Lawyers are the scum of the earth.

[Asher]

Again, Ben omitted lots of stuff I'm sure.

They're probably suing his estate or his insurance company, not the parents directly.

[Japher]

These are probably the same attorneys trying to legalize gay marriage in Iowa.

[Darius871]

Again, Ben omitted lots of stuff I'm sure.

They're probably suing his estate or his insurance company, not the parents directly.

Bingo, give the man a cigar.

(The only way the parents would be actual parties in interest, as opposed to in their merely formal capacity as administrators of the decedent's estate, would be if they owned the motorcycle and had reason to believe their son was an unlicensed, alcoholic, or otherwise unusually unsafe driver, i.e. a "negligent entrustment" theory. Barring that, since Ben has said nothing so far about who even owned the motorcycle, there's no ****ing way the parents are liable and he's full of **** as always.)

[KrazyHorse]

I'm shocked I was the first person to mention that. It set off my bull**** detector as soon as I read it.

[Darius871]

I didn't even have to get past the OP for my detector's needle to snap off. Evidently the other "Poly legal beagles" have had a looooong time since Torts class.

[Ben Kenobi]

(The only way the parents would be actual parties in interest, as opposed to in their merely formal capacity as administrators of the decedent's estate, would be if they owned the motorcycle and had reason to believe their son was an unlicensed, alcoholic, or otherwise unusually unsafe driver, i.e. a "negligent entrustment" theory. Barring that, since Ben has said nothing so far about who even owned the motorcycle, there's no ****ing way the parents are liable and he's full of **** as always.)

Darius, that's really unhelpful. Why would I lie about the details of the case. I posted it up here because I wanted suggestions.

Now if you felt I've omitted things, then ask me and I'll answer them as best as I can.

I haven't read the actual claim but AFAIK the parents are named as their son's estate is in their name. The motorcycle was his, the lawyers are just following the money trail. The parents have the money, so you go after them. He had no history of unsafe driving, etc.

As you said there's no way the parents should be liable, but that really doesn't matter. You can file a suit all you want, liability be damned.

Oh, and BTW, this applies to you too, Darius.

if you can't post something nice or at least neutral, don't post in this thread.

Accusing me of lying or being full of bull****, please leave. Don't post here, post elsewhere, K? I'm looking for legal help and assistance. Obviously Darius' bull**** detector is broken because he can't see past his own personal hatred. I hope you don't have clients who rely on you...

[Darius871]

What happened is that this was during the summer. The truck was kicking up lots of dust. The car pulled out to pass and didn't see the motorcycles, let alone any oncoming traffic until it was too late.

Give Asher cigar #2; even if the decedent wasn't drinking or speeding - which you still refuse to confirm or deny despite being asked - the Freudian slip above speaks volumes. So we now know that he chose to envelope himself in poor visibility when a more prudent driver would have kept a much greater distance from that truck, which was negligent. Whether or not the plaintiff's negligence in trying to pass outweighs the decedent's enough to preclude recovery depends on whether you're in a contributory negligence or comparative fault jurisdiction, and of course also requires a more specific fact pattern, on which you've been less than forthcoming.

[Lefty Scaevola]

I'm wondering how a 23 year-old's parents are being sued for the actions of their son.

Hell, the last time one of my companies was sued, it was by a guy who drove into a utility onwed power pole, in the street ROW, across the street from one of my properties.
The time before is was by a guy who drove into a guy wire while tresspassing across an empty lot we owned.
Both of them crushed in court of course.
It does not take a real cause of action to file a suit.

[chequita guevara]

I believe you are misinterpreting this, Darius. The motorcycle was coming the other direction. He did not chose to be hidden in dust, because he wasn't. The others rivers were behind the truck, swung out to pass, and because of the dust coming from the struck, were unable to see clearly that there was oncoming traffic.

However I feel about BK, I get no sense that he's lying. Ben probably misunderstands some stuff, suing the estate = suing the parents, etc., but I don't get the sense he's trying to deceive.

That said, I echo Asher's comment about motorcyclist being reckless in general.

[Ben Kenobi]

Give Asher cigar #2; even if the decedent wasn't drinking or speeding - which you still refuse to confirm or deny despite being asked

There was no evidence of either at the time of the crash. He was driving along a dirt road, couldn't have been going more then 50-60 km/h. The car simply pulled in the other lane to try to pass, and didn't see the oncoming motorcycles because the dust obscured oncoming traffic. My friend was at the front of the pack, which is why he was killed in a head on collision. His friends, who attempted to swerve into the ditch were badly hurt and in a wheelchair. There were 5 in all and the last 2 escaped unscathed.

- the Freudian slip above speaks volumes. So we now know that he chose to envelope himself in poor visibility when a more prudent driver would have kept a much greater distance from that truck, which was negligent.

Darius, you've misunderstood. The motorcycles and the truck were going in opposite direction. The car was behind the truck. The car pulled out to pass the truck, but could not see because dust from the truck was obscuring the vision of the car. The motorcycles weren't throwing up the dust, the truck threw up the dust.

Whether or not the plaintiff's negligence in trying to pass outweighs the decedent's enough to preclude recovery depends on whether you're in a contributory negligence or comparative fault jurisdiction, and of course also requires a more specific fact pattern, on which you've been less than forthcoming.

Motorcycles have the right of way, the car passing is at fault. If the car did not try to pass, there would have been no accident. From what I understand and remember I am relying on the testimony of the paramedic who was there, the car pulled out directly into the motorcycles. By the time the motorcycles realised the car was there, they had already collided. It wasn't as if the car had been passing for some time, the car jumps out to pass and then collides with the motorcycles.

[KrazyHorse]

AFAIK the parents are named as their son's estate is in their name. The motorcycle was his, the lawyers are just following the money trail. The parents have the money, so you go after them.

Dude, are you this ignorant of the law? The ONLY MONEY that can be recovered is up to the value of the son's estate at his demise. Being named as the inheritor of an estate does NOT expose you to unlimited liability on your own assets.

[Darius871]

Why would I lie about the details of the case[?]

A) Your overall history on this site and B) manifestly sensitive emotional connection to this case, that's why. But I'll quit being a dick and just keep a grain of salt at the ready.

I posted it up here because I wanted suggestions.

Now if you felt I've omitted things, then ask me and I'll answer them as best as I can.

As Asher said, suggestions are useless (even downright misleading) without a detailed fact pattern to go over. We still don't know the thickness of the dust, in which direction the sun was shining, number of lanes on the road, what speed both parties were going, what speed the truck was going, number and proximity of other vehicles, whether any BAC was involved, etc. etc. etc. Everything matters in a tort case, which is partially why I hate torts.

I haven't read the actual claim but AFAIK the parents are named as their son's estate is in their name. The motorcycle was his, the lawyers are just following the money trail. The parents have the money, so you go after them. He had no history of unsafe driving, etc.

If by "the parents have the money, so you go after them" you mean the plaintiff's just going after the "deep pockets," I can only reiterate that it's impossible to recover from the parents absent their ownership of the vehicle and/or negligent entrustment, neither of which we now know is present. In other words, if the decedent's estate was $400K in debts and $300K in assets (i.e. insolvent) and the plaintiffs get a judgment for $1 million, they will collect precisely $0.00 (minus legal expenses) because the parents' assets are entirely insulated. They're just a legal fiction to speak for the estate for what it's worth, which appears to be nothing. If the estate is worth something, and the parents have appropriated its surplus, then yes, they would have to fork over that amount, but nothing more.

I believe you are misinterpreting this, Darius. The motorcycle was coming the other direction. He did not chose to be hidden in dust, because he wasn't. The others rivers were behind the truck, swung out to pass, and because of the dust coming from the struck, were unable to see clearly that there was oncoming traffic.

That possibility occurred to me, but even in that case the motorcyclist had the opportunity to slow down, temporarily veer into the shoulder (or into the right lane if there was one), etc., and if a jury could be convinced that the fictional RPPSSC ("reasonably prudent person in the same or similar circumstances") would have taken those precautionary steps in reaction to an oncoming dust cloud, particularly if the dust was extremely thick, there could be negligence found on both sides. We still don't know the thickness of the dust, in which direction the sun was shining, number of lanes on the road, what speed both parties were going, what speed the truck was going, whether any BAC was involved, etc. etc. etc. Everything matters in a tort case, which is partially why I hate torts.

[Ben Kenobi]

Dude, are you this ignorant of the law? The ONLY MONEY that can be recovered is up to the value of the son's estate at his demise. Being named as the inheritor of an estate does NOT expose you to unlimited liability on your own assets.

Again, as Lefty stated, just because the suit was filed doesn't mean that their suit has any merit. All I got was a very angry and upset phone call from them yesterday where they tossed this at me.

I'm trying to piece everything altogether. These are friends of mine and I'd like to give them some comfort. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I claim any legal competence.

[Darius871]

As Asher said, suggestions are useless (even downright misleading) without a detailed fact pattern to go over. We still don't know the thickness of the dust, in which direction the sun was shining, number of lanes on the road, what speed both parties were going, what speed the truck was going, number and proximity of other vehicles, whether any BAC was involved, etc. etc. etc. Everything matters in a tort case, which is partially why I hate torts.

Ok, so per your x-post we have zero alcohol, at least as far as people you've talked to know. It's still unclear whether 50/60kph (about 35-40mph) was the posted speed limit in that stretch of road, but at least in my area that'd be an unusually high speed limit for a dirt or loose-gravel road, and what's more, a motorcycle in particular would probably be expected to go well under the limit on a surface that unstable, so there might be room to argue there, and all other factors may still depend on future testimony. I'd imagine the plaintiffs could get a nuisance-value settlement out of the insurer, but not much more.

Darius, you've misunderstood. The motorcycles and the truck were going in opposite direction. The car was behind the truck. The car pulled out to pass the truck, but could not see because dust from the truck was obscuring the vision of the car. The motorcycles weren't throwing up the dust, the truck threw up the dust.

X-posted to Che:

I believe you are misinterpreting this, Darius. The motorcycle was coming the other direction. He did not chose to be hidden in dust, because he wasn't. The others rivers were behind the truck, swung out to pass, and because of the dust coming from the struck, were unable to see clearly that there was oncoming traffic.

That possibility occurred to me, but even in that case the motorcyclist had the opportunity to slow down, temporarily veer into the shoulder (or into the right lane if there was one), etc., and if a jury could be convinced that the fictional RPPSSC ("reasonably prudent person in the same or similar circumstances") would have taken those precautionary steps in reaction to an oncoming dust cloud, particularly if the dust was extremely thick, there could be negligence found on both sides. We still don't know the thickness of the dust, in which direction the sun was shining, number of lanes on the road, what speed both parties were going, what speed the truck was going, whether any BAC was involved, etc. etc. etc. Everything matters in a tort case, which is partially why I hate torts.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

AFAIK the parents are named as their son's estate is in their name. The motorcycle was his, the lawyers are just following the money trail. The parents have the money, so you go after them.

Dude, are you this ignorant of the law? The ONLY MONEY that can be recovered is up to the value of the son's estate at his demise. Being named as the inheritor of an estate does NOT expose you to unlimited liability on your own assets.

And I'd be curious to know what money we're talking about. How much is the estate of a 23-year-old kid worth, usually? I'm guessing nearly zero (no significant savings, no real estate, no life insurance; could be wrong, but that's the typical 23-year-old situation).

That leaves three possibilities:

1) The lawyer really is scum, and has talked the plaintiffs into suing when there's no money to be had.

2) Ben isn't telling us everything.

3) Ben doesn't know what he's talking about.