Classless Lawyers

[BFritz21]

(04-28-2016, 12:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If a judge claimed he ruled against a plaintiff because the plaintiff rushed him that would not only raise a red flag it would get him tossed off the bench.

He had a history of doing it, but it can't be "proven."  There's no other reason of why he would make such a bogus ruling.

(04-28-2016, 12:40 PM)Au165 Wrote: No chance of wrecking outside the cemetery? People wreck every day on straight roads. What you just said isn't an acceptable argument and the jury obviously agreed. Are you saying you guys contended that the cemetery was libel because while trespassing, you guys sped down winding dark roads and wrecked? Was that your argument? If so, the jury got it right.

Were your parents charged with child negligence?  By your logic the fact they didn't know you were at a party with drunk friends who eventually would almost kill you meets the standard for neglect.

Ok, so you're saying that we would have wrecked on a straight, wide highway, that didn't have many other cars on it while going the speed limit?

We weren't trespassing, the people who lived in the cemetery were letting their son have a party for all of our close friends, as they often did.

(04-28-2016, 12:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If there was a settlement then why did you go to trial?  Who's insurance paid?

And I guarantee you that there was more to it than just finding a clause in the insurance.  That would determine fault, but it would not set the amount of damages.  Most of the work is usually over the amount of damages and not who was at fault.

An attorney will not just "negotiate a price".  They will either take a percentage of the settlement or charge an hourly fee. There can be a lot of work involved in proving an amount of damages, and that could lead to a lot of hours billed.  Every personal injury lawyer I know works on a contingency basis unless the job looks like a complete loser, and they usually don't waste their time on a loser case unless the plaintiff just has a lot of money to throw away.

What percentage of the settlement was the $200K? 

The clause was in our insurance that, if I was injured by an uninsured driver, that we'd be entitled to money.  So, no, there wasn't more to it, but way to act like you know what you're talking about.

(04-28-2016, 12:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No offense Brad, but when a judge, and appeals court judge, and an entire jury all disagree with you surely you can understand why some people might doubt your claim.

The judge made a bogus ruling.

It never went to an appeals court.

The jury awarded us 8 million dollars but put most of the fault on the driver, whom the judge let out of the case.

Yes, it was ironclad.  Please keep posting like you know what you're talking about.

(04-28-2016, 12:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Unfortunately there was no proof that the driver would not have exceeded the speed limit or wrecked on the public road.  it happens all the time with drunk drivers.  

If the driver was willing to operate the vehicle in a dangerous manner in a cemetery then it is very likely that he would have been willing to do the same on a public road also.  A driver is either safe or he is not.  The driver was stupid or else intoxicated to the point that his judgement was impaired.  Neither one of those things would have changed when he reached the public road.

If the road in the cemetery was safe to drive on under normal conditions then they could not be held at fault for a drunk person driving too fast on it.  If there was some huge hole or dangerous defect in the cemetery road then they might have been at fault, but if the road was safe then they were not at fault.

He was on a public road four times before we wrecked in the cemetery, which is where we wrecked.  

Like I said, no cops, no other cars, no traffic laws, no chance of being in trouble in the cemetery, narrow roads, dark roads.  Logic says that we wouldn't have wrecked, as well as four other times driving.

(04-28-2016, 01:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You might have a legitimate complaint here if there was proof presented that the parents acquiesced in his drinking and driving.  But usually you have to show that he was allowed to drink in his own home or that the parents provided the alcohol.

So did his parents approve of his drinking and driving?  Did they allow him to drunk in his own home?  Was there legit evidence presented to the judge to prove this?

A parent who knows that his child is a reckless drunk is not liable for the damages caused unless they could have prevented it in some way.

The cemetery was known for letting kids drink.  

It was actually just separated from their back yard by a fence.

(04-28-2016, 01:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the opposing party made an offer to settle that was not presented to your family then you definitely have a case for malpractice.

What kind of proof do you have of this?

My lawyer said that they believed he wanted to settle, which seems logical seeing as they had no case.

He wanted to settle once but he lowballed us in litigation, which is typical for a first attempt.  Why would he have initiated it if he didn't want to settle.

(04-28-2016, 01:30 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Just curious.....
Was the party and accident during the day, or night ?

Party was at night.

Accident was at 10:12 p.m.