|
Ryan Dunn dies in car crash (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaw |
| 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. |
Even if he was 30, making $60k, that leaves 35 years, or almost $2 mil of wages unearned. Not a small chunk of change. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
Right, but that's assuming that he had any dependents. If he wasn't married and didn't have children, would you say his parents are entitled to that? And say that $2 million was all he had left in the bank. Would Dunn's family then have to forfeit his entire estate? I just can't stand these kinds of civil suits. I'm not talking about the dispersing of moneys that he would have made to people who were dependent on him, but if they sue for pain and suffering that's just absurd. No amount of money will cure this, so imo it's ridiculous to be awarded money for something like that. I would think Dunn's family would be going through just as much pain and suffering, yet money that they should be entitled to would be taken from them to pay someone else's family.
Plus there's no way of knowing what transpired when they were getting in the car. What if the passenger was too drunk to drive as well? What if Dunn asked him to drive and he said no? Yes, the accident was Dunn's fault, but there's a lot of factors leading up to it that can't really be known for sure. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Right, but that's assuming that he had any dependents. If he wasn't married and didn't have children, would you say his parents are entitled to that? |
That would depend on whether or not he financially supported them. This is all beside the point though... you stated people should not be allowed to claim against an estate, which is simply poor judgment and probably coloured by this incident (as has been your subsequent discussion). It's the principal that matters not this one incident. |
|
|
| shaw |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Right, but that's assuming that he had any dependents. If he wasn't married and didn't have children, would you say his parents are entitled to that? |
No, I wouldn't, but you simply said that because he 'probably wasn't famous,' that the passenger must 'not have been worth much,' as it would relate to a potential settlement. I don't know (nor do you) whether the passenger had dependents. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
That would depend on whether or not he financially supported them. This is all beside the point though... you stated people should not be allowed to claim against an estate, which is simply poor judgment and probably coloured by this incident (as has been your subsequent discussion). It's the principal that matters not this one incident. |
I understand that, and I was wrong in assuming they shouldn't be allowed to claim against the estate at all, but claiming pain and suffering is a bit excessive in my opinion. Obviously my opinion doesn't matter, but what about Dunn's family? He's a celebrity, and there's a good chance that he supported his whole family. Should they be entitled to less of his estate, so that his estate can support another family? Whose pain and suffering is more important? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
I understand that, and I was wrong in assuming they shouldn't be allowed to claim against the estate at all, but claiming pain and suffering is a bit excessive in my opinion. Obviously my opinion doesn't matter, but what about Dunn's family? He's a celebrity, and there's a good chance that he supported his whole family. Should they be entitled to less of his estate, so that his estate can support another family? Whose pain and suffering is more important? |
What matters here is whether or not Dunn caused damage to another person(s). If he did then he would be liable for those damages. If he is liable for those damages then at the time of his death the money used to pay those damages wasn't his; rather, it was the agrieved party's... thus, it never actually belonged to the estate. What you're arguing is tantamount to saying that when a person dies all of their debts should be wiped out so the estate does not have to pay... that would create huge problems. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
What matters here is whether or not Dunn caused damage to another person(s). If he did then he would be liable for those damages. If he is liable for those damages then at the time of his death the money used to pay those damages wasn't his; rather, it was the agrieved party's... thus, it never actually belonged to the estate. What you're arguing is tantamount to saying that when a person dies all of their debts should be wiped out so the estate does not have to pay... that would create huge problems. |
No I'm not saying that. I agree that funeral costs, and any compensation that would be due to the passenger's immediate family (lost wages, etc.) should be paid, as the driver is directly responsible for the loss of that money. What I'm saying is that anything beyond that should not be paid. You can't objectively put a monetary value on pain and suffering. Yes, it sucks, but that doesn't mean you should get a pay day for it. Suing for pain and suffering is bs imo, because there's no way to even tell if there is pain and suffering. Maybe his family didn't even like him and just wants money. There's no way of knowing that, so it seems like dispersing money on those grounds is irresponsible and unfair to the driver's family.
The fact of the matter is that you can't put a monetary value on emotional distress, and you can't even prove that the emotional distress exists in the first place. Awarding money that one family should be entitled to based on assumptions is wrong imo. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
What I'm saying is that anything beyond that should not be paid. |
I agree but the state of PA does not.
| quote: | | You can't objectively put a monetary value on pain and suffering. |
agreed, it is subjective, but you can put a monetary value on it... I do so constantly.
| quote: | | Yes, it sucks, but that doesn't mean you should get a pay day for it. Suing for pain and suffering is bs imo, because there's no way to even tell if there is pain and suffering. |
I have to disagree on the last point... I have a highly skilled staff of people who are very, very good at determining not only if there is pain and suffering but how severe it is. You can definitly determine if there is pain and suffering through effective investigation.
| quote: | | Maybe his family didn't even like him and just wants money. There's no way of knowing that, so it seems like dispersing money on those grounds is irresponsible and unfair to the driver's family. |
Pain and suffering claims are for the party that was injured. With regard to the family their claim is for the loss of care, guidance and companionship. If the family had a poor relationship or no relationship with him the damage awards will be reflective of that.
| quote: | | The fact of the matter is that you can't put a monetary value on emotional distress, and you can't even prove that the emotional distress exists in the first place. Awarding money that one family should be entitled to based on assumptions is wrong imo. |
You can prove emotional distress... remember; if 7/12 jurors (in the US... 4 of six in Canada) believe that there is emotional distress then it is proven that there is. We call juries "trier's of fact" for a reason... if they deem something to be true then it is.
With regard to the awarding of money that the tortfeasor's family should be entitled to thing... what you're missing is that they are not entitled to it; the second the tortfeasor caused the damage the money is no longer his/hers and therefore no longer belongs to the estate should that person die. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| But even if they hated their son, they could fake some tears in the courtroom and fool a jury that way. That's what my concern is with the awarding of money for pain and suffering. It'd be pretty easy to fake. |
|
|
| Acton |
I'm going to Hell now and it's all your fault, Oscar! |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Acton
I'm going to Hell now and it's all your fault, Oscar! |
:p |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Man, him. Live by the dildo, die by the dildo. Right brahs? |
|
|
|
|
