TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- DRUNK DRIVER WINS 600K!!!!!!!....only in Canada
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz That is perhaps a bit harsh on my part but if you've ever seen the damage an impaired driver can do to a friend or family member you would understand the anger behind that statement. Of course he shouldn't really be raped as punishment.

Yes, and if he had killed someone he would have been punished, the fact he was fucked up instead means that he deserves compensation (and as i said before 600k canadian is barely anything compared to some american law suit pay outs for alot less).

Didnt a burgular sue a home owner and win when the burgular fell through a roof or skylight or something? thats stupid.

Imagine this scenario.


You, and your friend are enjoying 1 beer each with a meal.

Because you are smaller 1 beer effects you more, and you are very slightly over the legal limit. Your friend is much bigger, so his blood alcohol level is lower than yours, and is very slightly below the legal limit.

Your friend, who is just below the limit, gets in his car and drives off. Five minutes later a little child runs out in front of the car, and is run over and killed.

You get in your car, drive off, and you hit in to a broken down truck, without hazard lights on. You are in hospital for 2 months with a cracked skull and end up with brain damage, and you are unable to work.

Does it make sense that your friend should get away with killing the girl, because he was just below the limit, and you shouldnt be compensated for brain damage just because you were very slightly over?

no, it doesnt, does it?

quote:

Originally posted by joeh Say some drunk guy in a club starts having a go at you cause hes pissed up....

That's not anywhere in the same league as getting behind the wheel while impaired by drugs or alcohol, unless you were implying rape.

quote:

should you be able to stab him and get away with it, just because he's drunk and causing trouble?

Of course not unless he is trying to rape or kill you. You can just push him off and he'll get the picture.

quote:

Dont you think that the judge, who no doubt spent ages hearing the evidence, and is experienced in the laws of canada, knows whats right, as opposed to someone in another country who spent 1 minute skimming through an report on a website?

That's exactly what you are doing! You are making judgements based on a small terse article. We have no idea what the scene even looked like, or whether the driver could have avoided having a wreck if his reaction times were not impaired.

Do you see how pointless it is to argue about something we have such little knowledge about? Just drop it.


As I've said earlier:

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ You'd have to have been at the scene to truly judge who is at fault

i.e. you were the truck driver, the drunk driver, a witness at the scene, or a member of an emergency response department who responded to the scene.

We'll just give the judge the benefit of the doubt in his decision since we don't know more details. Judges aren't infallible though.

I take back my "rape" comment made earlier, as that was not appropriate.

Well, personally I think it's impossible to judge on the basis of the article, as it is unclear about many things. The most important of them being a question whether a non-drunk individual would have hit the truck in that situation. Of course if the truck was in the middle of a straight and wide road, the reparations to the driver would have been absurd. But if the truck was stationed right behind a sharp turn or something like that, then it really isn't the driver's fault. Another question is how much the driver has drank. If it was, say 1% over the limit, his driving skills could have been just as good as if he had no drink at all. On the other hand he could have muzzled up 5 bottles of wine. The fact is that the article is very rudimentary and lacking in details, so it's really impossible to decide.

quote:

Originally posted by placebo I say fuck canada.

And I say fuck you. We all know these frivolous lawsuits are brought to us courtesy of our dumber and uglier neighbors to the south.

quote:

Originally posted by Z1D And I say fuck you. We all know these frivolous lawsuits are brought to us courtesy of our dumber and uglier neighbors to the south.

Hahaha. I'm American, but man, you're right...

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek he's not fucking rewarded, you're talking as if he won a grand prize in a championiship by cheating??!?! he's now crippled! are you guys fucking dumb?!? sorry but seriously! This is ridiculous! what kind of mentality do you guys have?! grow up! The Trucker (or his company) has been punished because he has to pay 600K to the plaintiff who have been injuried because of THE trucker negligence!! notwithstanding the guy being drunk or not, It just doesn't matter in this case! The guy could've been high on crack or receiving a BJ or talking on the cell phone, or whatever, it just doesn't matter.

Wow, ahlamalek, you really impress us with your brilliant analysis and assertation of our "fucking dumb"ness. It doesn't matter what the driver was doing at the time if he hit the truck (oh sorry, "THE truck!!"), right? Suppose the truck's hazard lights were broken and the guy didn't have cones in his back pocket. A guy doped up on crack should still get money for running into it, huh?

It seems the only responses that hold any merit are those from DrUg_Tit0 and DaveSaenz. If the truck was on a straight, open, well-lit road, then presumably only an impaired driver would hit it. As for those responses suggesting "very slightly over," I quote from the article: "A sample seized at hospital showed a blood alcohol level of twice the legal limit."

Based solely on the article, we can't come to any good conclusions ourselves. As for "He now has ongoing memory and personality problems associated with brain injury," I can only be glad that (hopefully) he won't be driving anywhere again.

quote:

Originally posted by Flyboy217 Suppose the truck's hazard lights were broken and the guy didn't have cones in his back pocket. A guy doped up on crack should still get money for running into it, huh?

actually, there's laws that force any trucks to have cones, hazard lights to be working, etc. There's many laws and obligations truckers face and have to submit to, because euh... let me see here...

they can kill people more easily due to their size and weight. DUH

If, in this story, the truck driver didn't check for cones before taking the road, or just as it seems in this story, not care to install them after stopping on the road, well, this is would still be criminal negligence.

I think the only one who really understands the implications is Joeh here, the rest of you, get a clue ffs

wow . . . is all i can say

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek actually, there's laws that force any trucks to have cones, hazard lights to be working, etc. There's many laws and obligations truckers face and have to submit to, because euh... let me see here... ... I think the only one who really understands the implications is Joeh here, the rest of you, get a clue ffs

Fair enough... there are laws to make sure these precautions are in place, and the truck driver should be held criminally negligent. While the circumstances don't excuse the truck driver, neither should they excuse the drunk driver. I can understand the civil case, but the drunk driver should also be held criminally accountable for driving drunk. Joeh's argument fails to hold water when one realizes that the driver was not "slightly" over the limit, but TWICE the limit. This is inexcusable.

quote:

Originally posted by Flyboy217 Fair enough... there are laws to make sure these precautions are in place, and the truck driver should be held criminally negligent.

We're finnally agreeing on something

quote:

While the circumstances don't excuse the truck driver, neither should they excuse the drunk driver. I can understand the civil case, but the drunk driver should also be held criminally accountable for driving drunk. Joeh's argument fails to hold water when one realizes that the driver was not "slightly" over the limit, but TWICE the limit. This is inexcusable.

of course, the car driver was drunk and accountable too... but being crippled is something else, who's gonna compensate him? well the negligent truck driver...

you see, at the court, only one party can sue the other at once, maybe the car driver will be sued or criminally charged for drinking drunk by the trucker for damaging his truck or for "psychological" damage or some bs

*comingbackfromapartydrunkat7:30amblabber*

Okay geez... some of you guys obviously:
(a) don't drive
(b) don't know anything about Canadian law (and for those living outside of Canada, I don't expect you to, but don't act like you have expertise here)
(c) don't understand the legal process here, or perhaps anywhere.

Civil trials aren't "stories", they aren't about "who did more stupid things." The point of the trial is to figure out who was hurt, what the damages were, and who was responsible. If the defendant is ruled as responsible, then a monetary value is placed on the damages (which could be direct, for loss of funds or work, or punitive, to deter the defendant from being so negligent the next time).

As someone else said, the article is very rudimentary and lacking in detail. Picture this: you've got a tiny buzz (twice the legal limit is still a VERY low amount of alcohol), you're driving along an empty two-lane street with a posted speed limit of 70 km/h (where people usually drive at 90+ if the traffic is light) in the left lane. You see a truck at the traffic light ahead with no markings and no lights on. It's 3 AM, so you can hardly see anything to begin with - you see the green light, honk at them, eventually you realize that the truck is in fact not going anywhere, and swerve to avoid it, but since the truck is over 15 ft. wide, you don't make it and hit the back.

So who is more at fault here - the guy who got buzzed, or the idiot who left his truck in the middle of the fucking road without warning anyone?

I'm sure if that "truck" had been a little girl crossing the street, as someone so cleverly pointed out, the driver would have (a) seen her moving, and (b) been able to avoid her since she's a much smaller obstacle than a FUCKING TRUCK!

Any of you drive on the highway? Notice how everybody tries to pass the trucks, even if the trucks are going faster than the other traffic? It's because you CAN'T SEE SHIT when one is in front of you. And a ridiculous number of highway accidents are caused because a truck driver either goes way too fast (so people can't pass) or suddenly stops (because people behind can't see what's going on).

To recap: the driver was awarded damages because the person who left the truck WAS NEGLIGENT, regardless of whatever else may have happened. The driver was only awarded PARTIAL damages because he was drunk. The driver most likely got slapped with a fine or had his license revoked for drunk driving, and the trucking company may have tried to countersue for property damage (the article does not specify, so we can only speculate). If you guys actually think about this instead of just saying "death to drunk drivers!" you might realize that this case doesn't even begin to compare to some of the lawsuits that succeeded in the USA:

1) The woman who spilled McDonald's coffee on her lap and won $4 million
2) The woman who embezzled $250,000 and ran up $500,000 on credit, and got off scott-free because she suffered from a "compulsive shopping addiction"
3) The girl who was awarded $450,000 after tripping in a 5x10" gopher hole because the city failed to provide proper warning of the dangers of gopher holes
4) The American Airlines passengers who sued the airline for $2 million for emotional distress after going through 30 seconds of turbulence
5) The man who sued Starbucks Corp. for $2.3 million after crushing his genitals in a "faulty toilet seat"

(to name a few... there are many more)

So quit ragging on Canada!

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut 5) The man who sued Starbucks Corp. for $2.3 million after crushing his genitals in a "faulty toilet seat"

You overlooked the fact that the man who crushed his genitals (and sued) was Canadian. How does someone manage to crush their genitals in a toilet seat anyways? Perhaps he was using it to stimulate himself sexually Lol.


This one is funny:

quote:

6. Work-A-Day Grind A Florida phone sex operator won a workers� compensation settlement claiming she was injured after regularly pleasing herself at work. According to Reuters and ABC News, (Nov. 19) the 40-year-old employee developed carpal tunnel syndrome � also known as repetitive motion injury�in both hands from giving herself an orgasm as many as seven times a day while speaking with callers.

Some stories may be fabrications:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Okay geez... some of you guys obviously: (a) don't drive Picture this: you've got a tiny buzz (twice the legal limit is still a VERY low amount of alcohol), you're driving along an empty two-lane street with a posted speed limit of 70 km/h (where people usually drive at 90+ if the traffic is light) in the left lane. You see a truck at the traffic light ahead with no markings and no lights on. It's 3 AM, so you can hardly see anything to begin with - you see the green light, honk at them, eventually you realize that the truck is in fact not going anywhere, and swerve to avoid it, but since the truck is over 15 ft. wide, you don't make it and hit the back. And a ridiculous number of highway accidents are caused because a truck driver either goes way too fast (so people can't pass) or suddenly stops (because people behind can't see what's going on). So quit ragging on Canada!

First, "tiny buzz" is a subjective call on your part. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Canada's limit is .08. For a 160 lb. man to be at .16, he would have needed to have more than 8 drinks in 3 hours. That's a "tiny buzz?" (There are many BAC calculators online if you want to double check). I'd also like to know where you got your information on truck drivers causing accidents. Here in the states, I believe that's very much not true.

Now for your scenario. It's at night and "You see a truck at the traffic light ahead with no markings and no lights on." What is the first thing any rational person would do? Change lanes or brake, or at least try to discern the circumstances. Next you say "you see the green light, honk at them." If you're already honking at them, presumably you know something is wrong. Usually people honk only after a few seconds of trouble... giving them plenty of time to slow down. So you continue to drive directly at them? "eventually you realize that the truck is in fact not going anywhere." If you didn't already realize this, then why were you honking? Brakes are a more effective means of avoiding accidents than honking.

That's utterly ridiculous. If I didn't know better and weren't giving you benefit of the doubt, I'd say it's you who's never driven. However, there are certainly scenarios that would cause a crash even in a sober person. Suppose the truck is around a steep bend. Or maybe the road is not well-lit and it's impossible to see the truck until it's too late. But like we've already said... we don't know. We do know, however, that the driver had a BAC of ~.16, which almost certainly affected his reaction and decision abilities severely. Keep in mind nobody else ran into the truck (yes, I know it was 3 A.M.)

In any case, I understand that there are drivers who are, even in their normal state, worse than drunk drivers. Had one of them hit the truck, nobody would be arguing. The fact is, nobody else did (and without further information, I can only guess that nobody else would). Twice the limit, man... he brought it on himself.

Conclusion: He should get the money, just as any sober bad driver would. After all, the trucker can't use "probably nobody else would hit it" as a defense. Other than that... well, he obviously had it coming.

First, please don't edit my post and take things out of context.

Second, yes, I've never driven, I'm paying the money for these leasing and insurance papers so I can leave my car outside in the parking lot and NEVER DRIVE IT. How perceptive of you.

Third, truck drivers cause less accidents in the states because the trucking laws there are stricter than Canada's, which again goes to show that the guy who left it illegally probably got off easy.

The man's weight was not specified, and alcohol induces different effects in different people, so perhaps you're jumping to conclusions just a little bit here.

Maybe not everyone drives as well as you do, Flyboy, and trying to "discern the circumstances" as you say may have been a lot more difficult in his situation than you make it sound. Especially when drunk. Yes, the driver was drunk, but there's a reason we have those laws for truck drivers! They wouldn't exist if the government didn't think it were possible for even a sober driver (and not necessarily a BAD one) to have a problem! Again, before you jump to conclusions, which you've done several times in your post, maybe you should find out who he is and look up his driving record? Because it did not specify anywhere that he was a "bad driver."

I would never, ever drive drunk, I think that's the stupidest fucking thing in the world to do. However, just because this guy decided to be an idiot and do it, doesn't mean he's fully responsible for everything that happened to him - if the stalled truck driver hadn't been negligent, there would have been no damage to anyone. That is the basis for a lawsuit, any other way would be unfair.

That is all.

I havent read the article, CBC apparently cant find it.

Does the drunk deserve damages? yea. Of course he does. Hes got memory and personality problems..ok. Now what that means I dont know. Maybe he cant tie his shoes, maybe he can only remember pi to 5 digits, and not 8 like he used to. I cant say. I doubt the article says. How much he is compensated is determined by how much 'damage' was done to him. And im sure doctors and scientists tried to quantify this, while an economist tried to predict the lost earnings of the victim and bla bla bla..
so he was awarded 600K. I can deal with that. -- Now at the same time, he most definetly should be charged with Driving under the influence. He will probably have insurance problems in the future, and if I were the trucker, I would counter sue for Damages done by teh driver(assuming that he had the roadside hazard cones/flares set up)

but really all we should all be saying is
'I dont know enough details about this situation, so I wont make any judgement on it at all'

1) The post was edited for brevity. Each of the statements mentioned was self-contextual.

2) If you read carefully, you'll notice I acknowledged that you probably do drive. My discernment was based on the ridiculousness of your premise, not the amount of money you're paying for your car.

3) Interesting to know!

4) Correct, I don't know how much he weighs. However, given that his BAC was ostensibly .16, I presented a plausible circumstance. You'll note that BAC is normalized with respect to weight, so regardless of how much he weighs, it's equivalent to a 160 lb man with 8 drinks in 3 hours. I imagine that this calculated analysis is at least better than declaring he had a "slight buzz" with no data. Who is jumping to conclusions here?

I never stated that this man was a bad driver, but that his drunk driving was presumably comparable to that of a sober bad driver. I agree with you that the man should be awarded damages. Had he not been drinking, who knows what would have happened. I'll bet he thinks about that every day of his life, with whatever he has left to think with.

Laws are set up for the lowest common denominator. In this case, assuming he was a good driver normally, he put himself in that boat. Unfortunate.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.