Lawyers are the scum of the earth.

[DinoDoc]

Scum of the Earth

[chequita guevara]

if that were true, more people than just TCO would attack tiamat when she whines about how ****ty her life is.

Since you've moved on, so have the rest of us.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Lies! Slander! Libel!

...

I'll see you in court.

[Darius871]

Lies! Slander! Libel!

...

I'll see you in court.

I sure hope not, since the judge will laugh at you for alleging slander with respect to written material.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I put down libel, didn't I?

The slander is just for completeness' sake, in case he actually says anything false about law students. Any drafter worth their salt will try to cover as many bases as possible to SUE THE PANTS off the opposition!

...



Um...

Yeah, still altruistic. And, uh, generous and kind. Um. Like, not hostile or anything...

[Darius871]

The slander is just for completeness' sake, in case he actually says anything false about law students.

Even if true, you don't have any evidence of that absent discovery tools. Surely no lawyer under the sun would ever abuse the courts for fishing expeditions...

[KrazyHorse]

That's the concept we call standing, though loss of an adult child may count, depending on the law of a particular jurisdiction.

Aren't the next of kin presumed to have suffered harm in any case involving death? e.g. the Goldmans in the OJ case.

[Zevico]

Presumed? No.
But if they show some mental illnesses [emotional distress is not enough] that arose as a result of a death, they could get some compensation for it.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Some relatives and spouses may be able to get claims for loss of consortium and society, merely by virtue of their relative being deceased, but it varies by state. And it is subject to a fact test, so an estranged deadbeat father who hadn't seen his son for years (for example) likely wouldn't prevail. Also if their relative was the primary at-fault party in causing the accident in the first place, it's unlikely they'll have a valid claim either.

[Ben Kenobi]

What really puzzels me is that the part that was in the wrong lane thinks that it has any claim against the eother that didn't do anything wrong.

Especially given that the other party has sought no recourse from the courts. They really didn't want to, and left it as an accident. Now this will change. Looks like they are going to file that the other party was responsible for the death of their son, and that they'd like some form of charges such as reckless driving. Countersuits. What fun

[Dr Strangelove]

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.

Actually I think we could also consider that newspapers often cut details out of their stories to make them fit into available space, so the story may indeed have stated that the parents were being sued. It's also possible that the parents may have received a settlement from their son's insurance and that the driver is suing to get a cut of that.
Finally, just because a suit is filed doesn't mean it's going anywhere.

If the road was dusty enough that the driver couldn't see properly, and the motorcyclist were in their proper lane I don't understand why the driver wasn't charged with reckless driving or something like it. Being able to see that the way is clear is one of the requirements of passing another vehicle.

[Asher]

Where did the newspaper part come from?

[BlackCat]

Where did the newspaper part come from?

What a waste of an opportunity

[Solomwi]

Aren't the next of kin presumed to have suffered harm in any case involving death? e.g. the Goldmans in the OJ case.

I don't know of any general presumption along those lines, and of course it varies from state to state. I have no idea what the law is in California, but here in Alabama, a wrongful death suit can be brought by a widow/parent/etc. as the decedent's personal representative, so it's technically not the parent suing, but the dead offspring, through the parent as agent.

[chequita guevara]

Where did the newspaper part come from?

As a way of explaining missing information.