<p>I don’t think the lawsuit is appalling. It’s likely with the thought to cover whatever future expenses are necessary for his son who was injured seriously in the accident, and monies that might be needed for any kind of therapy he needs in the future. The suit has to be filed within two years of the date of loss so if he was going to proceed, it had to be done at this time. </p>
<p>I watched the documentary (it isn’t a series) and I agree with cartera, it didn’t answer many questions. I think it is an incredibly tragic story, for everyone involved. Watching the documentary, I think I felt most sorry for the sister-in-law (Daniel’s brother’s wife, not the mother of the girls. The Hances did not participate in the documentary) who seems to have had quite the burden of all this since the accident. I don’t think it’s clear at all what the explanation is for the alcohol and THC content in her blood, or what would trigger her to do this when responsible for the kids. I did get the feeling that something more happened between the husband and wife prior to leaving the campground, and also that something in the phone call to her brother may have precipitated something further. </p>
<p>The interviews with the owner of the campground (who saw her and spoke to the kids as they were leaving), the servers at McDonalds as well as the video of her stop at the gas station show no indication that there was any unusual behavior or intoxication at that point. </p>
<p>Daniel Schuler does, as cartera pointed out, seem like a shell of a man. He seems like someone who hasn’t sought any type of counselling but who would benefit from some. Although the documentary was interesting, this is the type of story that will never have all of the questions answered, and that’s unfortunate for those who are directly affected. The photographs of Diane’s body were, indeed, shocking. I wish they hadn’t included those.</p>
<p>It’s interesting that the private investigator hired by Daniel Schuler now states that he and Mr. Schuler are no longer associated. Apparently he could find no evidence to support that the toxicology tests were tainted in any way, and he could find no evidence to support any of the other possibilities for Diane’s behavior other than alcohol and marijuana use. Daniel did not appreciate his findings/lack of findings, so the two have parted ways.</p>
<p>I could respect Daniel Schuler’s position so much more if he said something along the lines of “Diane’s actions that day are completely at odds with the wife and mother I knew. While she had never before demonstrated a problem with alcohol and drugs, she unfortunately made poor choices that day, for reasons which are unknown to me and impossible to understand. While the outcome of those choices was incredibly tragic, it does not negate my love for her or my belief that apart from that fateful day, she was a loving and responsible mother and aunt.”</p>
<p>THAT I could get. I cannot respect his repeated denials that ALL toxicology tests are wrong or that they can be explained away with some of his cockamamy theories, none of which have been demonstrated to be true.</p>
<p>As to the HBO special: it was reported at the time that Daniel Schuler and HBO made their deal to produce this documentary that Diane’s body would be exhumed as part of the production, with the certainty that new toxicology tests would refute all of the other forensics. Did that occur? Were new tests done, and if so, what were the results?</p>
<p>The five part series I referenced turns out to be a five part news series in the link I provided, not a documentary series. My bad.</p>
<p>What’s interesting, nrdsb4, is that in the documentary, much was made of the fact that Ruskin wasn’t returning the sister-in-law’s calls or answering questions or providing the results he obtained, after repeated attempts on her part. She was apparently under the impression that they paid him thousands of dollars and he provided nothing. It wasn’t til late in the documentary that she finally did actually speak to him and he said that he’d provided all the information to Daniel that the test results were consistent with the original findings. Daniel hadn’t shared that with her! According to Daniel, Ruskin had taken all their money and virtually disappeared. It was indicated that he was still trying to get permission to exhume Diane’s body for a second autopsy. I’m not sure how difficult that is for a spouse to do, or if it’s difficult at all, or if he’s just saying that it’s difficult to avoid facing the truth.</p>
<p>They have not exhumed her body. New tests were run on the old samples and the results were the same. </p>
<p>I wonder how much liability coverage there was on the two cars. </p>
<p>Diane Schuler made twice what her husband made so Dan is likely in need of money. His son will need therapy for quite some time. I’m sure he has been told that filing suit is one of his only avenues to money right now, and even recognizing that filing is the only way to stake a claim, it is still unseemly under the circumstances.</p>
<p>I thought New York had a 3 year statute of limitations for personal injury, but that could have changed. I believe it is 2 years for wrongful death so that will impact the track of all the suits. The rules are different when a minor is injured, however.</p>
<p>After reading the thread I went back and watched the documentary. And not only did Ruskin give Danny the report but he tried to return Jay’s calls to him at the time. When Jay calls her on that, she says that she was told not to answer his calls because they thought he wasn’t doing anything. So she knew that he was trying to call them all along.</p>
<p>I also find it interesting that in an earlier scene when Jay is smoking she is laughing that they are filming her smoking because “her family doesn’t know she smokes and they will be surprised”. Wow, so it is possible for her to hide smoking from her family but not for Diane to hide drinking?</p>
<p>Was it ever made clear why Diane left the campsite with all the kids, and the other adults left separately? Also, did anyone explore whether or not there was an altercation between Diane and Danny sometime that weekend?</p>
<p>It seems as though Danny is in denial, and that their marriage may not have been the fairy tale he wants to believe.</p>
<p>I just can’t understand why you would put your own three kids in a van with one adult and two other children. It’s a challenge to travel with your own children sometimes, let alone three more, when you are the only adult in the car.</p>
<p>^^The kids were there with Danny and Diane for the weekend, which is why they had borrowed the Hances’ minivan. The girls’ parents were not there. Danny took the dog with him in the pickup truck and Diane took all the kids with her in the van. I don’t think that’s an unusual scenario.</p>
<p>It was just one of those danged things that ended in a tragedy. I don’t think there was anything deliberate about any of this or anything fishy. That others who saw Diane and who did not know her at the McD’s and rest stop, and did not find her behavior such that she should not have been driving, pretty much tells us that she did not appear that out of it to anyone. The lawsuits are sadly the pragmatic way to go.</p>
<p>The parents of the three girls were not on the camping trip; the Schulers hosted their nieces at the campground along with their own two children.</p>
<p>My husband and I usually take two cars to our lake house. It’s impossible to fit our kids, their guests, two dogs, personal belongings, and food in one car. I don’t find their arrangement at all unusual or bothersome.</p>
<p>The only thing outrageous about this is the fact that Diane Schuler consumed a large amount of alcohol in a short amount of time while driving a van with five children with it, and then added insult to injury by smoking marijuana on top of it. Clear negligence-any adult knows that it is unwise as well as illegal to partake of drugs and alcohol while driving. There is no excuse for her behavior.</p>
<p>^ “The only thing outrageous about this is the fact that Diane Schuler consumed a large amount of alcohol in a short amount of time while driving a van with five children with it, and then added insult to injury by smoking marijuana on top of it.”</p>
<p>I totally agree she shouldn’t have done that, but you’ve got to wonder if she hadn’t done it before (driven drunk and/or high with kids in the car) and nothing happened. I don’t think you go from never driving under the influence to suddenly slamming down 10 drinks and getting behind the wheel. Maybe she lost track (hey – after the 7th drink – who’s counting, right?)</p>
<p>Thanks everyone. What I had been reading on another site led me to believe that Diane’s brother and sister-in-law were camping also, but were following her home in their own car. That’s what didn’t make sense to me, and apparently it’s not the way things went. I agree that the travesty is the behavior of Diane, and I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. I’m just trying to make some sense of this. Why? Why would she behave like this? (These are rhetorical questions.) I guess I’m wondering if there was a highly emotional communication between Diane and Danny that contributed to this. We will never know.</p>
<p>^^^^Well, Daniel knows, and he denies anything out of the ordinary occurred before he and Diane parted ways that morning. If that is not the truth of the matter, I doubt he will ever admit to it.</p>
<p>It turns out we DO have HBO as part of our cable package. I never even knew it! I plan to watch the documentary tonight, although I am prepared for the fact that no conclusions can be drawn from it.</p>
<p>How can the owner be responsible in this case? This was not a case of mechanical failure. She was drunk, high and driving the wrong way at 80mph. What in the world does that have to do with the vehicle itself?</p>
<p>I’ve got the same questions about her husband saying that the entrance/exit ramps were “confusing.” She was not in a state to be reading signs, for goodness sake. She was wasted. Cars she nearly ran into before hitting the SUV were honking their horns at her, for goodness sake. Clearly she was beyond taking cues from her surroundings.</p>
<p>I once drove the wrong way on a one-way street; was actually going the wrong way in a turn only lane the other direction. Fortunately, traffic was light & I managed to pull into a driveway and turn myself the correct direction. That’s was one time too many! I ended up living in the apartment building whose driveway I pulled into (which was why I was in the area in the 1st place–checking out the area). It’s the same apartment building President Obama lived in for a few years in HI with his grandma. </p>
<p>OK, sorry for the detour, back to this thread.</p>
<p>A timely reminder for us adult children with aging parents. The time to take away the keys is before a terrible accident happens. We owe it not only to our parents, but to innocent others.</p>