This proves what many clients have argued with me…why should I buy higher limits if all they can get is my policy limits? Hard to overcome especially when items like this hit the media. When was the last time you saw a claim reach beyond policy limits?
Good point but she probably didn’t have much. You can’t get blood form a stone but you can bet the family would have gone after personal assets if she had any and 100k limit was all she purchased.
I wouldn’t sleep at night knowing that, would you?
Agreed…no reason to buy insurance if there are no assets to protect. If your net worth is high enough it makes sense to purchase additional limits. Based on the fact that she was 19, pregnant, and had alcohol in her system; I’m assuming she did not have assets that to justify paying a higher premium.
I personally carry it for the UM coverage. It’s nice to know that if some wasted idiot without a dime or an insurance policy crashes into me and hurts me or my passengers that there will be a policy to respond. There are just so many here without a policy, and unfortunately they often seem to be the same people who are driving after having 15 beers on a Monday afternoon.
At the risk of sounding heartless, I have to question this guy’s judgment in sacrificing his life to avoid a passenger car. This poor ******* was approaching retirement age after working his whole life. If the girl drifted into his lane he would have been better off holding the wheel of his tractor trailer and letting the passenger car hit him. My guess is the truck would have won that contest. Drowning in the Chesapeake Bay is a nasty way to go.
I thought the same thing….sorry to say. He probably reacted without taking it into consideration. If he had the luxury of hind sight, I bet he would have held the wheel!
If you have any assets, or ever hope to own any assets, you need to carry high liability limits to protect those assets. If a large judgment was filed against this girl, she would never be able to get a loan, or mortgage, or have any assets because they could be attached and given to the injured party who had the judgment against her. And it is absolutely right that each of us needs the highest limits of UM/UIM we can get, and in most states this is up to our liability limit.
Not to defend her, but the IJ article said she was 19 and somewhat impaired at the time of the accident. Post-accident, she is living in Alaska, married and pregnant – not pregnant and drinking at age 19.
But on the other hand the article said that she did have a BAC of .03. Now for the majority of us, that’s like one beer, but for, what should be, an inexperinced, underaged person that may have been enough to impair her judgement or even make her sleepy enough to come into the trucks lane. NOW, my question would be if the lawyer for Mr. Short’s estate could go after the person who provided or sold the alcogol to Ms. Baldwin.
At 19, she probably did not have much in the way of assets. I think she did exceptionally well with the $100,000 limit, which most 19’s would NOT have. The attorneys settled for what they could get. And we do buy UM to protect ourselves in just such a situation.
She still should have to pay restitution, even if it is twenty dollars a week, for the rest of her life. She gets to get married, pregnant & move to Alaska to “live happily ever after” but yet she is remorseful, yeah right
Point of law…liquor legal would not apply in this case because she was not charged with DUI as her BAC was within legal limitations, hence, sale or providing is not applicable to her actions.
It disturbs me that some would suggest he should have killed the girl and enjoyed his retirement. If that poor girl had been my daughter, I would have been eternally grateful to this man every time I saw her and every time I saw my future grand child. Life should be more than choices made by calculating our self-interest. There is a place for self-sacrifice and heroism in this world. I hope it will always be so.
Thanks and you’re right, I agree regarding the legal aspect. She wasn’t charged with DUI and I guess that means it’s legal for minors to drink in MD as long as it’s not “too much”. There’s no “zero tolerance” law, I suppose, though there should be. Illegal consumtion isn’t a factor?? How about civil court for this family who just lost their husband, father, maybe even grand-father?? Couldn’t civil court award punitive damages much along the line as someone suggested in the $ amount of something she should be able to uncomfortably afford for the next 20 years or whatever the expected life expectancy was for Mr. Short?
Anyone can sue anyone else for as much money as they wish as long as the blood runs free from the stone. Look, the whole thing is tragic and his heirs have received all there is to get from her. I can only hope that he was covered by work comp so a bit more might be available to his grieving family. That’s all, I’m signing off.
Come on JW….stop the bleeding heart routine. “should he have just killed her?” He wouldn’t have killed her; she would have killer her by failing to keep her vehicle on her side of the road. I think your thought of someone giving up their life for a young crappy driver is pretty pollyanish. Accidents happen.
I’m going to make my family suffer the loss of thier family member (me)so that she (her family)doesn’t? Why? Because she crossed the line into my lane? Like I said before, he probably reacted without thinking about the lack of land on the side. I’m sure he didn’t think I deserve to die, this other idiot doesn’t.
Unfortunately, most carriers that write truckers or trucking fleets do not wish to, nor do they provide more than state minimum limits for UM/UIM and the owner of the firm signs off as well (and we are talking UIM here since she did have insurance).
Let’s hope he was employed directly by a trucking company so his family at least gets WC (which is subrogable against her if the carrier wants to go that route). If he was an independent, and did not purchase a WC policy (which moststandard carriers are not interested in) at least let’s hope he spent the money for a WC pool policy so his family can replace his earning power, at least for a while. Let’s hope his agent advised him to buy it even though he may not have been required by state law to do so. Had he survived and required medical care and other care, as well as wage replacement, he would have had it.
1) she was 19 and drinking! that is a criminal offense, does not matter if it was .03!
2) UIM coverage would be needed because she had insurance.
3) so she moved to ALASKA, to start her life all over again and in the cold. yes, she will remember the accident and that it could have been her life instead of the trucker.
4) the driver did not drown. he probabaly died on impact. that is a large drop from the bridge into the water. having been an OTR TRUCKER, i can only imagine his thoughts and reactions and any trucker might be.
5) now, they settled with the insurance company did they sign a form saying that could not continue to go after her as well? i mean afterall, she did cause the accident and the loss of life. they could get future earnings. $100k is not enough to pay for a loss of life and his retirement and any future earnings.
truly it was a tragedy but one that could have been avoided if the MINOR under 21 should have not been drinking. yes, this was a criminal offense and including the place that served her the drink!
Apparently, IJ editors don’t know how to Google their sources for background information. This article contains details about the accident that will certainly affect the point of view up in this thread.
To have a .03 alcohol in blood level does not mean she was necessarily drinking. Mouthwash & cold medicines also contain alcohol that could have caused a .03 test result.
However in this case, “Candy Baldwin, 19, had been to a wedding and fell asleep while driving over the bridge.” She was not tested until hours after the accident. One could assume that the alcohol was being served freely as with most weddings I have attended.
When operating a semi-tractor trailer on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and a passenger vehicle coming in the opposite direction swerves into your lane, try to decelerate and brace for impact. In a crash between your truck and a car, I’d bet on the truck every time. The girl’s negligence in dozing off, alcohol related or not, resulted in a death. She should have been charged with failure to control her vehicle, negligent operation, and crossing the center line. She should have been given some jail time as well. The family should be outraged. $100,000 settlment with 40% gone to an attorney while the girl is living happily ever after in Alaska?
This proves what many clients have argued with me…why should I buy higher limits if all they can get is my policy limits? Hard to overcome especially when items like this hit the media. When was the last time you saw a claim reach beyond policy limits?
Good point but she probably didn’t have much. You can’t get blood form a stone but you can bet the family would have gone after personal assets if she had any and 100k limit was all she purchased.
I wouldn’t sleep at night knowing that, would you?
Agreed…no reason to buy insurance if there are no assets to protect. If your net worth is high enough it makes sense to purchase additional limits. Based on the fact that she was 19, pregnant, and had alcohol in her system; I’m assuming she did not have assets that to justify paying a higher premium.
I personally carry it for the UM coverage. It’s nice to know that if some wasted idiot without a dime or an insurance policy crashes into me and hurts me or my passengers that there will be a policy to respond. There are just so many here without a policy, and unfortunately they often seem to be the same people who are driving after having 15 beers on a Monday afternoon.
At the risk of sounding heartless, I have to question this guy’s judgment in sacrificing his life to avoid a passenger car. This poor ******* was approaching retirement age after working his whole life. If the girl drifted into his lane he would have been better off holding the wheel of his tractor trailer and letting the passenger car hit him. My guess is the truck would have won that contest. Drowning in the Chesapeake Bay is a nasty way to go.
I thought the same thing….sorry to say. He probably reacted without taking it into consideration. If he had the luxury of hind sight, I bet he would have held the wheel!
If you have any assets, or ever hope to own any assets, you need to carry high liability limits to protect those assets. If a large judgment was filed against this girl, she would never be able to get a loan, or mortgage, or have any assets because they could be attached and given to the injured party who had the judgment against her. And it is absolutely right that each of us needs the highest limits of UM/UIM we can get, and in most states this is up to our liability limit.
“Based on the fact that she was 19, pregnant, and had alcohol in her system; I’m assuming she did not have assets…”
Or any common sense for that matter
Not to defend her, but the IJ article said she was 19 and somewhat impaired at the time of the accident. Post-accident, she is living in Alaska, married and pregnant – not pregnant and drinking at age 19.
But on the other hand the article said that she did have a BAC of .03. Now for the majority of us, that’s like one beer, but for, what should be, an inexperinced, underaged person that may have been enough to impair her judgement or even make her sleepy enough to come into the trucks lane. NOW, my question would be if the lawyer for Mr. Short’s estate could go after the person who provided or sold the alcogol to Ms. Baldwin.
At 19, she probably did not have much in the way of assets. I think she did exceptionally well with the $100,000 limit, which most 19’s would NOT have. The attorneys settled for what they could get. And we do buy UM to protect ourselves in just such a situation.
She still should have to pay restitution, even if it is twenty dollars a week, for the rest of her life. She gets to get married, pregnant & move to Alaska to “live happily ever after” but yet she is remorseful, yeah right
They settled for $100k to get access to the UM of the trucking company 10 to 1!!!!
If they hold the case open in MD they cannot get into the UM limits. The UM carrier can and may choose to file against her. I hope they do!
Point of law…liquor legal would not apply in this case because she was not charged with DUI as her BAC was within legal limitations, hence, sale or providing is not applicable to her actions.
It disturbs me that some would suggest he should have killed the girl and enjoyed his retirement. If that poor girl had been my daughter, I would have been eternally grateful to this man every time I saw her and every time I saw my future grand child. Life should be more than choices made by calculating our self-interest. There is a place for self-sacrifice and heroism in this world. I hope it will always be so.
Gtartefull enough to write the poor man’s family a healthy check to make up for the lack of your daughter’s own financial resposibility?
Thanks and you’re right, I agree regarding the legal aspect. She wasn’t charged with DUI and I guess that means it’s legal for minors to drink in MD as long as it’s not “too much”. There’s no “zero tolerance” law, I suppose, though there should be. Illegal consumtion isn’t a factor?? How about civil court for this family who just lost their husband, father, maybe even grand-father?? Couldn’t civil court award punitive damages much along the line as someone suggested in the $ amount of something she should be able to uncomfortably afford for the next 20 years or whatever the expected life expectancy was for Mr. Short?
Anyone can sue anyone else for as much money as they wish as long as the blood runs free from the stone. Look, the whole thing is tragic and his heirs have received all there is to get from her. I can only hope that he was covered by work comp so a bit more might be available to his grieving family. That’s all, I’m signing off.
Come on JW….stop the bleeding heart routine. “should he have just killed her?” He wouldn’t have killed her; she would have killer her by failing to keep her vehicle on her side of the road. I think your thought of someone giving up their life for a young crappy driver is pretty pollyanish. Accidents happen.
I’m going to make my family suffer the loss of thier family member (me)so that she (her family)doesn’t? Why? Because she crossed the line into my lane? Like I said before, he probably reacted without thinking about the lack of land on the side. I’m sure he didn’t think I deserve to die, this other idiot doesn’t.
Good point and his family deserves the max. UM available. That’s what it’s for.
Unfortunately, most carriers that write truckers or trucking fleets do not wish to, nor do they provide more than state minimum limits for UM/UIM and the owner of the firm signs off as well (and we are talking UIM here since she did have insurance).
Let’s hope he was employed directly by a trucking company so his family at least gets WC (which is subrogable against her if the carrier wants to go that route). If he was an independent, and did not purchase a WC policy (which moststandard carriers are not interested in) at least let’s hope he spent the money for a WC pool policy so his family can replace his earning power, at least for a while. Let’s hope his agent advised him to buy it even though he may not have been required by state law to do so. Had he survived and required medical care and other care, as well as wage replacement, he would have had it.
1) she was 19 and drinking! that is a criminal offense, does not matter if it was .03!
2) UIM coverage would be needed because she had insurance.
3) so she moved to ALASKA, to start her life all over again and in the cold. yes, she will remember the accident and that it could have been her life instead of the trucker.
4) the driver did not drown. he probabaly died on impact. that is a large drop from the bridge into the water. having been an OTR TRUCKER, i can only imagine his thoughts and reactions and any trucker might be.
5) now, they settled with the insurance company did they sign a form saying that could not continue to go after her as well? i mean afterall, she did cause the accident and the loss of life. they could get future earnings. $100k is not enough to pay for a loss of life and his retirement and any future earnings.
truly it was a tragedy but one that could have been avoided if the MINOR under 21 should have not been drinking. yes, this was a criminal offense and including the place that served her the drink!
Apparently, IJ editors don’t know how to Google their sources for background information. This article contains details about the accident that will certainly affect the point of view up in this thread.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=1458065
…and here’s the follow-up story to the original news report.
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/17173427/detail.html
To have a .03 alcohol in blood level does not mean she was necessarily drinking. Mouthwash & cold medicines also contain alcohol that could have caused a .03 test result.
However in this case, “Candy Baldwin, 19, had been to a wedding and fell asleep while driving over the bridge.” She was not tested until hours after the accident. One could assume that the alcohol was being served freely as with most weddings I have attended.
When operating a semi-tractor trailer on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and a passenger vehicle coming in the opposite direction swerves into your lane, try to decelerate and brace for impact. In a crash between your truck and a car, I’d bet on the truck every time. The girl’s negligence in dozing off, alcohol related or not, resulted in a death. She should have been charged with failure to control her vehicle, negligent operation, and crossing the center line. She should have been given some jail time as well. The family should be outraged. $100,000 settlment with 40% gone to an attorney while the girl is living happily ever after in Alaska?