Just one more reason to dislike LBP

**jt1** · March-12-13, 03:28 PM

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.

**Detroitnerd** · March-12-13, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by jt1

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.

**JBMcB** · March-12-13, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by jt1

Hopefully this gets thrown out quick.

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.

Sound pretty straightforward. Suing the leasing agency of the Passat sounds pretty stupid, though.

**jt1** · March-12-13, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

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.

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.

I'm sure LBP has preached personal responsibility. I guess it doesn't apply here.

**Detroitnerd** · March-12-13, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

Sound pretty straightforward. Suing the leasing agency of the Passat sounds pretty stupid, though.

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.

**iheartthed** · March-12-13, 04:16 PM

Is it him filing the suit or his insurance company on his behalf?

**Wesley Mouch** · March-12-13, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by jt1

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.

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.

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?

**douglasm** · March-12-13, 04:37 PM

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.....

**artds** · March-12-13, 04:41 PM

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.

Shollin · March-12-13, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by douglasm

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.....

I think if you're riding in the back seat and 12 years or older, you're not required to wear a seat belt

**Cliffy** · March-12-13, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

I think if you're riding in the back seat and 12 years or older, you're not required to wear a seat belt

That is not true.

**Honky Tonk** · March-12-13, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

I think if you're riding in the back seat and 12 years or older, you're not required to wear a seat belt

Are you talking about chronological age, or behavior?

Shollin · March-12-13, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Cliffy

That is not true.

My apologies, it's age 15

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7...,00.html#belts

**Artistic** · March-12-13, 07:08 PM

LBP - stands for Lower Back Pain

**Zacha341** · March-12-13, 07:28 PM

^^^ --

-- This place is poppin' with comedy tonight. Good one!

**Oldman** · March-12-13, 07:41 PM

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???

**ElbertHanks** · March-12-13, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by Oldman

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.

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.

**313WX** · March-12-13, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by Artistic

LBP - stands for Lower Back Pain

Perfection!!!

**7miledog** · March-12-13, 08:58 PM

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.

**jtf1972** · March-12-13, 09:34 PM

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!

**downtownguy** · March-12-13, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

...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.

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?

**Wesley Mouch** · March-12-13, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by ElbertHanks

Obviously, quite a few people are blinded by their hate of LBP or simply lack basic understanding of how fault is determined.
...

Great post, Elbert. Unless you've been around insurance-world, its hard to understand how it all works. No fault!? Ha.

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?

**compn** · March-12-13, 11:51 PM

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?

**gnome** · March-13-13, 04:27 AM

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.

**Honky Tonk** · March-13-13, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by compn

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?

How many people here drive over the speed limit?