|
Ryan Dunn dies in car crash (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
There is a concept called contributory negligence, which is the degree to which an injured/agrieved party was the author of their own misfortune. Damage awards are reduced by the percentage of contributory negligence. Would the passenger have some contrib (as we in the industry call it)? Absolutely... would it be 100%... hell no.... probably more in the 25% range in the US... could be as high as 50% in canada |
See edit. I wouldn't have a problem with the estate covering funeral costs, etc., but to suggest that the passenger's victim is entitled to some massive civil suit for pain and suffering seems ridiculous, even if it's legally permissible. |
|
|
| aNYthing |
If someone killed my loved one, I would give two s about what anyone else thinks. Accident or not, I would have wished that douchebag was never born and his family.
Aside from entertaining other idiots like him, what has this cretin contributed? Nothing.
****back on with schadenfreude*******
Q: What was the last thing that went through Ryan Dunn's mind?
A: Exhaust tips of the 2007 Porsche GT3 |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
See edit. I wouldn't have a problem with the estate covering funeral costs, etc., but to suggest that the passenger's victim is entitled to some massive civil suit for pain and suffering seems ridiculous, even if it's legally permissible. |
In the case of a deceased person pain and suffering is a tricky thing... in some jurisdictions the estate of the deceased can sue for pain and suffering in others they cannot. In Canada they cannot, in most of the US they can provided that it can be established the deceased survived with injuries for some period... longer the period the greater the award. In a case like this one the big part of the claim is going to be future income loss for anyone that was dependant on the deceased passenger. This is a valid claim in my opinion as the actions of the tortfeasor (driver) has caused a real loss on the dependants of the agrieved party (dead passenger). Think of it this way... if you were killed in an accident should your family not be compensated for the income you used to contribute to the family and would have continued to contribute if not for the untimely death? |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| What was the last thing to go through your great great grandfather's lungs? |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
In the case of a deceased person pain and suffering is a tricky thing... in some jurisdictions the estate of the deceased can sue for pain and suffering in others they cannot. In Canada they cannot, in most of the US they can provided that it can be established the deceased survived with injuries for some period... longer the period the greater the award. In a case like this one the big part of the claim is going to be future income loss for anyone that was dependant on the deceased passenger. This is a valid claim in my opinion as the actions of the tortfeasor (driver) has caused a real loss on the dependants of the agrieved party (dead passenger). Think of it this way... if you were killed in an accident should your family not be compensated for the income you used to contribute to the family and would have continued to contribute if not for the untimely death? |
The person in the passenger seat likely wasn't famous, so I doubt he contributed much to his family. They were all fairly young, so it'd be reasonable to assume he doesn't have a wife and kids. I guess I was thinking of it as his parents suing the estate, in which case that doesn't seem reasonable, because other than funeral arrangements, etc. they haven't really lost any income from their son's death. |
|
|
| aNYthing |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
What was the last thing to go through your great great grandfather's lungs? |
one classy cunt, ain't ya, ya ing drunkard potato er |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. I was going to say probably air, much like the last thing that goes through anyone's lungs. I'm confused by your taking offense towards my harmless comment. :conf: |
|
|
| aNYthing |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. I was going to say probably air, much like the last thing that goes through anyone's lungs. I'm confused by your taking offense towards my harmless comment. :conf: |
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhht...:rolleyes: |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by aNYthing
one classy cunt, ain't ya, ya ing drunkard potato er |
Your unique insults are quite funny, although I can assure you I've never had an alcohol problem, and have never made love to any tubers. Could you possibly be making that assumption based on a widely misrepresented stereotype? You seem a bit upset though. When I'm upset I usually just take a few nice big breaths of fresh air, take a hot shower, and bury myself under the blankets on my bed. Sometimes I just want to stay buried there forever! |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
The person in the passenger seat likely wasn't famous, so I doubt he contributed much to his family. They were all fairly young, so it'd be reasonable to assume he doesn't have a wife and kids. I guess I was thinking of it as his parents suing the estate, in which case that doesn't seem reasonable, because other than funeral arrangements, etc. they haven't really lost any income from their son's death. |
What about the loss of their relationship with their son... that's compensable. Also... they were all in their 30s no? I'm in my 30s, I gots a wife and kid (son to be plural). Additionally, I'm not famous but I do bring in a good income.
You can't evaluate whether or not the ability to claim against an estate for loss or damage would be justified on the merits of this one instance though... |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
What about the loss of their relationship with their son... that's compensable. Also... they were all in their 30s no? I'm in my 30s, I gots a wife and kid (son to be plural). Additionally, I'm not famous but I do bring in a good income.
You can't evaluate whether or not the ability to claim against an estate for loss or damage would be justified on the merits of this one instance though... |
I guess that's true, but how would one place a monetary value on a personal relationship? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
I guess that's true, but how would one place a monetary value on a personal relationship? |
That's one of the hardest parts of my job. Essentially, one does it by looking at what judges and juries have done before and then evaluating the merits of the specific relationship against the past awards. It's not an easy process. Evaluating the pecuniary (actual money) loss is way easier... present value of future income, subtract a % for contingencies (generally discount 2-5%), less the %age the person would have used to support themselves (generally 30-35%), add the value of the housekeeping/home maintenance/child care/whatever services they would have provided over the expected life span and BAM (pardon the pun) there's your pecuniary damages. |
|
|
|
|
