<p>
</p>
<p>Witnesses forget things. Evidence gets lost. People are angry and they want something to happen now. </p>
<p>As I’ve said, I’m failing to grasp why it is that people who have had loved ones killed in such a sudden and violent manner are being expected to defer to someone else’s grief. I suppose that would be nice but I know myself too well to hold out the idea that I would somehow manage it better should it have been my loved ones in the SUV. Or the van.</p>
<p>Thanks, Nrdsb4, you made the point much better than I did.</p>
<p>toblin, you are undoubtedly right about that. There are absolutely no winners here.</p>
<p>pugmadkate, the lawyer is not grieving. As I said in my post, if time is of the essence re:a lawsuit, fine. Was it necessary to go to the press with some of the comments he made, given that he has NO idea what the brother knew or didn’t know? I don’t hold anyone’s grief higher than anyone else’s. It’s possible to do the right thing for one’s clients and be humane and compassionate at the same time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, let’s really make it tough for the first offense. Community service, mandatory alcohol awareness classes, suspension of a driver’s license. Let’s really make a point, that’s how you keep the second offense from happening where the consequences are so much worse.</p>
<p>How many times do you hear this kind of story and you find out the driver had earlier infractions? I know it would be a tough sentence for a DWI but my reaction to hearing that someone got a DWI is always the same, you should be grateful that you didn’t kill anyone.</p>
<p>The thing is, there is no excuse for drinking and driving, none. I’m not telling you not to drink, I’m not asking anyone to be perfect. I’m telling you that if you’ve been drinking don’t get behind the wheel, no matter what.</p>
<p>europa – you’re thinking rationally, grief makes people crazy.</p>
<p>Nrdsb4 – I think the lawyer is just doing his job.</p>
<p>I agree with Europa. Yes, there are two grieving families, and no, I don’t favor one over the other. For either to inflict more pain on the other, when the other did not cause the accident, is incomprehensible to me. I, personally, would not sue the survivors, if the one who caused it was dead. there will be an investigation. Litigation isn’t the only way to “get answers.” and in the end, sometimes, there are no real answers. that’s just a fact.</p>
<p>And I have lost a loved one to vehicular homicide. The tow truck which smashed her car was not at fault, and we did not sue the driver. He was traumatized enough as it was.</p>
<p>Pea, your no-tolerance suggestions for drinking & driving seem to be borne out by the experience of other nations–I think the laws are particularly harsh in Germany and Scandanavia, with much a much lower incidence of drunk driving as the result. </p>
<p>But what this woman did–drinking hard liquor in the morning with a van full of children–goes beyond drunk driving. It was insanity. You wonder if even the harshest penalties could deter someone like that. That’s why this case is so disturbing.</p>
<p>Garland would you feel differently in this case if it came out that the husband or brother knew that the driver was drunk?</p>
<p>If the husband left her at the campsite drunk or liable to drink, I could understand the reaction. But the brother was not there. The brother was many miles away, on the phone, then driving over there, trying to keep his kids safe. How could he be at fault?</p>
<p>Zoosermom, I see your point. </p>
<p>If the husband knew that she was drunk when they left the camp, then–not knowing the precise points of the law–I do understand that he should bear some responsibility. I would understand the other family proceeding with a suit. As to the brother, he was far away at the time and (as I understood it), could not have prevented her from driving at that point. And indeed tried to get her to stop during the phone call. I just did not see the point of suing him just because he was the owner of the van. As you noted, though, the facts will come out during the lawsuit and perhaps she had a long history of drunk driving…</p>
<p>…and then the question is not why her brother loaned her the van, but why he permitted her to drive his children.</p>
<p>garland, I’m very sorry for your loss.</p>
<p>europa – You are correct about how the European countries have much harsher penalties and a much lower incidence of drunk driving fatalities.</p>
<p>My attitude also comes from a personal experience. I know the drunk driver in a crash that killed 5 people. His life was forever changed from what he did. I’ve had years to think of ways we as a society might have kept him from doing something so stupid.</p>
<p>Another interesting aspect to that story is that the victim’s families successfully sued the owner of the bar that served him too much alcohol. You can view it as holding the wrong people accountable but on the other hand bars stop serving people who have had too much to drink, and the threat of a lawsuit probably has a lot to do with this.</p>
<p>Like one of the earlier posters said, there are no winners in these kinds of stories, everyone loses and the tragedies are compounded by the fact that they were so preventable.</p>
<p>Only thing I’ve heard tonight on local news is that the husband has hired a criminal defense attorney…</p>
<p>I believe there is a lot more to this story to come.</p>
<p>As a former insurance defense attorney, I don’t think it is cruel or vicious to sue the owner of the van. As Zmom says, this may be the only way to get to the truth. The insurance company will offer policy limits immediately. This is not a case to fight. The issue is whether there is enough insurance to satisfy everyone with a settlement. If not, they can continue to go after the brother and the estate of the driver. They may be able to drive them both into bankruptcy in this case, depending on the facts obviously. That is when everyone can argue about piling on. </p>
<p>On my soap box now. Call your insurance carrier tomorrow and get an umbrella policy - at least $1m. You may be able to lower the limits of the liability on your policy and some save money this way. If you have a teenage driver in the house, that probably won’t happen. Everyone wants to do everything they can to be in the position so that the insurance company can settle a bad liability claim and limit the chances of an excess verdict - a verdict in the amount over the policy limits. Also, get the maximum coverage offered for uninsured motorist coverage.</p>
<p>Much more will probably come out shortly. Supposedly the husband and wife departed the same time from the campsite. Was he impaired to? Did he know she was? Did he know she had vodka/ joints with her?</p>
<p>I also wouldn’t be surprised if the brother who came running to find her and alerted police to her “feeling sick” knew of her condition from their conversation. I have been in situations where I have told my husband I am driving feeling ill (bad headache, fever, flu etc.) and he has never felt the need to come racing to my rescue and alert the police. Supposedly she had told her brother she was well enough to drive, but I suspect he knew she was really impaired and probably understood the situation even though it has not come out yet.</p>
<p>I doubt she was in the habit of smoking dope by herself. Perhaps the camp was the setting for lots of dope smoking among the adults. If so, they would all know that was likely going on. They may not have even been concerned that she might drive high and may have done it themselves. Lots of people their age smoke dope on a regular basis - or at least every weekend. Drinking that much, or anything at all, is a different beast. Putting that much of the two together, behind the wheel - reckless disregard to the level of homicide in my book. </p>
<p>I found it interesting that she left with all those kids and he took the family dog.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why they wouldn’t sue the liable party-- the people in the other car died through no fault of their own, and they have financial obligations. Assuming that the brother had liability coverage on his auto insurance, then its just getting an insurance claim. If they are looking for an amount far above the policy coverage then perhaps that is piling on, but the fact that the brother is experiencing grief doesn’t make the grief of the other family any less.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Theory only: If it was murder/suicide the liable party is dead. Just maybe the vodka and marijuana were purposely used only for courage enhancing. Used in conjunction with an evil determination to cause a terrible hurt to someone(s) who were not there. And the innocent victims be dammed.</p>
<p>The owner of the car (in this case the brother of the driver) is the insured and that’s where the money is.</p>