This is soooo wrong

[mattm]

yeah, since when do cars drive themselves

[StoneMtn]

There are so many misconceptions in this thread, it's hard to know where to begin, but I'll clarify two things:

1. There is a big difference between being "convicted" of a crime (as seems to be mentioned here) and being found liable civilly.

2. There are very good reasons for vicarious liability in a commercial host situation. It is worth noting that similar liability has been found not to attach in a social host situation. Read the caselaw on this. It's all available online. You may change your mind, when you consider it from the perspective of an innocent person hit by a drunk driver who was plied with drinks in a bar long after he was clearly intoxicated, and whose judgment was thereby definitively suspect. If the only person who could be liable is the driver, and they had no insurance, and this was an injured party you knew - I suspect many people here would feel differently.

I could go on forever on the law surrounding this, as it is judge-made law that developed incrementally over the past decade or so, but I think it suffices to say there are many misconceptions here. Things are rarely black and white.

[bouche]

Ummmmmmmm, can everyone counter sue him for the trouble he caused by directly being at fault for the accident (he let his buddy drive, 100% at fault and also at fault for the death of his friends).

That was just one of the major points that is being ignored by this guy. He is definitely more at fault than the bus driver, pubs, or city are.

A police investigation revealed the bus had the green light. Those findings were released to the public after the crash.

Doesn't this just prove who was at fault?

The bus driver, the suit says, drove “without due care” or faster than was reasonable, considering the road and weather conditions. The suit also accuses him of failing to keep a proper lookout, failing to take evasive action and operating a bus when he should have known it required maintenance.

The drunk driver is the one who drove without due care BY GETTING WASTED and driving without considering the road or weather conditions.

The suit says the city is responsible for the driver’s “negligence” and for failing to properly maintain the bus. The city is also liable because it allows drivers to work “excessive hours with insufficient resting periods,” increasing the risk of collisions, the suit says. "

The passengers were negligent for ALLOWING their friend to get wasted and drive the vehicle, CAUSING a collision.

what a crock of shit.

At least the sun's article is pointing out that "None of the allegations in the lawsuit have been proven in court."

[YearsAlongTheSea]

Good points StoneMtn. I can see why those laws are in effect to protect those not at fault in these situations. I think, however, that in the scenarios mentioned in this thread, the institution of vicarious liability is being vastly exploited in search of scapegoats...

[mark tonin]

An interesting thread, especially for me given that we have been talking about some of these issues in my classes over the last few days.

Things are rarely black and white.

So true, and in civil law, this becomes very apparent when a number of different parties are determined to be partially at fault. Here is a link to a case which illustrates the point:

link to article

Peace, Mark

[bouche]

I'm no lawyer but I can sure cut and paste.

[Davey Boy 2.0]

sis,k

[mark tonin]

In the bus case from above, suppose the facts end up showing:

1. the bus that was in the accident hadn't been properly maintained and its brakes were faulty, and

2. experts agree that if the bus had been properly maintained the accident wouldn't have happened because the bus driver would have been able to stop in time to prevent the accident.

Should the bus company be responsible for covering any of the damages? I say yes.

Having said that, lawsuits without merit do happen, and it pisses me off when people talk about suing to rectify a situation brought on by their own stupid behaviour. As a teacher, I sometimes shake my head at the things I have to do to legally cover myself in case a student gets hurt. As a music promoter and party host, I sometimes worry about what will happen if a person gets hurt at a party I am hosting. I think to myself "take responsibility for your own actions if you act like a fool." But the reality is that when people get hurt they and/or their loved ones want justice (and money is one way of getting some form of justice), and they want/need money to deal with the financial reality of the situation that they are now in (e.g. looking after somebody who needs lots of care).

OK, time to think happy thoughts.

Peace, Mark

[YearsAlongTheSea]

What I don't understand in all of this, is how they come up with these numbers? Cars don't cost millions of dollars to fix or replace and human loss is unquantifiable in my opinion...

[StoneMtn]

The large judgments you've heard of (which are very rarely in the millions in this country) are never for material damage to a vehicle. General damages for "pain and suffering", etc, is based on caselaw, and the Supreme Court of Canada put a cap on these at around 300 grand years ago in a "trilogy" of cases.

The rest of damages are usually for income loss (past, present, future), special damages (out of pocket), medical/care costs incurred, and future care costs.

YATS, you make a good observation, though. Many judgments in such cases include the phrase, "In any such case, we are essentially forced to look into a crystal ball to assess future losses, which is inherently speculative, but in any event that is what we must do...."

[bouche]

Most of my law teachings come from Uncle John's Bathroom Reader and there were some VERY frivolous lawsuits, in the US of course.

For an example of law math's pain and suffering numbers:

Allen Heckard of Portland, Ore. “says he’s been mistaken as Michael Jordan nearly every day over the past 15 years and he’s tired of it.” So he’s suing the basketball star and Nike founder Phil Knight for $832 million in all. “’I'm constantly being accused of looking like Michael and it makes it very uncomfortable for me,’ said Heckard. Heckard is suing Jordan for defamation and permanent injury and emotional pain and suffering. He’s suing Knight for defamation and permanent injury for promoting Jordan and making him one of the most recognized men in the world.” Why $832 million, exactly? “Well, you figure with my age and you multiply that times seven and ah, then I turn around and ah I figure that’s what it all boils down to.” That’s no more arbitrary as a calculation than some damage assertions we can think of that have done very well in court

[mark tonin]

Here's a recent one that made it into class for discussion:

Lindsay Lohan sues eTrade over commercial featuring Oakville toddler

By Reuters, The Windsor Star March 11, 2010

NEW YORK — Actress Lindsay Lohan has sued eTrade Financial Corp for US$100 million, saying a "milkaholic" baby girl who appeared in a recent commercial featuring a toddler from Oakville was modeled after her.

Lohan alleges that the online brokerage's use in the ad of the girl, also named Lindsay, improperly invoked her "likeness, name, characterization, and personality" without permission, violating her right of privacy.

In her lawsuit filed Monday in New York, the 23-year-old actress seeks $50 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in exemplary damages. She also demands that eTrade stop running the ad and turn over all copies to her.

Lohan's lawyer Stephanie Ovadia did not return requests for a comment but has suggested the name Lindsay is unique in the same manner as Oprah or Madonna.

An eTrade spokeswoman declined to comment, saying the New York-based company had not reviewed the complaint.

The ad was shown during the Feb. 7 Super Bowl, which, according to Nielsen media, drew about 106.5 million American viewers, a record for a U.S. television program. It is part of a series of ads featuring babies who play the markets.

In the ad, a baby boy — played by McAllister Kerr from Oakville — apologizes to his girlfriend through a video chat for not calling her the night before because he was on eTrade.

The camera switches to the girl, who asks suspiciously: "And that milkaholic Lindsay wasn't over?"

It then switches back to the boy, who uneasily replies "Lindsay?" before another baby girl, presumably Lindsay, moves into the frame and asks, "Milk-a-what?"

Lohan was ordered in 2007 to serve one day in jail, undergo an alcohol education program and spend three years on probation after admitting to drunk driving and cocaine possession.

"It is clear to me that my life has become completely unmanageable because I am addicted to alcohol and drugs," she said in a statement at the time.

Various problems have made the onetime child star in Disney movies a staple of Hollywood gossip pages and the paparazzi.

A spokesman for Grey Group, which the New York Post said produced the eTrade ad, told the newspaper the "Lindsay" in the ad was named after a member of its account team.

"Lindsay" was in 2008 the 380th most popular name for newborn American girls, according to the U.S. Social Security Administration. That was down from 241 in 2004, when Lohan's popular film "Mean Girls" was released.

Link

[bouche]

Watch out Lindsay Ontario....someone is coming for your likeness.

[bouche]

The guy who murdered a woman and her daughter was probably drinking and now they're looking at the bars. If he drank and then operated a gun and killed these women, are the bars liable?

[Booche]

They are looking at the bars because he was underage.

[Esau.]

The guy who murdered a woman and her daughter was probably drinking and now they're looking at the bars. If he drank and then operated a gun and killed these women, are the bars liable?

I haven't been following this at all, but I wonder if this guy isn't claiming be drunk as part of his defense. If he is, then it would only make sense (to me at least) that the police, lawyers and/or prosecutor would be interested in investigating the bar(s). I dunno.

[bouche]

I drawing the comparison to the car as a weapon being operated by someone who's been drinking at a bar with a gun being operated by someone who's been drinking at a bar.

The articles posted in this thread take the responsibility off of the drivers if they've been drinking at a bar. So naturally, I'm curious if they would do the same here. If not, what is the difference?

[Esau.]

I'm not sure how to compare the two since I don't have any details on this situation other then the guy was underage and served at possibly two different bars. Fill me in with more could ya?

As for the drunk driver killing someone after leaving a bar and the bar being held liable, well that isn't anything new. I know I first heard of a bar being held liable for letting a drunk person leave the club & drive back in the late 80s after a bar I drank at was under investigation for that very reason. Luckily (for the bar) there were witnesses (myself included) that could verify that the bar did indeed ask & take the guys keys. Unfortunately, he took a cab home, then back to the bar with his keys & drove anyway, killing someone in the process.

I do feel however that an establishment that serves alcohol does have some responsibility to the public regarding safety.

[color:red][edit to add]

One difference I guess I could point out is that, once the guy was at home the bar has no responsibility for what he does.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Guest