|
DRUNK DRIVER WINS 600K!!!!!!!....only in Canada (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| joeh |
Say some drunk guy in a club starts having a go at you cause hes pissed up....
should you be able to stab him and get away with it, just because he's drunk and causing trouble?
No....
dont be so ing stupid.
This guy has got brain damage/crippled or whatever.
$600,000 dollars canadian isnt much for probably not being able to work. The judge gave him alot less than he wanted because he was drunk.
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? |
|
|
| joeh |
| 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.
:rolleyes: |
Yes, and if he had killed someone he would have been punished, the fact he was ed 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. |
|
|
| joeh |
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?
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| 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. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| 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. |
|
|
| Z1D |
| quote: | Originally posted by placebo
I say canada. |
And I say you. We all know these frivolous lawsuits are brought to us courtesy of our dumber and uglier neighbors to the south. |
|
|
| Flyboy217 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Z1D
And I say 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 ing rewarded, you're talking as if he won a grand prize in a championiship by cheating??!?! he's now crippled! are you guys ing 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 "ing 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. |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
| 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:rolleyes:
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 :tongue3 ;) |
|
|
| Busy Child |
| wow . . . is all i can say |
|
|
| Flyboy217 |
| 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 :tongue3 ;) |
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. |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
| 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* |
|
|
| DigiNut |
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 ing 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 ING 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 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! |
|
|
|
|
