WTF. Drunken Daughter of Houston Judge tries to sue.

[otakuneko]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/6170554.html

WTF M8?

Sure got some crazies down in Houston. Must be all that humidity.

[Chanlin]

I'm not sure what worse, the fact that she has the audacity to file a lawsuit for something that is her fault or the fact that we have a legal system that actually accepted that the suit might have some amount of validity to it.

[persephone]

I'm not sure what worse, the fact that she has the audacity to file a lawsuit for something that is her fault or the fact that we have a legal system that actually accepted that the suit might have some amount of validity to it.

I don't know the whole story, but there is a possibility that, even though she was drunk and shouldn't have been driving (I SO do not condone that) the accident may not have been her fault. I have seen accidents where one person was completely not at fault but was charged because they had a BAC too high.

Not saying that's the case here, but it is a possibility to keep in mind.

[otakuneko]

You've seen a drunk get rear-ended by someone sober at a stop?

The drunk's always at fault, IMO, for being on the road in the first place. Whether the other driver is at fault AS WELL is dependent on circumstances, but the drunk always has fault for being on the road at all.

[persephone]

You've seen a drunk get rear-ended by someone sober at a stop?

The drunk's always at fault, IMO, for being on the road in the first place. Whether the other driver is at fault AS WELL is dependent on circumstances, but the drunk always has fault for being on the road at all.

No, I worked for a law firm and one of our cases was a guy that was T-Boned and almost killed going trough an intersection because the other guy (completely sober) ran a red light. Our client was in the wrong for driving drunk and we always readily admitted that, but the accident itself, and therefore our clients injuries and the other guys injuries, were not our clients fault in any way, shape, form or fashion. Our client was doing UNDER the speed limit, following all traffic laws (except for driving with a BAC of .041 when .039 was the legal limit) and was in no way at fault in the accident.

I agree that no one should ever drive drunk. I hate it and I think it's stupid. I told client as much. I'm just saying that just because someone IS drunk does not mean that the actual accident is their fault.

Sorry I said anything. I was just saying that it is possible the case has merit. I'll shut up now.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, she was drunk and rear ended the truck in front of her. Clearly that wasn't his fault, it was hers.

And I don't care if he slammed on his brakes, either. If he came to a sudden stop and she hadn't left herself enough room to react to that, she's at fault.

This is all her.

[persephone]

Like I said, I didn't and don't know the whole story. Thanks for clarifying the specifics.

I guess I worked in a law firm for too long. I still read things "lawyer"wise and tend to see things a little differently than most of the rest of the world.

Though re reading it, I noticed something I hadn't before -- they listed 16 separate entities in the lawsuit. Yep, this looks like a money grab and I hope it gets thrown out by a judge who just laughs his a$$ off.

Also, the "validity" of a lawsuit is very very very very very very VERY minimally required. It's like saying "is it physically possible that something COULD have happened like this and is there any evidence that ABSOLUTELY says it does not?" If not, then it's valid. The burden of proof is nowhere NEAR what it is in trial, or really what it should be. I don't think she stands a shot in hell.

I guess part of me just automatically went "we shouldn't just assume that, just because she was drunk the accident was her fault". Yes, usually it is, but there are exceptions.

[ReadyToRetire]

No, I worked for a law firm and one of our cases was a guy that was T-Boned and almost killed going trough an intersection because the other guy (completely sober) ran a red light. Our client was in the wrong for driving drunk and we always readily admitted that, but the accident itself, and therefore our clients injuries and the other guys injuries, were not our clients fault in any way, shape, form or fashion. Our client was doing UNDER the speed limit, following all traffic laws (except for driving with a BAC of .041 when .039 was the legal limit) and was in no way at fault in the accident.

Well, since your client was driving illegally, he IS partly to blame for the accident.
I do hope he had some percentage of the accident deemed as his fault. He should not have been behind the wheel. Regardless of obeying all other traffic laws, the accident would never have happened if he did the responsible thing in the first place.

[persephone]

I'm going to call "Uncle" and give up and back out on this one before we get into Fratching territory.

Sorry I said anything. If a mod wants to delete the posts I made in this thread, please feel free to. I'll keep out of it from here on in before it goes way off topic and into forbidden land.

[ditchdj]

Yeah before this gets 86'd I'd like to say that I'd be contersuing her all over that state and be more than prepared to take it to Federal court because I'm pretty sure that in Texas they go off the "Good 'ol boys" system and he'll never get a fair shake in the local courts.

[Chanlin]

I'm going to go with Persephone on this one. I can see the legal side of things in this. Yes your client had no business being out on the road drunk, but if it was not his drunkenness that caused the accident then he should not be cited for something that was not his fault.

It sounds like thats what the girl in the OP is contending. They are trying to say the accident was the fault of the other driver.

[Evil Queen]

Can I just say I detest living in Stupid Texas with the Stupid Houstonian drivers (who, by the way, never use their Stupid Turn Signals, ever.).

Anyone have an H-bomb?

[Rapscallion]

I think it's fairly simple. The client needs to be prosecuted for driving while over the limit, and the other driver needs to be prosecuted for causing the accident. All sides treated according to the law.

Rapscallion

[persephone]

I think it's fairly simple. The client needs to be prosecuted for driving while over the limit, and the other driver needs to be prosecuted for causing the accident. All sides treated according to the law.

I agree completely. However, a trend we saw at the law firm (not saying this is the case in the original article, but was the case in the situation I was talking about) is that the cops ticket the drunk driver for both DUI AND causing the accident, even if the accident was completely the other persons fault. THAT'S what my law firm was fighting.

Our client pled guilty to the DUI and served his sentence. However, we were NOT going to plead anything but not guilty to the causing of the accident and fought it tooth and nail, because our guy did NOT need to be paying other guy's medical bills. We didn't even file an insurance claim for our guys medical bills, even though technically they weren't his fault as, had other driver not run the red light, our client would not have gotten hurt.

We won the fight with the insurance company and the causing of the accident ticket.

If the person in the original article has PROOF that they did not cause the accident then maybe there is some recourse for them with the insurance companies. Again, I'm not saying this IS the case, I'm saying IF this is the case.

(backs out again so it doesn't go to Fratching territory)

[Amina516]

Best reader comment on the article:

What a waste of time and money. I want to sue her for wasting 3 mins to read this story--thats time Ill never get back and it's her fault. .