Classless Lawyers

[BFritz21]

(05-06-2016, 10:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It looks to me like Brad was just the victim of an unusual set of circumstances regarding collecting for his damages.

The owner of the car was not liable because it was used without his permission.  That excluded coverage from his insurance.

The driver of the car was not covered under his parents auto insurance because he was not a licensed driver listed on their policy.

The Parents of the driver were not liable for "negligent supervision" because there were not enough facts to prove they should have been required to be supervised 24 hours a day.  He had been caught drinking a couple of times before, but he had been punished when his parents found out.  And they had never allowed him to drive by himself without adult supervision.  If you wanted to hold them liable then you would also have to hold Brad's parents liable for letting him go out drinking underage.

The cemetery was not liable because there were no defects in the roads that made them inherently dangerous.

The caretaker does not seem to be liable in this case because he did not provide any alcohol or allow the kids to do anything that was inherently dangerous.  Just allowing kids to gather ina spot does not lead to liability for one of them getting drunk and riving.

So it seems that he would have ended up with a judgement against the 15 year old driver, but no insurance to collect from (the parents homeowner insurance would not cover an accident involving a motor vehicle).  That is why Brad's family got a settlement from their own insurance for damage done to them by another uninsured driver.

A lot of people made bad decisions.  The guy who bought the beer for the boys to drink.  The caretaker that let teens gather and have parties with no supervision.  Maybe the parents of Brad and his friend (I don't really know enough to judge any of the parents.)  The driver of the car, and Brad himself.  But for the most part it seems that the law was followed and Brad did not lose a "slam dunk" case.

Most of this is false.

The owner went to jail for buying the beer and letting us use his car.  As I said, he was let out of the case.

The driver was never punished for drinking before, which I noted to the judge and he ignored, and they had let him drive in the cemetery where we wrecked.  If they had caught him drinking, and punished him (which they didn't, but pretend they did), and the punishments didn't stop him from repeating what he did, then why wouldn't they assume that he'd do it again?  Furthermore, did they tell him not to drive on his own?  Why would they assume that he'd listen about that if he didn't listen about the drinking, especially if they let him drive?

No defects in the road in the cemetery, but it was narrow, dark, tree-filled, and gravestone filled (we clipped a gravestone, which sent us into the 360s), which is why it's supposed to be closed at night because it's dangerous to drive (along with respecting the dead), and that's also why the speed limit is 10 mph (maybe 5).

The caretaker allowed us to drink and provided alcohol to some of the kids that night, most of us at some point, and created the environment where everything was ok and actually encouraged.

So, yes, it was a slam dunk case.

(05-06-2016, 09:47 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Forest Lawn, in Erlanger, has a sign that says the gates are locked at dusk. Over the last couple decades, driving by there at all hours, i've never seen those gates closed. 

But that's not a wooded area like Highlands Cemetery.