Tweet
I hear what you're saying Idle. However, first with the speeding issue...she will get dinged on the split if it were determined she was exceeding the speed limit. However, since he had the stop sign he has to make sure path is clear to pull out safely, he was cited, and it will be very difficult to prove he was less repsonsible from a liability standpoint. Also, I haven't seen any reports suggesting Young was racing down the street before the accident.
The seat belt issue is a different animal. Failure to wear seat belts is NOT assessed against the negligence split for the accident. That is, the seat belt use, or lack thereof, wasn't the proximate cause of the accident...Pickett pulling out into her path from a stop sign was. Thus, seat belt use isn't assessed in the negligence split. BUT, it is used to show the plantiff failed to MITIGATE the loss by not wearing them.
It would be hard, if not impossible, for Pickett's carrier to argue there would be NO injuries if not for the fact the occupants were wearing seat belts. I haven't seen the photos of either vehicle but it's my understanding there's some pretty good damage and there was some heavy impact. The plantiff attorney would likely argue that it's reasonable to assume some injuries would have occurred regardless, perhaps more of the soft tissue variety such as whiplash and such. Those type of injury claims can also be quite vexing b/c you can't see them on x-ray or MRI and have potential to be milked.
I'm not sure which of the occupants was wearing a seat belt out of the four, but weren't they all injured in some manner? This would bolster plantiff attorney theory that injuries would have occurred regardless. He/she will pound that angle.
My opinion is this will never see a courtroom and will get settled. Defense is on hook for majority split of liability and, even though jury makeup is more conservative in GB area, still face potential for big jury award. Believe it or not, there's a lot of people in GB still pissed about paying the stadium tax. Get enough of those on the jury and maybe they see it as a way to stick it back to the Packers via the award. Who knows. Point is you never know with a jury.
Plantiff attorney has motive to settle b/c of seat belt issue and choice comments made by client from hospital bed, as well as their own time/cost issues.
The seat belt issue is a different animal. Failure to wear seat belts is NOT assessed against the negligence split for the accident. That is, the seat belt use, or lack thereof, wasn't the proximate cause of the accident...Pickett pulling out into her path from a stop sign was. Thus, seat belt use isn't assessed in the negligence split. BUT, it is used to show the plantiff failed to MITIGATE the loss by not wearing them.
It would be hard, if not impossible, for Pickett's carrier to argue there would be NO injuries if not for the fact the occupants were wearing seat belts. I haven't seen the photos of either vehicle but it's my understanding there's some pretty good damage and there was some heavy impact. The plantiff attorney would likely argue that it's reasonable to assume some injuries would have occurred regardless, perhaps more of the soft tissue variety such as whiplash and such. Those type of injury claims can also be quite vexing b/c you can't see them on x-ray or MRI and have potential to be milked.
I'm not sure which of the occupants was wearing a seat belt out of the four, but weren't they all injured in some manner? This would bolster plantiff attorney theory that injuries would have occurred regardless. He/she will pound that angle.
My opinion is this will never see a courtroom and will get settled. Defense is on hook for majority split of liability and, even though jury makeup is more conservative in GB area, still face potential for big jury award. Believe it or not, there's a lot of people in GB still pissed about paying the stadium tax. Get enough of those on the jury and maybe they see it as a way to stick it back to the Packers via the award. Who knows. Point is you never know with a jury.
Plantiff attorney has motive to settle b/c of seat belt issue and choice comments made by client from hospital bed, as well as their own time/cost issues.
Comment