<p>Considering he used a company vehicle belonging to his parent’s company, he’s not the only one legally responsible according to several reports. </p>
<p>Some legal commentators have mentioned the company itself is also liable as the vehicle wasn’t considered legally stolen at the time of the drunken driving or the theft of alcohol as Couch had full access to the truck. Depending on jurisdiction, his parents may also be held personally liable as he’s a minor, the crime involved underage drinking, and there have been past incidents involving alcohol.</p>
<p>The company is definitely being sued, as are both parents and Ethan himself. There will likely be a very large payout, though certainly nothing which will ever make the situation right for the victims and their loved ones.</p>
<p>The most civil court judgments could do is to make a reasonable effort at an attempt to ameliorate the negative effects for the victims and their loved ones.</p>
<p>There is a link to one of the suits in post 42, I believe, and an earlier link to an article indicating that there have been 5 suits filed. This should not come as any surprise. This was a horrible situation with multiple victims.</p>
<p>If he doesn’t learn his lesson, not having insurance will not stop him from driving. Without insurance he would not be able to reister a car, yes? The solution? Why, a chauffeur I would think.</p>
<p>In Texas, he would be able to get the State required minimum liability through the assigned risk pool, assuming he has a driver’s license. Minimum liability in Texas is 30/60/25 ($30,000 per person/$60,000 per accident for bodily injury, and $25,000 property damage.) That will not go far, especially if he kills four people and totals several vehicles like he did this time. He would not be able to buy higher limits through the pool, and I don’t think he could get an umbrella policy without higher underlying limits.</p>
<p>Getting his driver’s license would mainly require paying a lot of fees, which he probably would not have a problem doing, given his affluence.</p>
<p>This is what bothers me. If the court really thinks that a crime is the result of a child being spoiled, indulged, etc. Then WHO do they hold responsible? If they are saying that the parents never set limits or held Junior accountable and THAT is the reason that he killed four and seriously injured another, then why do they not hold the parents responsible?</p>
<p>This wasn’t an accident. A series of decisions led this boy to the place in the road where he ended those lives. Someone is responsible. I believe that the teen is. But if the court thinks it’s the fault of the parents then put them in jail. You can’t have it both ways.</p>
<p>This whole case has a ring of “Officer Krumpke” from West Side Story, where the blame is shifted between society, the parents, and everyone but the defendants themselves, blameshifting all around. It plays out often.</p>
<p>The media and resulting public furor has neglected to notice that the “court” never once said that the affluenza defense proposed by EC’s attorneys was accepted. In fact, the judge said the exact opposite; she explicitly stated that it was EC who was responsible for the accident, NOT the parents. The actual sticking point is not that EC is not responsible, it’s what is to be done about it. The judge ruled on the side of rehabilitation vs. punishment. We can disagree with her all day about that, but the fact of the matter is that the court never bought into the argument that EC’s affluence and parents’ refusal to ever hold him accountable caused these events and is therefore excusable. After I read more than a few headlines about this case, it became obvious to me that it was the media who ran with the defense premise, not the judge.</p>
<p>The media wants the sound-bites that it thinks will grab headlines, so it comes up with these “catchy” headlines or titles or whatever. It often distorts and that distortion receives MUCH more publicity than the FACTS, sadly. Thanks for the clarification.</p>