Portland Sued $3.7M for Crosswalk Death

August 18, 2010

  • August 18, 2010 at 12:52 pm
    Gary says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Always has to be someone else’s negligence. Couldn’t possibly be theirs. It would seem logical to hold the grocery store liable since it is their responsiblity to maintain the streets.

  • August 18, 2010 at 1:04 am
    John says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sad to see yet another parent use their child’s tragedy as a lottery ticket for themselves.

  • August 18, 2010 at 1:21 am
    Confused says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What information is missing here? How is a faulty crosswalk the only answer behind this driver’s failure to stop for pedestrians actively crossing a street? This is also assuming that the girls used proper caution when crossing the street.

  • August 18, 2010 at 1:22 am
    theinsexpert says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m OK with this. If someone splattered my kid in a cross walk I would not go quietly into the night. Cities would rather risk possible lawsuits than immediate bills for crosswalk paint and flashing lights at known bad intersections. Paint or no, if you are such a poor driver that you can’t avoid two people corssing the street, you and the people that pay you to drive around need to be sued out of existence too. And then use all the money to educate cities on the lessons Ford learned when it opted to defend lawsuits rather than fix the Pinto gas tank.

  • August 18, 2010 at 1:27 am
    Mike N says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The person who should be sued is the driver. Period. If the driver was somehow hired illegally, or was not properly licensed, then the employer should be sued. However, this is just another instance of a scumbag lawyer looking for deeper pockets to take down for a disgusting payday, and parents with a guilty consience trying to scam money from someone else.

  • August 18, 2010 at 1:37 am
    DS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/08/family_of_reed_college_student.html

    Hope the link works.

    I live in Portland and don’t really recall this incident. But according to what I’ve found, it was dark and “A witness told traffic investigators that the women entered the crosswalk without giving Feliciano enough time to stop.”

    Unfortunate, yes. Go after the driver, yes. Go after the city and power company? No.

  • August 18, 2010 at 1:40 am
    Manny says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The driver of the vehicle is the responsible party in this case but it appears to me that the attorney handling the case saw a way to get into the city and grocery store pockets as he/she smells the money. No one knows exactly how it happens except for the driver and the dead people but it is gross negligence on this individual who shouldn’t be driving around any longer. Possibly he was intoxicated or fell sleep while driving. What a shame!!

  • August 18, 2010 at 2:42 am
    Mr, Obvious says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You can’t blame Mr. Feliciano, although we probably shouldn’t be letting blind musicians drive in the first place.

  • August 18, 2010 at 2:52 am
    Sue Smith says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hey sexpert.
    Quote from the local paper, “Portland police did not cite Feliciano, and prosecutors didn’t charge him with a crime. A witness told traffic investigators that the women entered the crosswalk without giving Feliciano enough time to stop.” It was dark at the time of the accident.
    If you were actually an insurance expert you would know that any settlement funds and the entire cost to defend is actually coming from the other policyholders of the carriers for the city and employer.
    So, if as you say, they “sue away” we all pay. You sound like an angry hateful pert.
    And what kind of society do we live in where money in any amount compensates parents for the loss of an adult child.

  • August 18, 2010 at 3:29 am
    voice of reason (i.e. money) says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You all realize, that there would be no insurance industry without trial attorneys, right?

    You should thank the greasy ambulance chasers. They’re the ones that cause premiums to go up, and thus your income from commissions.

    So yes, sue away. Sue sue sue until your face turns blue.

    …because that’s how we pay our mortgages.

  • August 19, 2010 at 9:24 am
    Nerd of Insurance says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    In theory, yes. But thenone of two things happen when rates get too high.

    1. People just go without insurance and cross their fingers nothing happens
    2. People then see “insurance companies being greedy and just want money” and with the right people in power at the White House, they start regulating rates, which would then make insurers go under.

    Plus don’t forget that even as insurance agents, we still have to pay the same rates as our clients.

  • August 19, 2010 at 12:58 pm
    anon the mouse says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I can see the lawsuits against the real instigators of this accident. 1. The State of Oregon for allowing the City of Portland for allowing their planning department to authorize the placement of a grocery store within 2 miles of any city streets without speed bumps, guard rails and pedestrian overpasses near an obvious nuisance location such as a grocery store. There are always pedestrians at grocery stores and motor vehicles. So let’s not forget to include the Oregon DMV for allowing the automibiles within 5 miles.

  • August 19, 2010 at 6:28 am
    smartypants says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    too bad this discussion is only available on IJ. It would be a big help to preach to the congregation and not just the chior. If a lawsuit is warranted, it should be filed against the DRIVER, and he alone. Of course, naming additional defendants is the attorney’s stategy for getting the largest settlement or award, knowing that the deep pockets are the corporations and insurance companies because the store manager’s liability is limited to his policy and maybe his personal assets and that is probably not enough to cover the attorney’s fees. Nothing about justice or fairness here, only a nuisance lawsuit that must be dealt with in the course of business; plaintiffs only want money and the attorney just wants a bigger share. And so it goes, knowing that the insurer would rather settle early to limit the payout.

  • August 23, 2010 at 10:06 am
    Off Base says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m missing something here, why wouldn’t eveyone listed in the suit be liable. The one that strikes me as odd is that a regional manager for a grocery store couldn’t yield to customers of the grocery store. The company couldn’t impress in their employees to not run over the store’s customers?

  • August 31, 2010 at 12:44 pm
    knowitall says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    not a big deal….tremendous amount of case law on this issue…the city and other co-def will be removed on summary judgement after initial discovery and depos completed……plaintiff has valid case versus the driver and possibly vehicle owner if we have an issue of neg entrustment or vicarious liability, and their own UIM/UM carrier….stay calm people, this is typical for our tort system….



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*