TOTALLY GEEKED!

huskerbb · Guru

Bad accident

FNW · Guru

Horrible.

huskerbb · Guru

It was a garbage truck. Waste connections. Deep pockets, so they'll probably sue even though from the information so far, it looks to be 100% the car drivers fault.

NAOW · Vette's SS

That's terrible.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Dad should go to jail.

Lindley · Guru

Oh that poor child! I also feel bad for the truck driver. He did all he could do. If he gets sued I hope the father loses. I feel bad for them too, but they are at fault.

Honeys_Mom · Mod & Permanent Board Sweetheart

Awful.

Some people don't deserve the privilege of having children.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

This is awful.

Saw a tractor trailer truck almost wreck today. It would have been catastrophic.

I had turned from a side street going north, into the turning lane, I saw the truck at a distance in the far right lane. There was no one in the left lane and I got over.

I noticed how fast he was coming up on my right and all but stopped half in the turning lane and half in the left lane.

Then I saw, less than 100 feet in front of me, a school bus stop in the south bound lane.

This is a 5 lane road with no median, and here, that means all lanes stop for a school bus.

Well, that truck blew passed me doing about 80 and was standing on his brakes trying to slow down.

All I could do was sit there and pray he stopped before he hit someone.

Thankfully, he did. But it was so very close.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Oh my, how awful. Was it local?

huskerbb · Guru

just Czech wrote:
Oh my, how awful. Was it local?

Oakdale

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

huskerbb wrote:
just Czech wrote:
Oh my, how awful. Was it local?
Oakdale

Wow! I missed that story.

I barely avoided hitting a semi today at Ewing. He didn't make the corner...idiot.

-- Edited by just Czech on Wednesday 27th of January 2016 11:17:29 PM

chef · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
It was a garbage truck. Waste connections. Deep pockets, so they'll probably sue even though from the information so far, it looks to be 100% the car drivers fault.

If the car driver hit the truck, what grounds would the car driver have to sue anyway?

huskerbb · Guru

chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
It was a garbage truck. Waste connections. Deep pockets, so they'll probably sue even though from the information so far, it looks to be 100% the car drivers fault.
If the car driver hit the truck, what grounds would the car driver have to sue anyway?

Waste management has more money than they do.

chef · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
It was a garbage truck. Waste connections. Deep pockets, so they'll probably sue even though from the information so far, it looks to be 100% the car drivers fault.
If the car driver hit the truck, what grounds would the car driver have to sue anyway?
Waste management has more money than they do.

So?

It's not waste management's fault. There's no grounds to sue.

huskerbb · Guru

chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
It was a garbage truck. Waste connections. Deep pockets, so they'll probably sue even though from the information so far, it looks to be 100% the car drivers fault.
If the car driver hit the truck, what grounds would the car driver have to sue anyway?
Waste management has more money than they do.
So?
It's not waste management's fault. There's no grounds to sue.

That won't necessarily stop them. The courts are full of baseless lawsuits.

TrudyML · Guru

chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
It was a garbage truck. Waste connections. Deep pockets, so they'll probably sue even though from the information so far, it looks to be 100% the car drivers fault.
If the car driver hit the truck, what grounds would the car driver have to sue anyway?
Waste management has more money than they do.
So?
It's not waste management's fault. There's no grounds to sue.

Sadly, they all try. It is tiring watching it here at work.

This woman rear ended a car. Here son was not strapped in. The child hit the roof of the car. Sued. Got damages. She was 100% at fault. The jury took pity and awarded it. Annoys me every time I think about it.

chef · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
It was a garbage truck. Waste connections. Deep pockets, so they'll probably sue even though from the information so far, it looks to be 100% the car drivers fault.
If the car driver hit the truck, what grounds would the car driver have to sue anyway?
Waste management has more money than they do.
So?
It's not waste management's fault. There's no grounds to sue.
That won't necessarily stop them. The courts are full of baseless lawsuits.

True. But one would think the judge would throw it out.

chef · Guru

TrudyML wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
It was a garbage truck. Waste connections. Deep pockets, so they'll probably sue even though from the information so far, it looks to be 100% the car drivers fault.
If the car driver hit the truck, what grounds would the car driver have to sue anyway?
Waste management has more money than they do.
So?
It's not waste management's fault. There's no grounds to sue.
Sadly, they all try. It is tiring watching it here at work.

This woman rear ended a car. Here son was not strapped in. The child hit the roof of the car. Sued. Got damages. She was 100% at fault. The jury took pity and awarded it. Annoys me every time I think about it.

?! Whyyyyyyyyyyy?!

Shame on that jury. Way to award bad behavior. I would've countersued if I were the other party.

TrudyML · Guru

They don't. Sometimes they try to settle before it gets to a judge.

TrudyML · Guru

chef wrote:
TrudyML wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
It was a garbage truck. Waste connections. Deep pockets, so they'll probably sue even though from the information so far, it looks to be 100% the car drivers fault.
If the car driver hit the truck, what grounds would the car driver have to sue anyway?
Waste management has more money than they do.
So?
It's not waste management's fault. There's no grounds to sue.
Sadly, they all try. It is tiring watching it here at work.

This woman rear ended a car. Here son was not strapped in. The child hit the roof of the car. Sued. Got damages. She was 100% at fault. The jury took pity and awarded it. Annoys me every time I think about it.
?! Whyyyyyyyyyyy?!
Shame on that jury. Way to award bad behavior. I would've countersued if I were the other party.

Oh, I know. I work in insurance. Insurance is like a lottery jackpot and everyone hopes to cash in.

She was 100% AT FAULT. And the money? Yeah, new cars, new house...I could go on...

chef · Guru

TrudyML wrote:
chef wrote:
TrudyML wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
It was a garbage truck. Waste connections. Deep pockets, so they'll probably sue even though from the information so far, it looks to be 100% the car drivers fault.
If the car driver hit the truck, what grounds would the car driver have to sue anyway?
Waste management has more money than they do.
So?
It's not waste management's fault. There's no grounds to sue.
Sadly, they all try. It is tiring watching it here at work.

This woman rear ended a car. Here son was not strapped in. The child hit the roof of the car. Sued. Got damages. She was 100% at fault. The jury took pity and awarded it. Annoys me every time I think about it.
?! Whyyyyyyyyyyy?!
Shame on that jury. Way to award bad behavior. I would've countersued if I were the other party.
Oh, I know. I work in insurance. Insurance is like a lottery jackpot and everyone hopes to cash in.

She was 100% AT FAULT. And the money? Yeah, new cars, new house...I could go on...

I just don't see how, in good conscience, a jury could penalize someone (meaning the other party) for doing nothing wrong. Well, I'm assuming the person she rear-ended had to pay the money she was awarded. I could be wrong. Even if it was the insurance that had to pay the award, it's still wrong. And, wouldn't it be insurance fraud since she was at fault?

huskerbb · Guru

chef wrote:
TrudyML wrote:
chef wrote:
TrudyML wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
It was a garbage truck. Waste connections. Deep pockets, so they'll probably sue even though from the information so far, it looks to be 100% the car drivers fault.
If the car driver hit the truck, what grounds would the car driver have to sue anyway?
Waste management has more money than they do.
So?
It's not waste management's fault. There's no grounds to sue.
Sadly, they all try. It is tiring watching it here at work.

This woman rear ended a car. Here son was not strapped in. The child hit the roof of the car. Sued. Got damages. She was 100% at fault. The jury took pity and awarded it. Annoys me every time I think about it.
?! Whyyyyyyyyyyy?!
Shame on that jury. Way to award bad behavior. I would've countersued if I were the other party.
Oh, I know. I work in insurance. Insurance is like a lottery jackpot and everyone hopes to cash in.

She was 100% AT FAULT. And the money? Yeah, new cars, new house...I could go on...
I just don't see how, in good conscience, a jury could penalize someone (meaning the other party) for doing nothing wrong. Well, I'm assuming the person she rear-ended had to pay the money she was awarded. I could be wrong. Even if it was the insurance that had to pay the award, it's still wrong. And, wouldn't it be insurance fraud since she was at fault?

I didn't say they'd win--but even if not, our fvcked up legal system would force the company or their insurance carrier to incur legal costs, while an attorney for the plaintiffs could take a "cut" if they win.

They probably would not win, but they could force a settlement because it might be cheaper for the company to do that than incur the legal costs a trial would cause.

We badly need tort reform. We need to eliminate attorneys being paid by a percentage of settlements. They charge by the hour, or donate their time. We also need to make the losers pay the winners legal costs--and if they can't, their attorney who took the loser case has to.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 28th of January 2016 12:16:42 PM

TrudyML · Guru

100% agree.

TrudyML · Guru

The insurance company needed to make it go away so more wouldn't occur. News, newspaper- big bad insurance company!

chef · Guru

People like her wouldn't want me as a judge. I'd look at the case, laugh at her, and kick her out of my courtroom.

huskerbb · Guru

chef wrote:
People like her wouldn't want me as a judge. I'd look at the case, laugh at her, and kick her out of my courtroom.

And that may happen, but the company would still have legal costs.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Yes, this is a dumb parent.