Are you saying that Wal-Mart (or any defendant) should not raise any and all defenses available to them? I hope your carriers claims departments don’t have that attitude, it is tough to mitigate damages if you don’t raise the issue.
The Walmart truck driver, I am sure is responsible for the accident, but would they have been as severely injured and/or those killed if they had been wearing their seat belts? Walmart (they are responsible for their driver) should be responsible for all of their portion of the injuries especially under comparative negligence laws, but no more. This objectively. However, WalMart is not PC at the moment, and this person is famous and popular, so public opinion will be toward sticking it to WalMart way more than they deserve. We want Walmart to pay since of course they make so much money they can afford it.
Uh huh. Because if he’d been wearing his seatbelt, the speeding truck, driven by someone who hadn’t slept in over 24 hours, never would have hit the van in the first place…
Doesn’t sound like Wal-Mart is saying the accident would not have happened but they are trying to make a case that by not wearing seatbelts then Mr. Morgan’s behavior contributed to the severity of his injuries.
Nah. Probably not. I’ve been on juries twice and we found the defendant guilty both times. Then again, they were criminal trials, so maybe a civil case would be different. *shrug*
My comment was more in relation to the statement that Wal-Mart claims that Morgan is “responsible ‘in whole or in part’ for his injuries.” I know it’s probably just legal wording, but the ‘in whole’ got to me. Should he have had a seatbelt on? Definitely. But would the lack of a seatbelt have been an issue if the truck hadn’t hit the van he was in? Probably not. I don’t care how they spin it, there is no way he could be wholly responsible for his injuries.
I wonder how often someone in the back of a limousine is wearing a seatbelt. Could the limo driver be negligent for not insisting that the seatbelts be worn before driving?
Wearing a seat belt is common sense and can save lives, but it certainly doesn’t stop a fatigued driver from driving erratically. Wal-Mart needs to address the issue of their driver’s speeding, his fatigue and their blatant disregard of safe driving standards.
No, they can’t argue the proximate cause of the accident. But they can argue the amount of damages. If he had been wearing a seat belt, would his injuries have been so severe? If not, does he bear some responsibility for the extent of his injuries? We probably won’t ever find out, because the case will settle.
Walmart is merely positioning for the trial, where they will be found liable. this could help to lower the amount of the awards, and could be a reasonable argument to make. I often feel that people should share a portion of the negligence if they aren’t belted.
in this case, however, it is not going to be a major consideration.
I believe Walmart is ‘rolling the dice’ using the non-seat wearing tactic since depending on where Mr Morgan was sitting in the vehicle being restricted in the seat could possibly have caused greater injuries or death.
If the law requires limo passengers to wear seat belts, then the limo operator should be interpled as a third party defendent. Arguably, their driver might have a duty to assure that all passengers are belted prior to moving the vehicle.
Anyone surprised at this blame the victim schtick from Wal-Mart?
No, because they are standard defense claims in MVA litigation.
Are you saying that Wal-Mart (or any defendant) should not raise any and all defenses available to them? I hope your carriers claims departments don’t have that attitude, it is tough to mitigate damages if you don’t raise the issue.
The Walmart truck driver, I am sure is responsible for the accident, but would they have been as severely injured and/or those killed if they had been wearing their seat belts? Walmart (they are responsible for their driver) should be responsible for all of their portion of the injuries especially under comparative negligence laws, but no more. This objectively. However, WalMart is not PC at the moment, and this person is famous and popular, so public opinion will be toward sticking it to WalMart way more than they deserve. We want Walmart to pay since of course they make so much money they can afford it.
Uh huh. Because if he’d been wearing his seatbelt, the speeding truck, driven by someone who hadn’t slept in over 24 hours, never would have hit the van in the first place…
Wow.
They’ve got balls. I’ll give them that.
Doesn’t sound like Wal-Mart is saying the accident would not have happened but they are trying to make a case that by not wearing seatbelts then Mr. Morgan’s behavior contributed to the severity of his injuries.
If I’m ever the plaintiff, I hope ha! is on the jury!!
Nah. Probably not. I’ve been on juries twice and we found the defendant guilty both times. Then again, they were criminal trials, so maybe a civil case would be different. *shrug*
My comment was more in relation to the statement that Wal-Mart claims that Morgan is “responsible ‘in whole or in part’ for his injuries.” I know it’s probably just legal wording, but the ‘in whole’ got to me. Should he have had a seatbelt on? Definitely. But would the lack of a seatbelt have been an issue if the truck hadn’t hit the van he was in? Probably not. I don’t care how they spin it, there is no way he could be wholly responsible for his injuries.
Oops. Strike my first statement. Somehow, I read the ‘plaintiff’ comment and thought ‘defense.’ No idea why. Sorry about that. :/
Although, I will say that in liability cases, I do come down on the side of the defense more times than not. I’m just not a fan of blaming the victim.
Il is a Comparative Negligence state. No matter what, your at least 1% at fault just because you were there. That’s the way the law reads.
I wonder how often someone in the back of a limousine is wearing a seatbelt. Could the limo driver be negligent for not insisting that the seatbelts be worn before driving?
People in a limo wear seat belts about as often as passengers on a bus wear them….
Wearing a seat belt is common sense and can save lives, but it certainly doesn’t stop a fatigued driver from driving erratically. Wal-Mart needs to address the issue of their driver’s speeding, his fatigue and their blatant disregard of safe driving standards.
Any competent Attorney could argue that the proximate cause of the accident does not translate to Tracey Morgan not wearing his seat belt.
No, they can’t argue the proximate cause of the accident. But they can argue the amount of damages. If he had been wearing a seat belt, would his injuries have been so severe? If not, does he bear some responsibility for the extent of his injuries? We probably won’t ever find out, because the case will settle.
NJ is a comparative negligence state. Look it up on the web! it is legal doctrine explained thoroughly there.
Walmart is merely positioning for the trial, where they will be found liable. this could help to lower the amount of the awards, and could be a reasonable argument to make. I often feel that people should share a portion of the negligence if they aren’t belted.
in this case, however, it is not going to be a major consideration.
I believe Walmart is ‘rolling the dice’ using the non-seat wearing tactic since depending on where Mr Morgan was sitting in the vehicle being restricted in the seat could possibly have caused greater injuries or death.
If the law requires limo passengers to wear seat belts, then the limo operator should be interpled as a third party defendent. Arguably, their driver might have a duty to assure that all passengers are belted prior to moving the vehicle.