Steve Butters Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 "If" mudpuppet has enough insurance it will pay lost wages. If not, they they'll go after his assets.So you're saying this process is instant? What about right now? The case is pending, and these people are laid up... Not working, 3 kids at home, no money coming in... I'm not sure how it's not sinking in that something like this can cause a financial hardship... It'll be months before they see a dime of money from this dude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubba Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 Based on what I've seen and read in the media, the injured aren't likely to recoup much if any of their medical expenses, and even less likely to get a satisfactory pain/suffering settlement. Crum appears to live in trailer park, so even if he actually owns the trailer and land, it isn't worth much. Plus, his obvious lack of respect to the rule of law--based on his prior run-ins that involve aggravated menacing with a vehicle--would make it pretty unlikely that he carries any real amount of insurance. You could suspend his license for life, but I'd put odds on that he'd end up driving anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Based on what I've seen and read in the media, the injured aren't likely to recoup much if any of their medical expenses, and even less likely to get a satisfactory pain/suffering settlement. Crum appears to live in trailer park, so even if he actually owns the trailer and land, it isn't worth much. Plus, his obvious lack of respect to the rule of law--based on his prior run-ins that involve aggravated menacing with a vehicle--would make it pretty unlikely that he carries any real amount of insurance. You could suspend his license for life, but I'd put odds on that he'd end up driving anyway. As far as I'm concerned, what he did was no different that firing a gun at the riders. He should be punished accordingly. Edited October 22, 2015 by Scruit 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 As far as I'm concerned, what he did was no different that firing a gun at the riders. He should be punished accordingly.This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 Short rope. Tall tree. Hang that worthless fuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gump Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 So you're saying this process is instant? What about right now? The case is pending, and these people are laid up... Not working, 3 kids at home, no money coming in... I'm not sure how it's not sinking in that something like this can cause a financial hardship... It'll be months before they see a dime of money from this dudeIm assuming they're on FMLA leave and with some sort of disability pay. Medical care out of pocket co-pays should be the only money leaving there pocket now, if they have insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
330racing Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 Are you kidding me with this shit?Nothing wrong with coming to a stop behind him. If you don't have time to stop, you're following too closely. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 Im assuming they're on FMLA leave and with some sort of disability pay. Medical care out of pocket co-pays should be the only money leaving there pocket now, if they have insurance.FMLA/STD is 60% pay. Assuming they even qualify at their jobs for it. (My company requires a year of seniority to receive this). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 Based on what I've seen and read in the media, the injured aren't likely to recoup much if any of their medical expenses, and even less likely to get a satisfactory pain/suffering settlement. Crum appears to live in trailer park, so even if he actually owns the trailer and land, it isn't worth much. Plus, his obvious lack of respect to the rule of law--based on his prior run-ins that involve aggravated menacing with a vehicle--would make it pretty unlikely that he carries any real amount of insurance. You could suspend his license for life, but I'd put odds on that he'd end up driving anyway.Hopefully the rider had his own high limits because auto liability insurance does not typically cover intentional acts; which this appears to be based on what I read in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh1234 Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 Are you kidding me with this shit? I'm playing devil's advocate, to demonstrate what the defense attorney will say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 I'm an idiot.Oh, okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gump Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 Cite?To be clear, you can't be charged for failure to yield right of way if the other vehicle is operating unlawfully. You pull out of your driveway and the guy coming down the road hits you on the side of your car. If you can prove he was speeding you won't get criminally charged failure to yield right of way. Hopefully.Also you're hauling ass down the road on your bike. Dude pulls out in front of you. If he can prove you were speeding, you're screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 Also you're hauling ass down the road on your bike. Dude pulls out in front of you. If he can prove you were speeding, you're screwed. If only law was that... logical. :-) I've seen a guy get blamed in an accident when he was doing 55 in a 45 in a hit a car backing out if its driveway. He though his dashcam would be a slam-dunk but the speed readout sunk him. Police ticketed him, not the other driver, and his insurance agreed to pay out. i was also involved with a case where a driver was accused of speeding when she collided with a left-turner that crossed her path. The LT's attorney pointed out that her speed meant she lost her right of way - the defense pointed out that the sight lines on the road was such that she could be clearly seen, and that the speed LT was accusing her of was not fast enough to make a difference. The judge ruled for her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 (edited) To be clear, you can't be charged for failure to yield right of way if the other vehicle is operating unlawfully. Define "unlawfully". - Driving across a painted gore? On on a shoulder? Probably. *- Driving drunk? Driving on a suspended license? Irrelevant to liability - you'd still have to prove they did something wrong behind the wheel. * * = Liability stems from negligence. Negligence is failure to to take all reasonable steps to avoid damages. Even if the other vehicle committed a clear violation, you must still take all reasonable steps to avoid an accident. That means if you hit someone who pulled out of a side street then you may still bear liability if it is found that you had plenty of time to slow down but chose instead to get really close to them to make a point, and wound up hitting them. A driving infraction is not an invitation to allow an accident to happen - because then it's not an accident any more, it's intentional. Edited October 24, 2015 by Scruit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gump Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 (edited) If only law was that... logical. :-)I've seen a guy get blamed in an accident when he was doing 55 in a 45 in a hit a car backing out if its driveway. He though his dashcam would be a slam-dunk but the speed readout sunk him. Police ticketed him, not the other driver, and his insurance agreed to pay out.i was also involved with a case where a driver was accused of speeding when she collided with a left-turner that crossed her path. The LT's attorney pointed out that her speed meant she lost her right of way - the defense pointed out that the sight lines on the road was such that she could be clearly seen, and that the speed LT was accusing her of was not fast enough to make a difference. The judge ruled for her.Sounds like LT couldn't prove the other drivers speed #1, and if that speed could be proven was it fast enough. You start with, if this person hadn't of engaged in this unlawful activity, would the accident have happened. Your 1st story is what I'm talking about. Edited October 24, 2015 by Gump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gump Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 (edited) Define "unlawfully".- Driving across a painted gore? On on a shoulder? Probably. *- Driving drunk? Driving on a suspended license? Irrelevant to liability - you'd still have to prove they did something wrong behind the wheel.Speeding excessivelyTinted windowsAgain you start with would this accident have happened if the other party wasn't engaged in unlawful activity. This on the criminal charge of failure to yield right of way. You could still be 20% responsible on the civil side.So in this cuntpuppit hits biker case. If cuntpuppet #1 hadn't opened his mouth and biker was unlawfully passing, cuntpuppet could have said he spilled coffee in court. Now depending if the biker was engaged in unlawful activity, there's an argument for " trialpuppets" defense. If the biker didn't have a endorsement he shouldn't have been there to begin with. Does he only have his temps? passenger shouldn't be there. Edited October 24, 2015 by Gump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 Dude says he's been riding for 30yrs and did not get ticketed... So I'd probably assume he has a license Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 Gump, you seem to be trying really hard to blame the biker for this accident. Why not just use the argument the media uses, that all bikes are always at fault for everything? Seems to work for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 Gump, you seem to be trying really hard to blame the biker for this accident. Why not just use the argument the media uses, that all bikes are always at fault for everything? Seems to work for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gump Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 Gump, you seem to be trying really hard to blame the biker for this accident. Why not just use the argument the media uses, that all bikes are always at fault for everything? Seems to work for them.Not at all. Fartmuppet is a dueshe. Just stating the what ifs, "maybe" throwing in facts. All Other the other talk is gossip, which bores me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 Again you start with would this accident have happened if the other party wasn't engaged in unlawful activity.This on the criminal charge of failure to yield right of way. You could still be 20% responsible on the civil side. Failure to yield right of way is not a criminal charge. It's not a charge at all, really, or at least it's several charges. There is a specific charge of failure to yield ROW while turning left, etc. In the Texas case the lane change is being charged as an intentional act, so it is a criminal charge of Felonious Assault / Assault with a deadly weapon etc. The biker committing the traffic infraction has no bearing on the felony charge. There's no consideration for comparative negligence. If we are to argue that the biker did something to deserve being assaulted then it's be as part of a "self defense" claim. Not happening. In Ohio, if this was a simple traffic accident instead of an intentional act then the charge would be an infraction (MM, unless he has a recent enough related prior) and it'd be based upon his reason for the swerve. - Avoiding road debris? "Turn/Stop signals" (You may not change lanes unless it can be done safely) - Bit in the tessie by a spider? "Failure to maintain control". (Catchall for any accident they can't pin on a more specific charge) If it was a simple accident then the relative negligence of the biker would come into play (depending on the liability rules of the state). I can't a Texas equivalent of the Ohio rule that lets you pass slow traffic in a no-passing zone. If there is none then the biker would share liability if it was an accident... However, it was not an accident, it was intentional. Road rules are irrelevant because the biker's pass could never be seriously considered to be a defense against felonious assault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 Tinted windows If you rear-end a car at a red light, and it turns out that he has illegally tinted windows - whose fault is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 (edited) Gump, you seem to be trying really hard to blame the biker for this accident. Why not just use the argument the media uses, that all bikes are always at fault for everything? Seems to work for them. There is validity to the basic concept that the biker was not being an angel. However the events that followed were so heinous that they could never even being to be justified by the biker's illegal pass. There's also a couple of lessons in this for all bikers: - There's crazies out there... - ...that don't like it when you ride illegally... - ...and they will always win if it comes to physical contact. Not saying that's a good thing - it's just a fact of life. Just like locking your door when you leave, or wearing your Buckeyes jersey in a University of Michigan college bar. You should be able to do that safely, but people suck and you might just wind up with you getting run off the road, all your stuff stolen, or a football crammed sideways in your rectum. Edited October 24, 2015 by Scruit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gump Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 (edited) If you rear-end a car at a red light, and it turns out that he has illegally tinted windows - whose fault is it?Your question is the opposite of what I was saying. And the answer is obvious. Edited October 24, 2015 by Gump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gump Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 Failure to yield right of way is not a criminal charge. It's not a charge at all, really, or at least it's several charges. There is a specific charge of failure to yield ROW while turning left, etc.If you go to trial for a MM or M what type of trial is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.