<p>The husband is demaning another autoposy. Doesnt believe results. The times has reported that the woman had a spotless driving record, and police had never been called to her house.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, first of all “experiencing grief” is a pretty watered down phrase for “he lost all his children.”</p>
<p>And secondly, will tormenting him make theirs go away?</p>
<p>If I gave my car to one of my adult children and they got drunk and caused an accident, then I would be libel for any damage caused as a result of the accident.</p>
<p>It is the same if I lend it to my neighbor or brother. By lending that vehicle, I am taking responsiblility for their actions while driving.</p>
<p>This is of course so tragic because of the circumstance of the brothers loss.</p>
<p>While no amount of money can make a difference in the sense of bringing back lives, if the realization of potential financial liability stops even one person from doing something like this it would be constructive. The reports of alcohol and drugs are shocking, and there sounds as though there must be more to the story than what is presently being reported in terms of what the husband and/or brother knew at the time of departure from the campsite. (I am also a little surprised by the late discovery of a vodka bottle in what had been reported as a heavily burned vehicle but there has been no suggestion of planted evidence and the autopsy seems pretty straightforward, however shocking the results.) In any case, whether it is a matter of one’s own behavior or enabling another’s behavior, maybe there are other lives to be saved by further investigation and legal action even if it does, on the surface, seem like assigning blame and piling on grief where tragedy has already occurred.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I explained earlier in the thread, this is how it works. It’s the car that is insured, and as long as the driver was given permission, it’s the insurer of the car that will handle the claims for the accident. It has nothing to do with “where the money is”. Although it’s likely that the driver will also be named in the suit, and her estate as well as the owner of the car will both be served, it’s the insurer who will settle this suit.</p>
<p>As someone else said, check your liability coverages. In some states, the minimum amount required is very low. This is not the place to save a few bucks. An umbrella policy should be standard these days for anyone who has assets. Lastly, be careful who you allow to drive your car and make clear to your kids that they are not to allow their friends to drive your car. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve recognized the cars of my friends around town, and the kids who have been driving are not theirs! This happens more than parents like to think, particularly if your kids drive to school.</p>
<p>I do agree that it was unnecessary for the lawyer to be commenting on the case at this point. However, my guess is that the press has been harassing the survivors of the three men and they likely referred them to their attorney. He should have given no comment, as it is unnecessary for him to be saying anything to the press about what plans they have.</p>
<p>Do all discussions like this always and only go to legalities? Does anyone think the brother leant his van (and his children) to his sister with any expectation that she would commit this crime?</p>
<p>I get the legal possibilities. </p>
<p>I’m talking about common human decency.</p>
<p>
What do you say to the family of the men who were killed by this woman? Perhaps the younger man had a kid in college or a mortgage that needs to be paid. That family has lost its loved one through no fault of its own. Shouldn’t they be protected from financial catastrophe, as well? Common human decency tells me that the survivors of that family should be protected as well as possible. But I still think it’s all about finding out what happened, which I think they have a right to do.</p>
<p>
Of course not, but it may come out that he should have. Some families have a culture that make driving and substance abuse a common thing. My husband’s sister and her husband are among them. Attractive, prominent, financially stable people in their 40s. They also grow marijuana in their backyard and smoke with their kids, because they see no harm in smoking pot and think it should be legal. The day of my daughter’s visit to her top college, we found out about their son’s arrest for dealing was on the front page of our local newspaper. The culture of that household allowed this to happen.</p>
<p>The person I feel heart-rending sorrow for is the mother of the three little girls. How will she ever get out of bed again?</p>
<p>Well, she will be included in that suit, too, I imagine.</p>
<p>garland, of course the brother wouldn’t have expected this, who would? As zoosermom points out, the families of those three men who were killed should be protected. That’s the purpose of insurance, and I hope that the brother had a sufficient amount. With what the brother and his wife are going through right now, my guess is that nothing could make it worse than it already is, including the fact their their insurer will without a doubt settle this with the plaintiffs at the appropriate time. If your husband had been one of those three innocent men in that car, would you not want to protect the financial interests and responsibilities that he had for you and your children? </p>
<p>zoosermom, I have been thinking about that mother, too. It’s impossible to even begin to imagine. I also feel tremendous sorrow for the grandparents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What she said!!</p>
<p>This is an absolutely epic tragedy that will haunt people for a very long time. For me, to witness another woman lose ALL of her children takes my breath away and I bet it does for every other mother the world over. It’s the kind of thing that haunts every mother’s nightmares and to see it actually happen is beyond jarring. This was such a wrong, terrible circumstance for so many people. I totally understand what you’re saying Garland, I really do. I just come back to the fact that the family of the driver could circle the wagons in order to protect her memory and their interests, victimizing the other family again. Their interests are not only not shared, they’re sort of adverse if you think about it, and I think the second family should have legal representation to protect its interests both now and as further information comes out.</p>
<p>Chiming in to agree that a wrongful-death type settlement is not intended to cure the survivor’s grief. It’s meant to compensate them for the tangible loss they suffered due to someone else’s behavior.</p>
<p>To illustrate this point, suppose that a husband is killed and the wife sues. It’s legally irrelevant whether the wife is destroyed by grief, or whether she’s secretly glad that he’s gone. She had an earner, a companion, the security of being married, and now she does not. The compensable loss she has suffered is the same regardless of her feelings about it. (In the unlikely event that such a case went to a jury, the jury might be swayed to increase the award by the wife’s outpouring of grief, but that’s a fault in the system. And 99.99% of such cases are settled out of court.)</p>
<p>If it were not for the drinking and driving, this is a case in which the brother’s insurance company would offer the limits of the policy day one - no haggling - just offer it. The brother’s family would barely be involved as it would be more like a contract case. The only issue would be who gets what of the 3 men. Assuming the younger one was gainfully employed, he would get the most. I don’t know if New York caps pain and suffering or not but it doesn’t appear there was any here and there were no medical bills so lost wages is what they would consider. The attorney is arguing that this is tantamount to murder and he plans to look for accomplices. That is a criminal matter and is completely separate from the insurance claim. The facts impact the insurance claim in that they bring punitive damages into the mix - thus jeopardizing the brother’s finances unless he had very high insurance limits. The victims’ families can still choose to settle for policy limits. Attorneys do have to be careful throwing about accusations that can give rise for a claim of no coverage by the insurance carrier. I handled a medical malpractice case in which the doctor falsified records. Had the insurance company known, they could have denied coverage on the basis of fraud by the insured. The insurance company here could make an argument that, if the brother knew the sister was going to drive impaired and loaned her the car, then coverage is negated. I don’t think it would work, but it wouldn’t be novel.</p>
<p>Hanna, I am not objecting to wrongful death settlements in general and I do understand their purpose.</p>
<p>What I do object to is the possible scenario where the families of the three men are not satisfied by an insurance settlement. From the statements I’ve seen, it looks as if they considering a lawsuit that is separate from the insurance claim. What bothers me is 1.) the assumption that the brother could somehow have anticipated her behavior and that he is at fault, and 2.) the financial devastation that he and his wife would have to suffer in addition to their grief–and for what purpose? If the insurance money is not enough for the other survivors, are we talking about a situation where the brother will lose his home? His other assets? And how could he be expected to know that his sister would do such a thing? How could anyone know, unless she had a long history of drunk driving? Maybe that is the case, of course, but I just don’t see jumping to that conclusion because it’s inconceivable that he would have allowed his own children to be put in that situation.</p>
<p>It’s a lot of speculation, of course. But even if the brother and his wife won that lawsuit, their assets would be used up on huge legal fees. And I’m sorry but a lawsuit like that–with hopes of compensation beyond insurance–seems to carry the whiff of vindictiveness about it. </p>
<p>Is it good to structure liability laws in this way? If it keeps people from giving their car keys to a drunk person, or to someone who has a documented history of drunk driving, then I would say yes. But if that person has no such history? Then I fail to see the point of financially ruining the third party. The lesson then becomes don’t ever, ever loan your car to anyone, regardless of circumstances and carry a large umbrella policy.</p>
<p>
it is through that lawsuit that information will be forthcoming, not through the processing of an insurance claim. I really do think that they want to know what happened and why, and in the same situation I’d want to know, too. The lawsuit protects their rights and provides the vehicle for getting that information and getting statements under oath.</p>
<p>The article about the husband asking for a new autopsy doesn’t seem to be disputing the alcohol and drugs but rather that there had to be something going on in her brain to make her make such bad choices, at least that is how I read it.</p>
<p>[Taconic</a> crash driver Diane Schuler’s husband wants exhumation prove illness played role in wreck](<a href=“http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/08/06/2009-08-06_husband_will_ask_to_exhume_wifes_body_in_disbelief_of_drug_find_vics_families_se.html]Taconic”>http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/08/06/2009-08-06_husband_will_ask_to_exhume_wifes_body_in_disbelief_of_drug_find_vics_families_se.html)</p>
<p>As far as the criminality involved–aside from the driver’s obviously criminal act–it seems like her husband is the one who’ll be on the hot seat. He was there with her in the campground that morning. If anyone knew that she’d been drinking or in possession of alcohol, it would have been him–not her brother. </p>
<p>In this case, I can understand the husband’s actions/knowledge being the focus of a civil lawsuit (not to mention criminal charges). I would support this, despite the additional suffering it would eventually cause to the surviving child.</p>
<p>Europa, they’re probably just casting a wide net right now and putting all interested parties, including prosecutors and police, on notice that they want answers.</p>
<p>“the assumption that the brother could somehow have anticipated her behavior and that he is at fault”</p>
<p>But that assumption is there even if the SUV family just takes the insurance money. You don’t take money from the brother’s insurance unless the brother is responsible. If he’s responsible, then he’s responsible for the full amount of the loss, not just amount of coverage he happened to buy.</p>
<p>If just the facts as reported are true – that there was undigested alcohol in the driver’s stomach and an open vodka bottle in the car – then there was a serious substance abuse problem in the family, and close relatives had to know something was wrong. Nobody begins a slide into alcoholism by chugging straight vodka in broad daylight while driving a vanful of kids. This is plenty to create a reasonable suspicion that the brother may have been negligent in lending her the car. And that’s really all you need for a lawsuit.</p>
<p>Edit – Just saw the post about the exhumation – I guess it’s possible that she had some kind of stroke or seizure that led to this crazy behavior. I haven’t heard of that before, but maybe someone with a neurology background can tell us if it happens.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does “protect” mean? I mean plain English-ly, not legally. If the perpretrator is dead, there is no one to “protect” from. A source of money, from someone not responsible, may be legally available, but, for me, is not necessarily morally available.</p>
<p>Demonstrating that for my kids is more important than money.</p>