http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...ext|FRONTPAGE|
So LBP's driver was speeding, neither were wearing seatbelts and they are still filing suit. Hopefully this gets thrown out quick.
Printable View
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...ext|FRONTPAGE|
So LBP's driver was speeding, neither were wearing seatbelts and they are still filing suit. Hopefully this gets thrown out quick.
These are the kinds of frivolous lawsuits we need tort reform to fight. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by jt1
Why? From the article it sounds like the driver of the Passat tried a left turn in front of the Chrysler. The oncoming traffic [[the Chrysler with LBP in it) had the right of way.Quote:
Originally Posted by jt1
Sound pretty straightforward. Suing the leasing agency of the Passat sounds pretty stupid, though.
Seems to me that it should get thrown out because two contributing factors to the injuries were [[1) LBP's driver was speeding and [[2) Neither were wearing their seatbelts.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
I'm sure LBP has preached personal responsibility. I guess it doesn't apply here.
You sue where the money is. Like those tort lawyers who sue big pharmaceutical companies, you know, the ones denounced by a certain party, to which LBP may or may not belong to.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
Is it him filing the suit or his insurance company on his behalf?
So you're defending the reckless driver here? I don't like Brooks much, but I don't twist facts to your political agenda. There's a guy who's a paraplegic at least in some part because of someone's bad and perhaps influenced driving.Quote:
Originally Posted by jt1
I'm OK with limiting some rights if you're not wearing your seatbelt, but I'm not in favor of elimination of all of your rights.
There's more happening here than we are seeing. Let the courts settle it as they should.
Brooks and Crum have no rights here?
The argument could be made that the actions by both the driver [[speeding) and Mr. Patterson [[not wearing his seat belt) contributed through negligence to their injuries in the accident.
I assume seatbelt use in Michigan is mandatory by law. If it is, a big hole is blown in their case.....
There is a concept under Michigan law known as "comparative fault", which recognizes that multiple parties can be at fault when a tort occurs, and that their respective levels of fault can be of different degrees.
If, for example, a jury determines that Patterson suffered damages in the amount of $100k, but that he was 30% at fault for those damages for not wearing his seat belt, then he would be entitled to a $70k award. This is a very basic, sensible doctrine of Michigan law and the law of many other states. If you were doing 5 MPH over the limit when someone ran a red light and plowed into you, you're still partially at fault, but I would bet that you'd still feel that justice would require that you be compensated due to the other driver's greater degree of fault.
I think if you're riding in the back seat and 12 years or older, you're not required to wear a seat beltQuote:
Originally Posted by douglasm
That is not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
Are you talking about chronological age, or behavior?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
My apologies, it's age 15Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy
http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7...,00.html#belts
LBP - stands for Lower Back Pain
^^^ --:D-- This place is poppin' with comedy tonight. Good one!
Amazing.
The driver of LBP's car had the right of way, tortfeasor made an illegal left turn in front of oncoming car, LBP driver ends up a quadreplegic, and people think this suit is a scam???
Obviously, quite a few people are blinded by their hate of LBP or simply lack basic understanding of how fault is determined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldman
Whether or not you wore a seat-belt simply has nothing to do with determining fault for the accident. The actual driving conduct is what matters. LBP, depending on the facts, could have sued his own driver [[if his driver bears any fault) on top of suing the other driver. Children [[who are passengers) sue their own parents under these circumstances all the time. The reason being there is insurance coverage in play. In this case, even if some of the posters were correct about comparative fault [[for not wearing a seat-belt) unless there are very high policy limits [[multiple millions) expect every cent up to the limits to be paid out given that at least one injured party has permanent life altering injuries.
The other issue someone touched on was subrogation rights. Without going into it in depth, LBP could settle his claim with his carrier but the carrier normally retains the right to sue the responsible party on his behalf. Basically, they can try to recover what they paid out from any responsible party. Whether LBP wanted them to sue or not.
Taking it one step further, if for example, the county paid out any money [[to LBP or his driver)I would think taxpayers would want to be reimbursed from the at fault party.
Bottom line: I'm no fan of LBP but most of the criticism over the lawsuit is misplaced at best. If someone wants to criticize him there are literally a thousand better subjects you could pick. For starters: I am sure he has been highly critical, in the past, of the very tort system which is now providing compensation to him.
Perfection!!! :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Artistic
If the driver who turned "in front of" poor ole Brooksie would have had enough time to complete the turn but for Brooksie's driver's speeding, then who is at fault? An argument can be made Brooksie's driver caused the accident. And yes, this would then be a frivolous lawsuit.
Then there is the issue of the new & "improved" traffic signal, which is supposedly different from what is commonly known around here. Maybe LBP can sue Oakland County too!
Don't twist the facts? Where do you get off suggesting the driver was under the influence? He wasn't ticketed for that and it's not come up in any of the news reports I've seen. Perhaps you have some "insider" information?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Great post, Elbert. Unless you've been around insurance-world, its hard to understand how it all works. No fault!? Ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElbertHanks
And downtownguy... I did not say the at-fault driver was drunk. There was very little in the news about the at-fault driver. Where little is said, I get curious. Why?
even if you cant agree he should sue for personal injury.
surely you agree he can sue for damage to his car?
the driver of the other car wasnt wearing a seatbelt!
we need a poll, how many people in here dont wear seatbelts?
There is a man who can't move his arms, can't move his legs, will pass from this earth after years on pain and psychic torture and you people kick your feet in glee.
just because he is a Republican.
Really? That is the reason? You disagree with his politics so you want him and his family to be destitute. Penniless.
You want his wife to wipe out his colostomy bag with old rags because he voted for Republicans.
you have no idea about the law, less about insurance, yet you spout off in evil ways because you think you are being funny?
wow.
How many people here drive over the speed limit?Quote:
Originally Posted by compn
I think L Brooks is trying to help his driver, get some money relief. My gosh, the poor driver is in a mess. Accidents are a horrible thing. This is the not the time to judge the victims on their politics. This can happen to anyone. There will be people asking if there was alcohol in a flask, and so on. I want to see the injured helped in this matter.
Damn near everybody. This morning for instance, as bad as the roads were, there still was some "knuckleheads" driving like it was sunny and 80' degrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
LBP meet Karma
Hey, I didn't know the driver was a quadriplegic because of the accident. I was just taking a pot shot at Brooksie. In light of these facts, I gotta say it's not funny anymore. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome
The schadenfreude running a bit thick around here notwithstanding... LBP is the the local face of a party that preaches a gospel of personal responsibility, preaches that what is killing american business is trial lawyers chasing around and suing everyone for everything every time there is any sliver of opportunity to do so, preaches that rules should apply to everyone and no one gets a free pass.... and on and on. Yet when he finds himself in an accident, caused in part by his driver's flagrant disregard for the speed limit, and both are severely injured because they felt they didn't need to wear seatbelts [[and both ticketed for failing to do btw), and then refuse to cooperate in earlier legal process by refusing to comply with discovery [[because hmm. wonder what might come out in those medical records?)... yeah, there is going to be a little blow back.Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome
I feel for the guy and his family. I really do. but it's funny how all that "personal responsibility" crap takes a back seat when there might be a company with deep pockets sitting on the other side of the table.
p.s. regarding the costs here... the driver was a retired State Trooper, a county employee, and driving a county vehicle on county buisness. Further, the other driver has insurance as well. So I'd say he's covered about three different ways there. Same goes for LBP. They should be writing a thankyou note to the tax payers for picking up the tab, not tying up the courts with fuck you litigation.Quote:
lawsuits seek damages from Anthony Michael Prainito, CBS Radio Inc. of Detroit and Robert Bosch, the Farmington Hills company which leased a 2012 Passat to Prainito.
The part I don't understand is suing the leasing company? On what grounds?
Because they own the car and they have the deep pockets. Typical shyster move LBP spends a lot of time decrying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
I guess @ my age I'm still wet behind the ears. I thought you needed a valid reason, [[defective brakes, stuck gas peddle, steering wheel came off, etc.) to sue someone? Guess not. For the record, I DO feel for the driver and his family.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
In an auto accident, the auto insurance could be considered the first line of payment in these matters. Depends on the type of health insurance the driver for Brooks has with his providers, the riders and limits. Could be his primary insurance carrier does not cover every part of hospital and medical, thus the lawsuit. I know my health policies thru my employers do not cover car accidents. It was a way of keeping costs down. So I have to have more auto insurance. I am just sayin... I am sure we will hear more about this suit as time goes on. These things can drag out for years unless they settle .