brakes for over ten hours straight, well that is iffy.

I have already given the answer, the company is liable, and their insurance company is subrogated. Now the insurance company does have the right to sue the driver but then he has the right to take the bus for seven years ad then file bankruptcy. In fact on Ohio you don't even have to, a civil judgement for shit like this only lasts for even years anyway.

If you are looking for a way to sue the driver, don't worry, they insurance company will do that. If you are looking to sue the city for not stopping him for whatever reason before it happened let me remind you the supreme court has ruled that cops have no duty to protect you. If you are looking to sue the truck manufacturer, as long as their design is sound and there was no failure because of a manufacturing defect forget about that. If it was an owner/operator and the truck was not properly maintained there might be a case against him, but that was not established.

And if the bus pulled out in front of the truck from a sidestreet or whatever, then you are talking their insurance company and all that applies to them, but if the truck driver went to jail all I can assume is that is not what happened.

T^T

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 28