<p>europa - the only way those facts may come out is through a law suit. Everything is speculation at this point, but let’s say the brother knew that the sister often drove drunk and stoned and had done so from the camp before. Maybe he didn’t know she would have the kids with her. Was he willing to risk his van, but not his kids? That doesn’t matter with regard to liability. Maybe the husband was supposed to drive the kids home and something happened to change that. There is no way to determine that unless depositions are taken. He could still lie about it, but chances are, other people know and their depositions can be taken. There are all manner of things that can only be accessed through litigation. The process of the litigation protects both sides. The other attorney is talking about criminal charges though - a different ball of wax and may be used as a scare tactic to encourage more cooperation in the civil suit. It may also get the message out to people that you don’t lend your car to people who drink and drive. Yes, you should be very careful about loaning a car. It can be a very lethal weapon in the wrong hands.</p>
<p>
Even if those kids lose their home or way of life? </p>
<p>And what if it turns out that the brother did bear some responsibility? Who’s to say that what we’re seeing right now is the entire picture?</p>
<p>I am a physician. I think that the chances that she “had a medical problem that suddenly caused her to bringe drink and smoke” like a brain tumor, etc are EXTREMELY low. Her medical problem was likely that she had a substance abuse problem. How else can you explain drinking vodka out of the bottle while driving a van full of kids after already smoking marijuana. I can’t imagine this being a suicide attempt in a nondrinker. If this was some sort of a suicide gesture, it is another mark of someone with chronic substance abuse as their underlying problem.</p>
<p>garland, </p>
<p>In the case you described–in which you chose not to sue–I assume that there was no evidence that the driver was stoned or drunk. This time there is. </p>
<p>The story doesn’t add up. It just doesn’t. And if my husband had been killed by a woman who was driving while drunk and stoned, I’d want information too. Remember that the police initially complained that the driver’s family was refusing to talk to them. Now, there are many possible reasons for that, including the advice of an attorney. However, if I were the wife of one of the adult victims and the cops told me that the family of the drunk/stoned driver wasn’t co-operating, I wouldn’t just say “oh those poor people. What good would suing do? Why, I won’t even ask for the limits of the insurance policy.” If you’d do that, garland, Bless you. I wouldn’t. </p>
<p>Lets assume that the woman had a stroke or the abcess infection spread to her brain or she was diabetic. She’s driving. Do you really believe that she stopped along the side of the road and said “Anyone here got a joint?” and got one? And she then went to a liquor store and announced “I want to buy a 1.75 liter bottle of vodka,” paid for it, and walked out…without the liquor store owner having any idea that she was impaired? </p>
<p>If you believe that, may I introduce you to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy?</p>
<p>Right you say…but that doesn’t mean her brother or her husband knew. You’re right…it doesn’t. But if I were the widow I’d want to have some questions answered before I came to that conclusion.</p>
<p>Of course, we do not know the entire picture now. We can only hope that the process of litigation, as Zoosermom and cartera have described, is as productive as possible and does bring all the facts into the open.</p>
<p>But I very much hope that if this woman’s problems were hidden that her brother and his wife will not be held accountable for something that they didn’t see coming. It would be an additional cruelty were they to lose their home and all other financial assets for behavior that they could not reasonably have anticipated. According to today’s NY Times, she was someone who drank a couple of pina coladas a year. We don’t know if this is true, of course. But if her problem was something that she was very adept at concealing from neighbors and coworkers, it seems unnecessarily harsh to expect her brother to be aware of it. Maybe he did know, but I think a presumption of innocence is fair (though that’s only for criminal cases, I know, and not that “fairness” enters into many lawsuits), because most of us can’t believe he’d put his daughters at risk.</p>
<p>Which brings me back to speculating about what happened, once again. I’m sure it will be years before the full story is known…</p>
<p>The stories may not be true, but the floodgates have opened up with stories of how the driver was a boozer. So there may be more to the story.</p>
<p>I know people who have lost loved ones in accidents who put the insurance money in a scholarship fund or donated it to an appropriate charity. In doing that, they felt that they were able to see something positive come out of it. Not taking an insurance settlement only benefits the insurance company, not the insured. The insurance company will still raise the premium or even drop the insured.</p>
<p>Europa, the brother has to be involved by virtue of owning the vehicle, even if it’s the husband the lawsuit means to target. There is no way, lawsuit or no, the brother isn’t going to be involved and incur legal fees. The various investigations and such make that part of his further victimhood. And please remember that it was his sister who did this to him, no one else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Protect in the respect of supporting your livelihood, and that of your children. Paying for your housing, living expenses, college, etc. Ignoring the emotional loss, if a breadwinner is killed, chances are good that the everyday lifestyle of his or her family is going to change drastically. This is what liability insurance is for, and cartera is right, the only party who would benefit if a settlement is declined would be the insurance company.</p>
<p>First off, we really don’t have all the facts.
It is quite possible, even remotely, that if she was a diabetic it would be plausible her blood sugar may have dropped to levels where she would be disoriented, blurred vision, unable to think clearly. She might have had nothing in the car to help counteract the low BS such as OJ or protein and grabbed the vodka(pure Sugar alcohol) taking in more than she should have and that may have coumpounded the marijuana that was in her system.</p>
<p>I am just playing devil’s advocate. No excuse for it, but things happen.</p>
<p>What is tragic is that the families of those poor men in the SUV have some legal recourse, while the brother and his wife have none and they lost their only three daughters.</p>
<p>I cannot even begin to imagine their pain on all levels.</p>
<p>edit: just a side note. The husband swears that Diane Schuler did not have a substance abuse problem and the most she ever drank was 2 pina coladas a year.</p>
<p>
But lots of witnesses are coming forward with stories of her being a serious drinker with marital problems and the campground being a notorious party place. Who knows if those are true, but the image of her as a non-drinker suddenly doing this doesn’t make sense. The autopsy ruled out diabetes.</p>
<p>Jonri–but the driver isn’t the one being sued.</p>
<p>I am going to quit this discussion. It’s plain I’m just in a different place from the norm. So be it.</p>
<p>garland, I see your point, but with car insurance, it is as if the car is the one being sued. Of course, we look at the driver’s actions, but the insurance travels with the car, not the driver so the owner of the car is always involved in some way. That is a good thing in some respects because the owner of the car needs to be careful about who drives the car. They are the person in charge of who drives it and who can stop the wrong person from driving it.</p>
<p>Garland, I totally get what you are saying. Unfortunately this country has become so litiginous that we absolutely have to pin blame on someone and everyone has to pay for their acts. Even if the person who might be responsible is dead, so we go after the next person. I personally don’t think it is right.
The only thing that makes any sense to me is this: if it were my husband who was wrongfully harmed and he was no longer able to provide for our home or child’s education, then who should be responsible?
I would go after the insurance company,
But I would never do anything to ruin a family.</p>
<p>I lost my brother and father to medical malpractise, but it was my family’s decision not to sue because mistakes do happen and nothing was going to bring them back. That is how we roll. But not everyone feels that way. Personal decision.</p>
<p>garland, I happen to agree with you. So you’re not quite all alone here!</p>
<p>cartera, it’s not the insurance money that is the sticking point with me. Of course it should be paid to the families of the men in the SUV. That’s what insurance is for. What bothers me is the prospect of the additional lawsuit against the brother simply because he was the owner of the van and was expected to anticipate his sister’s behavior. Maybe he did know about her behavior, and this fact will come out in the lawsuit. I would understand that the law demands more assets from him to be paid to the other survivors. </p>
<p>But I do hope that if he did NOT know that she had a serious drinking problem then he and his wife will not be brought to financial ruin by the lawsuit simply because the other survivors feel that they need additional compensation beyond the insurance. Honestly, how many of us are completely aware of all aspects of our relatives’ behavior? He might have seen her have a drink or two at a party, but even so does that mean the law expects him to have anticipated she’d chug vodka on a Sunday morning with five children in the car? Who would reasonably expect such a scenario?</p>
<p>If so, I think the law is being unreasonably demanding and that is my point–structuring laws so that someone can suffer financial ruin just because they didn’t have perfect information is wrong.</p>
<p>
I really don’t think that’s the point of the lawsuit. It seems to be much more about getting answers and the survivors have absolutely no other way of getting them. So the alternative to the lawsuit is for a family who is completely innocent in all this to never know how or why their loved ones died. That’s asking an awful lot of anyone, and the insurance company will provide the family’s representation, so the likelihood of them facing financial ruin absent significant culpability is very slim. If the brother is honest and forthcoming, even with a lawsuit pending, their financial hit will probably be exactly what it would have been. And you know what? When all’s said and done, the mother of those three girls also has a right to know and she is probably the first person the husband of the driver will lie to if he knew anything at all.</p>
<p>I am not a great believer in suing. When my daughter and I were in a bad wreck several years ago I just wanted to get back what I had lost - my 1 year old car was totaled, but miraculously we were uninjured other than some severe whiplash. Everyone, including a friend of a friend who was an insurance broker, was amazed that we did not sue. All we wanted was the hospital bills paid (an ambulance was called because our car was crushed all the way up to the back seat where my daughter was sitting and we had to have xrays and stuff) and the car replaced. it was completely the other drivers fault but it never crossed my mind to sue.</p>
<p>But if my daughter had died (and believe me everyone from the witnessed, to the police, to the EMTs, to the tow company that hauled my car away, were just amazed that she was not badly injured or dead when they saw the car) - don’t know how I would have reacted. Grief and anger can make you do things you might not otherwise.</p>
<p>I just watched a news conference in which Dan Schuler insisted that his wife is not an alcoholic or even a drinker. I just don’t think the toxicology reports would be issued unless there was no question that the results were proven. I feel horrendous for the family that lost all of their children. Dan S. was saying he only has his son left, but his in-laws lost all three daughters. That’s just unfathomable. It does seem that Diane S. had to be drinking alcoholically. Alcoholism is a progressive disease - You don’t just pick up a bottle of vodka while driving in the morning…Something is really not right…</p>
<p>Swimcatsmom, I’m so glad you were both ok. How incredibly scary and you blessed you must feel.</p>
<p>swimscatsmom - that is sometimes a distinction without a difference. A claim against insurance was made. It makes no sense to actually file a law suit unless there are damages that the settlement offer doesn’t cover. Often times, you get the same amount whether you sue or not - the difference is that the lawyer takes a share when suit is filed so if you can get what you’re owed by just filing a claim, that is great. Had the insurance company played hard ball with you, you may have had to file a law suit to even break even. Some insurance companies are very difficult to deal with - they almost force people to sue them. I had clients like that.</p>
<p>edited at address europa’s post - the law is not structured so that the brother will be brought to financial ruin unless the facts support negligence or gross negligence on his part. If there is no evidence that he knew or should have known that his sister was endangering others by driving his car, then pursuing him will be a waste of time. There is no jury in the world that will want to punish him unless he did something really bad. A lawyer does not want that man on the witness stand unless the facts are so bad that they negate the sympathy that all will feel for him.</p>