(10-22-2019, 03:39 PM)BFritz21 Wrote:  I know this ruling that a judge made to screw my family has been used in at least one other civil case and I just want to make sure that no other families get screwed by it.

(10-22-2019, 03:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure what exactly you mean by this, but if your case established a new rule of law (not a finding of the fact) then it can be challenged any time it is taken up to the Supreme Court.

But the only way it could have established a new rule of law is if it was taken up to at least the Court of Appeals.  Cases from Circuit or Chancery Courts can not be used as precedent to argue an interpretation of the law in a different case.

(10-22-2019, 03:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I thought you did appeal your case?  Guess I was wrong.

There is pretty much nothing you can do at this point unless there is some new evidence that came out after the trial that shows some sort of criminal fraud or misconduct by the judge.  Just making a wrong ruling is not enough.  That is what the appeal process is for.

But something makes me think you will not accept this answer.

(10-22-2019, 04:10 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: A judge let the driver's (my old best friend) parents out of the civil case saying that there was no way that they could foresee that he'd drive a car that night.  

(10-22-2019, 05:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is a finding of fact, not an interpretation of a law.

Usually juries make the findings of fact, but I assume this was a bench trial with just a judge and no jury?

When you take a case up on appeal you usually can not appeal the findings of fact made by the jury (or judge).  An appeal is almost always based on an improper interpretation of the law.  The court of appeals does not re-do the finding of facts.  They just apply the finding of facts to the law.

You can always appeal a case with the claim that the evidence did not support the decision, but those are pretty much impossible to win.  In your case the kid stole the car without his parents permission, and parents are not required to keep their children locked up like they are in jail.

But you got a judgement from someone didn't you?  Who paid that?

(10-22-2019, 09:07 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It was his sister's boyfriend's car that bought beer and left the keys in the car.

(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?

(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?

(10-22-2019, 09:07 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's not a fact, it's an opinion that they couldn't foresee him driving the car.

(10-22-2019, 09:31 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: 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, 09:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And your claim that they could foresee this is also just an opinion.


In legal cases someone has to decide what the facts are before the law can be applied to the facts.  You may believe that the jury is wrong (and sometimes they are) but in the eyes of the law the decision of the jury is the facts.

12 people listened to all the evidence and they disagreed with your opinion.

(10-22-2019, 09:58 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: You say "NO." But then follow up with "They didn't offer much." So I'm going to assume an offer was made.  Ok, I just went through a major trial which involved 4 million and possible punitive damages. So you were offered something which you thought was minimal and decided to fight. Insurance companies try to settle without going to court because a jury verdict can be devastating with punitive damages when the policy holder tenders the policy, which it sounds like this might have, or could have been the case. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If you chose to take your case to court, then that's a decision you pretty much have to live with. A judge will normally go with the jury because, well, if he doesn't, we have a failed judicial system. However, I'm pretty sure your lawyer should have made this clear, knowing all the facts, and suggested to take the offer if he thought there was a chance he/she couldn't win. 

Brad, you got in that car knowing everything you know, and you knew that beforehand. As much as I'm sorry for what you are going through, there were so many bad decisions that night, which touched a lot of lives in more ways then one. It's so devastating and I'm so sorry for what you and everyone else has been through. However, when a case goes to trial and a jury comes up with a decision, it's close to impossible to get a different verdict without new facts that the other wasn't aware of in the first trial.

Your very passionate and if there is more out there that was not presented, then I hope it get's presented. Good luck friend.

(10-22-2019, 10:55 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Incorrect.

A judge made the decision based on evidence, which all pointed to their at least being a possibility that he would drive.

The judge had a preconceived notion of what had happened before everything (he would have heard about it within an hour of it happening, and it was most likely more like 20 minutes, tops) was discovered and he also had a preconceived negative opinion of me.  He had also seen all three of us that day.  

We were 15 and he hadn't been drinking yet and I had no way of knowing he'd go speeding through the cemetery.  

In fact, I actually wanted to leave the cemetery to go get my girlfriend and he did a 180 and took us speeding through the cemetery without my permission.

(10-23-2019, 11:23 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you had no way of knowing how could his parents know?

(10-22-2019, 10:55 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Incorrect.

A judge made the decision based on evidence, which all pointed to their at least being a possibility that he would drive.

(10-23-2019, 06:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, I thought there was a jury.  Either way the court made a finding of fact.


The fact that there was a possibility that this boy might drive a car was not enough to require his parents. to lock him up and never let him out of the house alone.  No court is going to enforce that standard.

The parents did not supply the car.  The parents did not supply the alcohol.  They did nothing to cause this accident.  I don't see how you think they could be to blame.  If he was as crazy as you claim he was then it was your fault for getting in the car with him.

(10-23-2019, 06:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: His driving to the cemetery did not hurt anyone.  I don't know what point you think was "strengthened".

I also agree that your parents should have done a better job of stopping you from engaging in dangerous criminal behavior like underage drinking, but it has been over 20 years.  You need to just forgive and move on.

(10-24-2019, 03:59 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: False.

You realized you're wrong and you're just trying to cover yourself.

The judge made bias, opinion based ruling when all of the facts pointed to his parents being able to foresee that he would do what he did.

(10-24-2019, 03:59 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: My parents? 



Your attempts to bash me are so stupid its comical.  My parents punished me severely the one time they caught me drinking.  I went over my friend's house to go to a party and they had no way of knowing I'd be drinking, so how could they stopped me from engaging in dangerous behavior they had no way of knowing I'd be in.

I love this because it's a typical post by you where you make assumptions and hope that was is right and it scares me into not responding.