Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 235
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Court opinion:
Russell, driving a work van on a road with posted speed of 55 mi/h (90 km/h), approaches a green traffic light from the southwest. The light turns yellow, but Russell thinks he can get past it before it turns red, so he does not stop. Christopher, sitting in a work truck at the same intersection's northwest traffic light, sees the lights starting to change and decides to enter the intersection early, while he still has a red light. Russell attempts to swerve his van around Christopher's truck (without braking), but the van collides with the truck anyway (hard enough to spin the truck around by 180 degrees) and thence careens into Jasmine's car, which is in the process of stopping at the northeast traffic light. Three of Jasmine's limbs are broken in the crash. Accordingly, she sues Russell and Christopher for causing her injuries through negligence. The jury decides that (1) the injuries are worth 3.5 M$ and (2) Russell bears 60 percent of the fault (2.1 M$) and Christopher 40 percent (1.4 M$).
Russell argues that the jury's decision to assign more fault to him than to Christopher is unsupportable by the evidence presented at trial, since Christopher broke the law (by running the red light) and Russell did not (by attempting to get through the intersection on a yellow light). But the trial judge rejects this argument, and the appeals panel affirms. Under state law as distilled in the charge issued by the trial judge to the jury, a driver approaching a yellow light "is obligated to exercise reasonable care, which includes making reasonable observations for traffic traveling on an intersecting street".* Therefore, the jury was perfectly entitled to conclude that a non-negligent driver (1) would have stopped at the yellow light rather than trying to get through it or (2) would have tried to avoid hitting Christopher by braking rather than by swerving without braking.
*See also the following model jury charges, which unlike this case-specific charge have been approved by a statewide committee: general duty of motorist; duty of motorist to make observations; and duty of motorist proceeding past stop sign.
I've said this before, but judges see a victim who needs compensation and look around for the nearest involved party with money. They then uses legalese as a backwards rationalisation for the award.
In this case the judge probably realised that neither party likely could afford to pay the 3 million alone, so decided to split it over the two of them.
In work vehicles? They would have been insured commercially. Neither will work again(at fault accidents are a killer for driving a commercial vehicle), but both insurance policies have the money.
I missed that part. Commercial insurance coverage should be enough by a single party to cover this so I don't know why the judge went out of their way to punish the yellow light driver.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link