Classless Lawyers

[Shake n Blake]

(05-07-2016, 11:29 AM)michaelsean Wrote: IT'S A CEMETERY.  Of course it's filled with gravestones, and unlit with narrow roads. And as you said they have an extremely low speed limit posted, and yet you guys still decided to fly through there fully knowing all these things beforehand, and are upset that the cemetery didn't do a better job of protecting you guts from your stupidity.  Despite my conservative rep, I often find myself favoring with plaintiffs fairly often, especially when it involves something they couldn't know about or foresee.  This aspect of your case was completely forseeable, and I think the lawyer who you think shouldn't have been paid did a fine job of getting you the money he did.  He took $200,000 out of how much?

Pretty much this. I was hit by a drunk driver (which was no fault of my own) back in 2008. He ran a red light at 55 mph and t-boned me and my friend - who was driving. Luckily for me, the drunk was insured somehow despite multiple DUI's. I suffered a concussion and my chiropractor diagnosed me as having a 5% total body disability that would only get worse as I get older. I pretty much can't do any repetitive physical activity that involves twisting, otherwise every muscle in my back just flares up.

While it would be easy for me to have anger that I only wound up with 10k after 3 years of waiting, I realize that my injuries were partially my fault for not wearing a seat belt. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bounced around inside the car so much (I actually wound up in the back passenger seat).

Long story short, while I sympathize with Brad because he was a careless teenager when this happened, I don't feel too bad if he's not a multi-millionaire due to his and his friend's mistakes. Perhaps legally you can get someone to pay, but morally there is no one at fault other than the teenagers involved and perhaps - to an extent - the parents and whoever was hosting these big parties at a cemetery.

[xxlt]

(05-06-2016, 09:59 AM)Au165 Wrote: The law does not require the cemetery to lock their gates, or for that matter have gates. The gates intent at cemeteries have never been about protecting people from driving on their roads, it is about keeping people out from desecrating graves hence why they have been done long before the invention of cars. Just because the roads were dark does not make the cemetery liable as all modern cars are equipped with lights and by law those lights must be used at night. If it is reasonable to assume the roads can be navigated by a person who is not intoxicated at normal speeds (My guess is there had never been a driving accident there before), then the facts of this case would show they are not liable for the driver as he was the sole reason those conditions were made worse through excessive speeds and intoxication.

Now with all that said, I can totally see them being liable based on the caretaker being an extension of the cemetery. However, let's move off the whole gates should have been closed and bad driving conditions argument as they just don't hold water.

Well reasoned. On the desecration point, I would note that an auto crashing into multiple graves causing property damage and injury (and I believe loss of one life) did indeed desecrate them. So, keeping autos out just as keeping pedestrians from entering via improper route (i.e. car "driving off road" or pedestrian "sneaking in") does indeed prevent desecration, as do the roads which allow a path to walk or drive. So the fence and the path (road) existing before cars does not mean they don't serve the same function viz cars - preventing desecration. So, the gates being open and a standing invitation to kids to come get drunk in the cemetery do indeed hold some water.

[fredtoast]

(05-07-2016, 12:12 PM)xxlt Wrote:  So, the gates being open and a standing invitation to kids to come get drunk in the cemetery do indeed hold some water.

I'm thinking that in this case the problem was that there was no solid evidence that the caretaker provided alcohol or allowed drinking in the cemetery.

If there was legitimate evidence of this then I think he may have been found liable, and even charged criminally like the guy who bought the beer for Brad and his friend.

[xxlt]

(05-07-2016, 11:13 AM)fredtoast Wrote: First of all you had no knowledge of how he was punished.  There was evidence that he had been punished and was even told that if he was caught drinking again he would not be allowed to get his driving permit.  There was also evidence that the parents had removed him from another gathering when they were told there was going to be alcohol consumed.  Plus he was not constantly getting caught drinking.  I believ there had only been 2 times in the last yar.

I assume that your testimony was considered merely hearsay because you were not in the boy's home when he was disciplined.

Good points

[xxlt]

(05-07-2016, 11:29 AM)michaelsean Wrote: IT'A A CEMETERY.  Of course it's filled with gravestones, and unlit with narrow roads. And as you said they have an extremely low speed limit posted, and yet you guys still decided to fly through there fully knowing all these things beforehand, and are upset that the cemetery didn't do a better job of protecting you guts from your stupidity.  Despite my conservative rep, I often find myself favoring with plaintiffs fairly often, especially when it involves something they couldn't know about or foresee.  This aspect of your case was completely forseeable, and I think the lawyer who you think shouldn't have been paid did a fine job of getting you the money he did.  He took $200,000 out of how much?

Good points.

[xxlt]

(05-07-2016, 12:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I'm thinking that in this case the problem was that there was no solid evidence that the caretaker provided alcohol or allowed drinking in the cemetery.

If there was legitimate evidence of this then I think he may have been found liable, and even charged criminally like the guy who bought the beer for Brad and his friend.

Agreed. And Brad said way back that some kids were coerced to lie for the caretaker (presumably by his lawyer or a representative of the cemetery who would have known if he went down the cemetery would likely be found culpable for his conduct). Like you said, strange set of facts. Like I said, plenty of culpability to go around. Did the court hear the "whole truth?" Doesn't seem like it. And as someone else said, kids do dumb things. And as Mike Tyson said, we all dumb shit when we're ****** up. Bottom line: a tragedy.

[fredtoast]

(05-07-2016, 12:33 PM)xxlt Wrote: Agreed. And Brad said way back that some kids were coerced to lie for the caretaker (presumably by his lawyer or a representative of the cemetery who would have known if he went down the cemetery would likely be found culpable for his conduct). Like you said, strange set of facts. Like I said, plenty of culpability to go around. Did the court hear the "whole truth?" Doesn't seem like it. And as someone else said, kids do dumb things. And as Mike Tyson said, we all dumb shit when we're ***** up. Bottom line: a tragedy.

I am sure that if the kids did lie it was more to cover their own asses than the caretaker.  But if this happened Brad can't blame his lawyer.

And don't forget that Brad willingly took part in these parties and drank the beer.  If some innocent person driving down the road was hit by a drunk driver from the party I can see them being outraged.  But Brad never complained about the caretaker's behavior until he got injured.  This does not excuse what the caretaker did.  It just seems like Brad is not in the best position to complain.

[BFritz21]

(05-07-2016, 12:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I'm thinking that in this case the problem was that there was no solid evidence that the caretaker provided alcohol or allowed drinking in the cemetery.

If there was legitimate evidence of this then I think he may have been found liable, and even charged criminally like the guy who bought the beer for Brad and his friend.

I have explained that he knew and even provided alcohol, which you conveniently ignore, but that's typical of you because once you claim something, you do everything to argue it, despite of how wrong you are proven.  He put a refrigerator outside and filled it with beer for us before parties.

That very night, he was told that there was a girl that was so drunk that she could barely even stand or function, and then he saw her.  When we wrecked, he was telling kids "to hide her."  

People drank openly in their basement in winters and right outside their house in the yard, which he was outside sometimes.

As I mentioned, that night, kids went in and told him that the driver was drunk and driving, and he said "tell him not to do that," so kids were making an effort to stop us, but he wasn't, and he even admitted that he could have stopped us.

[fredtoast]

(05-07-2016, 03:36 PM)BFritz21 Wrote:


I have explained that he knew and even provided alcohol, which you conveniently ignore, but that's typical of you because once you claim something, you do everything to argue it, despite of how wrong you are proven.  He put a refrigerator outside and filled it with beer for us before parties.

That very night, he was told that there was a girl that was so drunk that she could barely even stand or function, and then he saw her.  When we wrecked, he was telling kids "to hide her."  

People drank openly in their basement in winters and right outside their house in the yard, which he was outside sometimes.

As I mentioned, that night, kids went in and told him that the driver was drunk and driving, and he said "tell him not to do that," so kids were making an effort to stop us, but he wasn't, and he even admitted that he could have stopped us.

I am not asking what happened.  I am asking what evidence the jury heard.

If the kids lied to protect him I am assuming he did not admit all of this to the authorities.  It would not make any sense to get kids to lie for him if he was already admitting to all of this.

[BFritz21]

(05-07-2016, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not asking what happened.  I am asking what evidence the jury heard.

If the kids lied to protect him I am assuming he did not admit all of this to the authorities.  It would not make any sense to get kids to lie for him if he was already admitting to all of this.

The jury heard all of it.

The kids lied to protect him after they had already told the truth in reports to the police the night of the wreck and the time after, as well as testifying to my lawyers about it.

They only began lying because his lawyers started telling them that he was depressed, suicidal, and going to lose his job, which, living in that home, he and his family would then be homeless (which, if he HAD lost his job, it would be justified because he didn't do his job, and they would have lost THAT house, but it's not like they were broke and couldn't get another one, or at least an apartment while he got a new job and saved money).

[fredtoast]

(05-07-2016, 04:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The jury heard all of it.

The kids lied to protect him after they had already told the truth in reports to the police the night of the wreck and the time after, as well as testifying to my lawyers about it.

They only began lying because his lawyers started telling them that he was depressed, suicidal, and going to lose his job, which, living in that home, he and his family would then be homeless (which, if he HAD lost his job, it would be justified because he didn't do his job, and they would have lost THAT house, but it's not like they were broke and couldn't get another one, or at least an apartment while he got a new job and saved money).

Well I hope he was charged with contributing to delinquency of a minor just like the guy who bought the beer for you.

But I also see how the jury could feel that he was not to blame for your wreck.  In a way it does not seem fair for you to try and blame him when you took part in all of these parties and never complained until you got injured.

[BFritz21]

(05-07-2016, 05:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well I hope he was charged with contributing to delinquency of a minor just like the guy who bought the beer for you.

But I also see how the jury could feel that he was not to blame for your wreck.  In a way it does not seem fair for you to try and blame him when you took part in all of these parties and never complained until you got injured.

We were also 15.  Of course we're not going to complain.  It was the party house where anything and everything goes.  Every kid dreams about a house like that, and being in the cemetery with no other houses or no possible police to get us in trouble made it that much more incredible.  

He set the stage for this to happen in the only place that it could have happened and he let it happen when he admitted that he could have stopped it by just going outside after he was told that my friend was drunk driving (he also knew that he was only 15).

[XenoMorph]

(05-10-2016, 04:44 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: We were also 15.  Of course we're not going to complain.  It was the party house where anything and everything goes.  Every kid dreams about a house like that, and being in the cemetery with no other houses or no possible police to get us in trouble made it that much more incredible.  

He set the stage for this to happen in the only place that it could have happened and he let it happen when he admitted that he could have stopped it by just going outside after he was told that my friend was drunk driving (he also knew that he was only 15).

Ultimately you are responsible for you.

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2016, 04:44 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: We were also 15.  Of course we're not going to complain.  It was the party house where anything and everything goes.  Every kid dreams about a house like that, and being in the cemetery with no other houses or no possible police to get us in trouble made it that much more incredible.  

He set the stage for this to happen in the only place that it could have happened and he let it happen when he admitted that he could have stopped it by just going outside after he was told that my friend was drunk driving (he also knew that he was only 15).

I doubt anyone here is going to change your mind, but it actually could have happened anywhere.  In fact you guys were drinking before you even went to the cemetery.  A 15 year old drunk driver could crash on any road.  

I have said all I am ggoing to say here.  I just hope that seeing everyone's opinion will at least open your eyes to the fact that it was not a "slam dunk" case that your lawyer screwed up, or some crooked judge conspired against you.  In fact it seems that due to a complicate set of circumstances it was legally problematic to find someone to collect from, and the jury just felt like you and the driver were responsible for your own actions.

[Tiger Teeth]

(05-10-2016, 05:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I doubt anyone here is going to change your mind, but it actually could have happened anywhere.  In fact you guys were drinking before you even went to the cemetery.  A 15 year old drunk driver could crash on any road.  

I have said all I am ggoing to say here.  I just hope that seeing everyone's opinion will at least open your eyes to the fact that it was not a "slam dunk" case that your lawyer screwed up, or some crooked judge conspired against you.  In fact it seems that due to a complicate set of circumstances it was legally problematic to find someone to collect from, and the jury just felt like you and the driver were responsible for your own actions.

/ thread

[Shake n Blake]

(05-10-2016, 05:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I doubt anyone here is going to change your mind, but it actually could have happened anywhere.  In fact you guys were drinking before you even went to the cemetery.  A 15 year old drunk driver could crash on any road.  

I have said all I am ggoing to say here.  I just hope that seeing everyone's opinion will at least open your eyes to the fact that it was not a "slam dunk" case that your lawyer screwed up, or some crooked judge conspired against you.  In fact it seems that due to a complicate set of circumstances it was legally problematic to find someone to collect from, and the jury just felt like you and the driver were responsible for your own actions.

Great post.

I like Brad, but when something like that happens, you really have to get past the victim mentality. I'm sure that's tough when everyone from his lawyer to his family were probably telling him he was the victim... but honestly lawyers are paid to do that and family is probably only going to say that because they don't want to pile on after a traumatic event. 

Don't get me wrong, I do have sympathy for Brad's ordeal, but I don't think anyone should've been held legally responsible for what happened. I'm glad he got some money out of it though, if that makes sense. We all make mistakes as teens. It's just really unfortunate that Brad's mistake really cost him. That said, I'm a believer in God and that things happen for a reason. 

Maybe Brad was on a bad path and this was what God meant for him. I know he's a motivational speaker now and he's really doing some great things. 

[BFritz21]

(05-10-2016, 05:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I doubt anyone here is going to change your mind, but it actually could have happened anywhere.  In fact you guys were drinking before you even went to the cemetery.  A 15 year old drunk driver could crash on any road.  

I have said all I am ggoing to say here.  I just hope that seeing everyone's opinion will at least open your eyes to the fact that it was not a "slam dunk" case that your lawyer screwed up, or some crooked judge conspired against you.  In fact it seems that due to a complicate set of circumstances it was legally problematic to find someone to collect from, and the jury just felt like you and the driver were responsible for your own actions.

Show me another place with roads that narrow and dark.  Show me another road with things filled with headstones that we could have clipped and trees that close to the road.

The driver had under a beer before we got to the cemetery.  He was also speeding back there because there were no cops and no other cars.  Given that and the above sentences, no, we could have not wrecked anywhere.

He also created an atmosphere where this kind of behavior was accepted and even encouraged.

We were also 15, and not all 15-year-olds act like that, but there's a reason of why adults have control until kids are 18.  In fact, the human brain isn't even fully developed until a person is in their 20s (24 I think is the average), meaning that kids don't make good decisions, which is why adults have control.

(05-11-2016, 09:09 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Great post.

I like Brad, but when something like that happens, you really have to get past the victim mentality. I'm sure that's tough when everyone from his lawyer to his family were probably telling him he was the victim... but honestly lawyers are paid to do that and family is probably only going to say that because they don't want to pile on after a traumatic event. 

Don't get me wrong, I do have sympathy for Brad's ordeal, but I don't think anyone should've been held legally responsible for what happened. I'm glad he got some money out of it though, if that makes sense. We all make mistakes as teens. It's just really unfortunate that Brad's mistake really cost him. That said, I'm a believer in God and that things happen for a reason. 

Maybe Brad was on a bad path and this was what God meant for him. I know he's a motivational speaker now and he's really doing some great things. 

No one was telling me I'm the victim and I've never had that mentality.  

I was also not on a bad path.

Like you said and I said above, we all make mistakes as teens, so having an adult promote this kind of activity was just setting up for something bad to happen.

[XenoMorph]

(05-11-2016, 10:49 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Show me another place with roads that narrow and dark.  Show me another road with things filled with headstones that we could have clipped and trees that close to the road.

The driver had under a beer before we got to the cemetery.  He was also speeding back there because there were no cops and no other cars.  Given that and the above sentences, no, we could have not wrecked anywhere.

He also created an atmosphere where this kind of behavior was accepted and even encouraged.

We were also 15, and not all 15-year-olds act like that, but there's a reason of why adults have control until kids are 18.  In fact, the human brain isn't even fully developed until a person is in their 20s (24 I think is the average), meaning that kids don't make good decisions, which is why adults have control.

No one was telling me I'm the victim and I've never had that mentality.  

I was also not on a bad path.

Like you said and I said above, we all make mistakes as teens, so having an adult promote this kind of activity was just setting up for something bad to happen.

Readign your post you are playing the victim card even now drinking at 15 is a bad path

i can show you many roads where its dark narrow with a ton of trees near by....

[*michaelsean*]

(05-11-2016, 10:49 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Show me another place with roads that narrow and dark.  Show me another road with things filled with headstones that we could have clipped and trees that close to the road.

The driver had under a beer before we got to the cemetery.  He was also speeding back there because there were no cops and no other cars.  Given that and the above sentences, no, we could have not wrecked anywhere.

He also created an atmosphere where this kind of behavior was accepted and even encouraged.

We were also 15, and not all 15-year-olds act like that, but there's a reason of why adults have control until kids are 18.  In fact, the human brain isn't even fully developed until a person is in their 20s (24 I think is the average), meaning that kids don't make good decisions, which is why adults have control.

No one was telling me I'm the victim and I've never had that mentality.  

I was also not on a bad path.

Like you said and I said above, we all make mistakes as teens, so having an adult promote this kind of activity was just setting up for something bad to happen.

There are tens of thousands of crashes a year involving alcohol that don't happen in cemeteries. 

And you think part of their liability arises from having gravestones?  IN A CEMETERY?

[Bengalholic]

(05-11-2016, 10:49 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Show me another place with roads that narrow and dark.  Show me another road with things filled with headstones that we could have clipped and trees that close to the road.

The driver had under a beer before we got to the cemetery.  He was also speeding back there because there were no cops and no other cars.  Given that and the above sentences, no, we could have not wrecked anywhere.

He also created an atmosphere where this kind of behavior was accepted and even encouraged.

We were also 15, and not all 15-year-olds act like that, but there's a reason of why adults have control until kids are 18.  In fact, the human brain isn't even fully developed until a person is in their 20s (24 I think is the average), meaning that kids don't make good decisions, which is why adults have control.

No one was telling me I'm the victim and I've never had that mentality.  

I was also not on a bad path.

Like you said and I said above, we all make mistakes as teens, so having an adult promote this kind of activity was just setting up for something bad to happen.

Brad, a lot of years have passed since your accident. You're an adult now and have been for awhile. Maybe it's time you just said "You know what...no one held a gun to my head and made me go drink and party in a cemetery. No one forced me to take part in anything that the caretaker was doing. And, no one made me get in the car that eventually wrecked. Even though I was a teenager and made poor decisions...it was still ME that made those decisions". 

What I'm getting at brother, is that it's probably way past time to just accept your own (and pretty significant) responsibility. While others may have 'promoted an environment' that permitted these things to go on, you kept returning to that environment of your own accord. It's true that teenagers do stupid things and and sometimes make poor decisions. But, when those decisions lead to something bad happening (in a situation that YOU put yourself in)...then eventually you're going to have to own those bad decisions and poor choices.

I'm not condemning you Brad, just trying to offer some advice. Just accept the fact that you are as much to blame as anyone for what happened. If you've been through the courts and ended up with some cash, then I say you did OK. The best thing you can do is quit rehashing the past and just concentrate on much more productive uses of your time and energy...like your public speaking and trying to get other kids to not make those same bad choices.