(04-29-2016, 12:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is just all way too complicated with out getting exact details.

Procedurally, I don't know

1. Who the judgement was granted against.  Brad claims, the driver, his parents, and the cemetery were all let off the hook I don't even know who else was involved.

2.  What ruling the judge made against Brad that was not appealed.

3.  Who's insurance settled and who went to trial.


Factually, I don't know

1.  Did the caretaker ever give them permission to have parties in the cemetery.

2.  Did the parents of the driver allow him to drink and drive without punishment.

3.  Who bought the alcohol the night of the party.



As you can all see I have tried to be very balanced about this.  I have even tried to give Brad some advice that could help him.  But I don't see anything wrong with challenging his claims after he chose to post them here.

I would also like to give Brad credit for agreeing to help out his former attorney even though he is still very mad at him.  That was the right thing to do.  The way I see it this thread might even help Brad see that he was not wronged as badly as he believes.  Harboring resentment for years really only hurts the person doing it.  So maybe we can actually help Brad have a happier life from this point forward.  The fact that Brad is still willing to help out his former attorney proves that he does not let the resentment control his actions.  But the fact that he came here asking for help shows this still creates a lot of emotional turmoil for him.

(04-29-2016, 12:07 PM)Au165 Wrote: Who are you, and what have you done with Fred?

(04-29-2016, 12:07 PM)Au165 Wrote: Who are you, and what have you done with Fred?

(04-29-2016, 12:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is just all way too complicated with out getting exact details.

Procedurally, I don't know

1. Who the judgement was granted against.  Brad claims, the driver, his parents, and the cemetery were all let off the hook I don't even know who else was involved.

2.  What ruling the judge made against Brad that was not appealed.

3.  Who's insurance settled and who went to trial.


Factually, I don't know

1.  Did the caretaker ever give them permission to have parties in the cemetery.

2.  Did the parents of the driver allow him to drink and drive without punishment.

3.  Who bought the alcohol the night of the party.



As you can all see I have tried to be very balanced about this.  I have even tried to give Brad some advice that could help him.  But I don't see anything wrong with challenging his claims after he chose to post them here.

I would also like to give Brad credit for agreeing to help out his former attorney even though he is still very mad at him.  That was the right thing to do.  The way I see it this thread might even help Brad see that he was not wronged as badly as he believes.  Harboring resentment for years really only hurts the person doing it.  So maybe we can actually help Brad have a happier life from this point forward.  The fact that Brad is still willing to help out his former attorney proves that he does not let the resentment control his actions.  But the fact that he came here asking for help shows this still creates a lot of emotional turmoil for him.

(04-29-2016, 12:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I would also like to give Brad credit for agreeing to help out his former attorney even though he is still very mad at him.  That was the right thing to do.  The way I see it this thread might even help Brad see that he was not wronged as badly as he believes.  Harboring resentment for years really only hurts the person doing it.  So maybe we can actually help Brad have a happier life from this point forward.  The fact that Brad is still willing to help out his former attorney proves that he does not let the resentment control his actions.  But the fact that he came here asking for help shows this still creates a lot of emotional turmoil for him.

(04-29-2016, 12:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I would also like to give Brad credit for agreeing to help out his former attorney even though he is still very mad at him.  That was the right thing to do.  The way I see it this thread might even help Brad see that he was not wronged as badly as he believes.  Harboring resentment for years really only hurts the person doing it.  So maybe we can actually help Brad have a happier life from this point forward.  The fact that Brad is still willing to help out his former attorney proves that he does not let the resentment control his actions.  But the fact that he came here asking for help shows this still creates a lot of emotional turmoil for him.

(04-29-2016, 10:39 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: MF'er..... you damn near made me shed a tear.

(04-29-2016, 12:07 PM)Au165 Wrote: Who are you, and what have you done with Fred?

(04-29-2016, 12:13 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Account hacked.  Bong rip vid to come. 

(05-04-2016, 01:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Never mind, I think I have the gist.  Really?  Your friend chooses to drive drunk and fast and you are blaming the place where he chose to drive drunk and fast?  So if some rich guy had a long winding driveway that wasn't gated and your friend decided to drive drunk and fast, you think the homeowner should pay?  I'm not even sure you should have a case against the driver as you knowingly got in the car.  I'm not jydging you there as I chose to do that many times in my youth and am still surprised I'm alive.

(05-04-2016, 06:56 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Who do you think is responsible for your injuries and why?

Who was sued and why did the jury think they weren't responsible?

(05-04-2016, 06:56 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Who do you think is responsible for your injuries and why?

Who was sued and why did the jury think they weren't responsible?

(05-04-2016, 08:52 PM)xxlt Wrote: I am not a lawyer, but there is such a thing as an "attractive nuisance." It sounds like based on that principal one could reasonably assume the caretaker of the cemetery, and by extension his employer, had some responsibility. They attracted kids to a dangerous environment and gave them alcohol while there. Heck, just on the last point the caretaker has responsibility. A bar that serves an ADULT who gets drunk and injures someone can be held accountable. You can certainly be held accountable for serving a minor. Plus, as was discussed earlier, the caretaker's negligence caused anguish to those who felt their loved ones graves were desecrated by the partying and the accident and the damage it caused. And, one could say the employer reasonably could have known and/or should have known about the employee's negligent (open gate) and criminal (serving minors) behavior and the employer is ultimately responsible to those with whom they contracted to provide cemetery plots to keep them reasonably secured (fence in tact and gate locked at nightfall). Really, not that tough to see where there is plenty of culpability to go around.

(05-04-2016, 06:13 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The cemetery gates were supposed to be locked to prevent drivers back there after dark because even going at a speed that would be normal on a regular road would be dangerous.

The caretaker that lived back there allowed parties back there, allowed us to drink, and even provided the alcohol at times.  He let anything go on back there.

The case was against the driver's parents because they let him do anything he wanted and just be a maniac.

However, since you'd like to use it as if the case were against the driver himself, I did get in the car. However, we were back at the party in the cemetery just sitting in the car with people around, and I said that we should leave and go pick-up my girlfriend up in Devou Park.  The driver didn't like that idea because he didn't feel safe on the public roads but felt safe driving in the cemetery (which goes further to prove their responsibility in the matter), so he did a 180, and started speeding through the cemetery against my will, which is how we wrecked.

Yes, I knowingly got in the car, but how often do you knowingly get in the car with people (your best friend, no-less), trusting them, and then have them take you on an unexpected joy ride going over 55 mph through somewhere as dangerous to drive as a cemetery?

(05-04-2016, 09:46 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: ...The cemetery for obvious reasons...

(05-04-2016, 09:46 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Then the guy who bought us the beer and whose car it was, but we let him off because his lawyers wanted to appeal the ruling I mentioned further, which we didn't want, and we could have only gotten a max of 50k out of them anyways.

(04-28-2016, 02:53 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: ...We say "that's fine.  Let them go because the cemetery is where the money's at anyways."...

(05-04-2016, 08:52 PM)xxlt Wrote: I am not a lawyer, but there is such a thing as an "attractive nuisance." It sounds like based on that principal one could reasonably assume the caretaker of the cemetery, and by extension his employer, had some responsibility. They attracted kids to a dangerous environment and gave them alcohol while there. Heck, just on the last point the caretaker has responsibility. A bar that serves an ADULT who gets drunk and injures someone can be held accountable. You can certainly be held accountable for serving a minor. Plus, as was discussed earlier, the caretaker's negligence caused anguish to those who felt their loved ones graves were desecrated by the partying and the accident and the damage it caused. And, one could say the employer reasonably could have known and/or should have known about the employee's negligent (open gate) and criminal (serving minors) behavior and the employer is ultimately responsible to those with whom they contracted to provide cemetery plots to keep them reasonably secured (fence in tact and gate locked at nightfall). Really, not that tough to see where there is plenty of culpability to go around.

(05-04-2016, 10:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Who says the gates are supposed to be locked?Where is that law?  Do you think unlocked gates give you permission to trespass?

(05-05-2016, 12:21 AM)Penn Wrote: What obvious reasons?  Seriously, most posting in this thread DON'T see obvious reasons at all.  If you story is true the caretaker's responsibility is probable but how do you figure his actions make the cemetery liable?  Did the cemetery tell him to do such questionable stuff?  Do yo have evidence they knew that stuff was going on?  All we have to go on is your side and most aren't seeing how the cemetery is liable.  Keep in mind, even if it was a house owned by the cemetery and even if living there was part of his compensation for his job, it was HIS residence.

A the moment all we have to say why you think the cemetery is liable can be summed up in your own words.  Twice.


and

(05-04-2016, 09:46 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I think the driver and his parents are responsible because they never punished him when they caught him drinking before, he controlled that house (told his parents how things would be, called his parents by their first names, never listened or had any rules), his dad had taken him driving in the actual cemetery before, so they knew he'd feel comfortable driving, especially back there, and he was always doing things like picking fights.

The cemetery for obvious reasons.

Then the guy who bought us the beer and whose car it was, but we let him off because his lawyers wanted to appeal the ruling I mentioned further, which we didn't want, and we could have only gotten a max of 50k out of them anyways.

(05-05-2016, 12:54 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: His job was to protect the cemetery, keep people out after dark, and keep the cemetery respectable and sacred, which he did not do by allowing parties back there, after dark at that (double whammy), and allowing drinking by kids 15 and under (even providing the alcohol in some cases).