Question For Lawyers (Or Anyone)

[BFritz21]

(10-22-2019, 09:11 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Did the cemetery insurance make a settlement offer that was refused because you preferred to take it to trial?

No.  They didn't offer much of anything in terms of a settlement so we figured we'd get more in trial.  Then, I think they offered a high-low settlement because they knew that the jury could find them at major fault, but without the driver's insurance it was hard.

(10-22-2019, 09:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Now I am confused.

You are saying the parents should somehow be responsible for him taking his sisters boyfriends car without permission?

What exactly should they have done to prevent this accident?  How were the negligent?

He was a maniac.  They knew he had drank before and they knew that he had driven in the cemetery, so they knew that he believed he was capable, especially with how arrogant he was.  They empowered him to do both by never punishing him for drinking and for letting him believe he could drive, so how can they say they couldn't foresee it if they're the ones who empowered him?

The permission was implied.  He was never charged with stealing the car.

If he had driven one of their cars that they had left while they go out, would that have made a difference?  

The judge made that claim in the ruling, which was just empty rhetoric to make it seem more unbelievable.