Pickett Crash Victim: We are not OK.

[woodbuck27]

To get your vehicle registered (your plate - or sticker) you must produce proof of insurance and that your vehicle is safety inspected.

TOUGH LAWS - but 100% on the biscuit !!

Yeah, I've heard of states here requiring that you show proof of insurance before getting your annual registration stickers, but how many get insurance and them immediately cancel it after getting their stickers?

The laws are only tough if they are enforced. Why isn't this lady getting fined up the wazoo for not wearing seatbelts and not having insurance?

Where I am, if your insurance lapses for any reason, the ins company reports it to the state. You even have to cancel the registration on your car before you can cancel the insurance.

That will do it !

[the_idle_threat]

We have to endure Police road checks alot in New Brunswick - on the outskirts of Cities, just to ensure motorists are in compliance with their driving privalege.

We have this in the states ... it's called DWB.

[woodbuck27]

We have to endure Police road checks alot in New Brunswick - on the outskirts of Cities, just to ensure motorists are in compliance with their driving privalege.

We have this in the states ... it's called DWB.

DWB = Dumb wod bwock?

[GBRulz]

Drunk White Boys?

[the_idle_threat]

Driving While Black

[MadtownPacker]

I was recently in a lil fender bender myself but sadly it was not a NFL player.

The skank should just be happy to get her bills paid and have a lil cash to get another hooptie.

[Rastak]

Boy has this turned around. I hope she gets her billed paid for. All legit medical costs. Then, I hope she gets busted for not wearing her seat belt and not having insurance. Pickett was at fault. She was at fault. Seems like the most fair outcome.

I'm running with: she aimed for him hoping for a big payday. She kept driving up and down Lombardi waiting for a player to make a mistake.

LOL, that might work.......burn a whole tank of gas driving around and around waiting waiting waiting, then BAM.

[woodbuck27]

Yaaa Think ???

[esoxx]

"There are plenty of attorneys that still will be more than happy to try this case. Which probably won't cost the lady anything, especially from one just trying to get exposure."

Any attorney would want this case b/c it's a slam dunk liability issue against Pickett. Wisconsin is a Compartive Negligence state...that is..if one party is more than 50% responsible for the accident, they're going to pay (actually their ins policy is). If it was determined there was 51% at fault on one party, they would receive 51% of the total settlement (e.g. $10,000 settlement, they get $5,100). This is why there is a lot of haggling between insurance companies, trying to gather evidence that the other party was more responsible for the accident. In this case, given that Pickett was cited, he will have the lion's share of assignable negligence.

Since he's more at fault, it's an easy case for an attorney. Basically, he's not arguing WHO is at fault, he's only agruing HOW MUCH the settlement will be. And yes, he will get his 1/3rd of the settlement proceeds, you can bank on that.

What Pickett's insurance carrier will agrue is the injured parties failed to mitigate their loss by not wearing seat belts (at least three of the four). For those not found to be wearing the belts, they will use that to diminish the settlement figure as an arguing point.

I don't see this as a case they will ultimately want to take the court (the alleged victim and her unnamed attorney). As it is a "damages" case, the attorney is not going to want to drain the settlement with court costs and time spent prepraring for trial. Plus, given that the jurisdicition is filled with so called hard working, conservative people who are tight with the dime, the jury pool is not likely to hand out big awards (such as you might see in Cali, NY, etc...) Attorneys are well aware of this.

At trial, the comments made by Ms. Young would likely be used against her, if the injuries didn't turn out to square with reality. It would show her litigious mindset from the beginning. She would have been much better served keeping a low profile and her mouth shut. Much better served.

[the_idle_threat]

All great points, esoxx.

Here is a question for anyone who might have a idea ... if Pickett's attorney (or more likely, his Insurance Co's attorney) has an expert witness who can testify that the injuries should have been minimal or non-existent if the plaintiffs had been driving at the speed limit and wearing seatbelts, do you think Pickett walks, paying only for the damaged vehicle ... or is the cause of injuries (plaintiff's negligence) secondary to the cause of the accident itself (defendant's negligence)?

[mraynrand]

Excuse me Mr. Esoxx, but I've been arrested for shooting an attendant at the 'Sack 'o Suds' convenience store and my lawyer has both a terrible speech impediment and atrocious legal training. How would I go about hiring you? You would have to be familiar with the Alabama legal code, since the Judge is a stickler for procedure.

[esoxx]

Idle, Pickett's not going to walk on this. But yes, his ins carrier will try to gather witness statements to try and assess whether the Young vehicle was speeding. If it can be reasonably determined the speed was in excess of the posted limit of 35mph, they will use that to lessen Pickett's assignable negligence. It may go from 85% to 70%, depending on speed. Of course, if a lawsuit were filed his ins carrier likely would have an expert do accident reconstruction and engineering testing to determine force of impact and how much the injuries would be mitigated as a result of wearing seat belts. That would be dependent on what type of injuries actually exist (or are claimed) and if such testing were worth it in the grand scheme of things.

Still, the bottom line is Pickett has the majority of "negligence" per se, in that he pulled out from a stop sign into the path of an oncoming vehicle.

Again, at this point they will argue about % of assignable negligence on each party and then once that's established talk settlement. As far as her vehicle, I'm not sure what a '94 Spirit or whatever the hell it was is worth, but not much. Especailly after the negligence split is taken off. Say 80% of $500. Not much there. Big potential is on the General Damages in this case, ie, pain & suffering, emotional trauma, etc..

[GBRulz]

If this lady is willing to settle for medical costs, lost wages, etc, minus the calculated costs of if she were wearing a seat belt, then Pickett should def do that. However, if she is simply trying to be a gold-digger - then make her go through the courts. I don't see a jury from GB awarding a substantial amount of money to a woman who drives with her own daughter in the car without seat belts and without insurance.

[esoxx]

Excuse me Mr. Esoxx, but I've been arrested for shooting an attendant at the 'Sack 'o Suds' convenience store and my lawyer has both a terrible speech impediment and atrocious legal training. How would I go about hiring you? You would have to be familiar with the Alabama legal code, since the Judge is a stickler for procedure.

It depends on how many "youtes" are involved in the alleged crime.

[the_idle_threat]

Still, the bottom line is Pickett has the majority of "negligence" per se, in that he pulled out from a stop sign into the path of an oncoming vehicle.

See, here is where I might disagree. If the defendant can prove that the plaintiff's injuries---which are the bulk of the lawsuit, and the primary cause of the lost wages, pain & suffering, etc.---were preventable in this type of collision by her going the speed limit and wearing a seatbelt (and I grant this is a BIG "if"), then the fault for those particular damages should be more hers than his. In this type of situation, the collision did not cause her injuries (and resulting lost wages, pain and suffering, etc.) ... her own negligence did.

I don't know if this argument would fly in court, but it is empirically true.