I heard on the radio this AM that Walmart is claiming that the damages Tracy Morgan incurred were not the drivers fault because Tracy and passengers where not wearing a seat belt. At first I thought “That’s ridiculous the guy ran into him”. After thinking about it for a while I started wondering how this works out in court and or in any dispute when the “Injured party” does not take “Reasonable steps” to protect themselves from harm.
So in this case, I’m assuming this is the case I don’t really know, the injured party wasn’t wearing their seatbelts. Let’s say that if they HAD been wearing their seatbelts that the actual damages would have been significantly less, maybe even minimal. Again I don’t know if that is the case or not but let’s for discussion sake say it is. How does one determine whether or not and how much “Fault” there is on the driver that hit the other driver versus the injured parties fault.
The extreme example that popped into my head was a guy that was storing some sort of flammable liquid next to a propane tank next to his house. Someone drives by and flicks a cigarette out the window, catches fire, blows the tank and levels the house. Now clearly the guy that flicked the cigarette “Started” the fire, but do they also hold 100% responsibility for the chain of events that followed afterwards or does the injured party carry some or possibly all of that?
Depends on jurisdiction. Most jurisdictions have “comparative negligence” or “contributory negligence.” The court or jury decides how much the actions of the plaintiff contributed to the injury and reduces monetary damages by that percentage.
I heard on the radio this AM that Walmart is claiming that the damages Tracy Morgan incurred were not the drivers fault because Tracy and passengers where not wearing a seat belt. At first I thought “That’s ridiculous the guy ran into him”. After thinking about it for a while I started wondering how this works out in court and or in any dispute when the “Injured party” does not take “Reasonable steps” to protect themselves from harm.
So in this case, I’m assuming this is the case I don’t really know, the injured party wasn’t wearing their seatbelts. Let’s say that if they HAD been wearing their seatbelts that the actual damages would have been significantly less, maybe even minimal. Again I don’t know if that is the case or not but let’s for discussion sake say it is. How does one determine whether or not and how much “Fault” there is on the driver that hit the other driver versus the injured parties fault.
The extreme example that popped into my head was a guy that was storing some sort of flammable liquid next to a propane tank next to his house. Someone drives by and flicks a cigarette out the window, catches fire, blows the tank and levels the house. Now clearly the guy that flicked the cigarette “Started” the fire, but do they also hold 100% responsibility for the chain of events that followed afterwards or does the injured party carry some or possibly all of that?
~Matt
They were in a limo bus. I don’t even know if those things have seatbelts. However, if I remember correctly, the Walmart driver slammed right into their vehicle without ever slowing or stopping, and the police reports actually stated that seatbelts weren’t a contributing factor.
I know Walmart’s lawyers are doing their job to try to minimize damages to the company. However, Walmart’s spokesman previously said that the company will do everything it can to make things right, but now they won’t even admit that the driver worked for them. This is the kind of stuff that earns lawyers a sleazy reputation, even if it is exactly what they’re supposed to do.
They were in a limo bus. I don’t even know if those things have seatbelts. However, if I remember correctly, the Walmart driver slammed right into their vehicle without ever slowing or stopping, and the police reports actually stated that seatbelts weren’t a contributing factor.
I know Walmart’s lawyers are doing their job to try to minimize damages to the company. However, Walmart’s spokesman previously said that the company will do everything it can to make things right, but now they won’t even admit that the driver worked for them. This is the kind of stuff that earns lawyers a sleazy reputation, even if it is exactly what they’re supposed to do.
I’m sure that’s the case but I was actually not all that concerned about this particular case as much as the concept of who’s at fault and why in any similar case. The above is probably what the jury discusses to determine fault as JSA pointed out.
I heard on the radio this AM that Walmart is claiming that the damages Tracy Morgan incurred were not the drivers fault because Tracy and passengers where not wearing a seat belt. At first I thought “That’s ridiculous the guy ran into him”. After thinking about it for a while I started wondering how this works out in court and or in any dispute when the “Injured party” does not take “Reasonable steps” to protect themselves from harm.
So in this case, I’m assuming this is the case I don’t really know, the injured party wasn’t wearing their seatbelts. Let’s say that if they HAD been wearing their seatbelts that the actual damages would have been significantly less, maybe even minimal. Again I don’t know if that is the case or not but let’s for discussion sake say it is. How does one determine whether or not and how much “Fault” there is on the driver that hit the other driver versus the injured parties fault.
The extreme example that popped into my head was a guy that was storing some sort of flammable liquid next to a propane tank next to his house. Someone drives by and flicks a cigarette out the window, catches fire, blows the tank and levels the house. Now clearly the guy that flicked the cigarette “Started” the fire, but do they also hold 100% responsibility for the chain of events that followed afterwards or does the injured party carry some or possibly all of that?
~Matt
They were in a limo bus. I don’t even know if those things have seatbelts. However, if I remember correctly, the Walmart driver slammed right into their vehicle without ever slowing or stopping, and the police reports actually stated that seatbelts weren’t a contributing factor.
I know Walmart’s lawyers are doing their job to try to minimize damages to the company. However, Walmart’s spokesman previously said that the company will do everything it can to make things right, but now they won’t even admit that the driver worked for them. This is the kind of stuff that earns lawyers a sleazy reputation, even if it is exactly what they’re supposed to do.
It is just a court filing, they need to raise these kind of things in filings now. If there was no suit filed and they were just negotiating settlement you would most likely never hear this.
And they aren’t really, truly blaming him. This is the kind of standard answer you give when you are accused of fucking up and you don’t really have a good answer. You just don’t usually see this part of the legal process.
Depends on jurisdiction. Most jurisdictions have “comparative negligence” or “contributory negligence.” The court or jury decides how much the actions of the plaintiff contributed to the injury and reduces monetary damages by that percentage.
So it’s a “Case by case” determination, which makes sense as that is about the only way you could really do it. Is it possible for there to be very little compensation, say in the example I gave, where the guys actions, flicking out a cigarette butt, was rather benign but the damages where large? A real world example would be wildfires caused by someone tossing out a cigarette but that eventually causes hundreds of millions in damages. What happens to those guys?
I’ve always felt this to be a better solution than seatbelt/helmet laws. You get in an accident and you aren’t wearing a belt you can’t recieve compensation for injuries beyond what would have occurred while belted.
Head trauma from a helmetless motorcycle accident? Sorry, man.
Depends on jurisdiction. Most jurisdictions have “comparative negligence” or “contributory negligence.” The court or jury decides how much the actions of the plaintiff contributed to the injury and reduces monetary damages by that percentage.
It goes to the amount of damages, usually.
^^^^^This
In some jurisdictions, such as Kansas, evidence of whether or not an a individual was wearing their seatbelt is prohibited by statute from being introduced at trial. The rationale being that the accident was caused by the defendant’s negligence in operating the vehicle, not because the plaintiff failed to take every precaution to prevent injury from the other parties negligence.
I’ve always felt this to be a better solution than seatbelt/helmet laws. You get in an accident and you aren’t wearing a belt you can’t recieve compensation for injuries beyond what would have occurred while belted.
Good point. I’ve felt this way about health insurance riders as well. What is paid for if you have your belt or helmet on is not what is paid for if you’re not wearing them etc.
Yes, it’s a case by case determination based on the facts AND on the law of the state where the injury occurred. Some states have a complete contributory negligence bar meaning that if you were even 1% responsible for the accident then you are completely barred from any recovery. That is the extreme. Most states have a comparative fault type statute where the person’s actions that contributed the injury or accident are considered and any damages are reduced by that amount.
As to your question about the 100s of millions in damages from a forest fire that’s a little different because to be civilly liable for an injury there has to be a duty, breach of that duty, damages caused that breach and the damages or injury must be proximately caused by the injury. In your hypo, the person throwing out a cigarette technically owes a duty to the world and others not to cause them harm. The throwing of a cigarette out when you know it can cause fire is the breach, the millions of damages, lost homes, lost lives, etc are the damages and the the starting of a fire is the proximate cause. It would have to be proven that the person knew or should have known that his actions could cause such danger. This is different than a contrib issue like Tracy Morgan and the bus/truck.
In the hundreds of millions of fire damages cases, if a civil judgement is rendered the person will owe that money until they pay it off which will never happen. Insurance does not cover things like that.
You get in an accident and you aren’t wearing a belt you can’t recieve compensation for injuries beyond what would have occurred while belted
The challenge is in determining which injuries wouldn’t have happened if the guy was belted. There are plenty of examples of belted accident victims who died, so trying to say that this injury or that injury would not have occured if belted can be difficult. At that point, you’re asking the legal system to determine what might have happened, rather than to examine what actually happened.
Oakclifftri fully responded, so I won’t repeat it. In summary, if you set in motion a series of events that cause damage, you will be liable. But, the amount varies depending on the conduct of the defendant.
You get in an accident and you aren’t wearing a belt you can’t recieve compensation for injuries beyond what would have occurred while belted
The challenge is in determining which injuries wouldn’t have happened if the guy was belted. There are plenty of examples of belted accident victims who died, so trying to say that this injury or that injury would not have occured if belted can be difficult. At that point, you’re asking the legal system to determine what might have happened, rather than to examine what actually happened.