APAC Quarry sued by Quarry crash victims brother

[ARGUS]

Real nice suit you have chased; poor architectually challenged Ferrari drivin' atty.
Geeez ....some people.
Frivolous imo.

[Conan71]

TW article:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091015_11_0_hrbRel19355&allcom=1

Soooo, anyone want to bet the driver was drunk?

Best comment that echos my own sentiment:

"Let me get this straight: the car runs a stop sign, goes thru a pipe gate, flies 242 feet through the air(nearly a football field in length), goes through two more boulders before falling into the quarry and somehow this is APAC's fault? Please step away from the crack pipe. And injury lawyers wonder why they are so disliked?"

[ARGUS]

He has the white house that was/is so very popular with his neighbors and Preserve Midtown. I think his name is Tool or something...

[swake]

TW article:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091015_11_0_hrbRel19355&allcom=1

Soooo, anyone want to bet the driver was drunk?

Best comment that echos my own sentiment:

"Let me get this straight: the car runs a stop sign, goes thru a pipe gate, flies 242 feet through the air(nearly a football field in length), goes through two more boulders before falling into the quarry and somehow this is APAC's fault? Please step away from the crack pipe. And injury lawyers wonder why they are so disliked?"

I can't blame the relative, grief can make you do strange things and it's natural to place blame in odd places.

But the lawyer who filed this smoldering pile of crap? Wow.  Dude, really?

[Conan71]

He has the white house that was/is so very popular with his neighbors and Preserve Midtown. I think his name is Tool or something...

Tool is pretty close and probably more fitting.  Richard Toon, Jr.

[cannon_fodder]

I can't blame them for filing against the driver.  The driver of the vehicle was negligent per se.  That's a valid claim and it is very likely the insurance company tenders without a fight.

But I'd love to see the allegations against the quarry.  Unless there are some sort of state guidelines that were not followed or other industry safety procedures, it doesn't make sense.  But as I understand it they went around a barrier, down a non-road, ignored signs, and went fast enough to hurdle over a final barrier - while drunk (which isn't a deciding factor, but certainly doesn't help).

[Conan71]

I can't blame them for filing against the driver.  The driver of the vehicle was negligent per se.  That's a valid claim and it is very likely the insurance company tenders without a fight.

But I'd love to see the allegations against the quarry.  Unless there are some sort of state guidelines that were not followed or other industry safety procedures, it doesn't make sense.  But as I understand it they went around a barrier, down a non-road, ignored signs, and went fast enough to hurdle over a final barrier - while drunk (which isn't a deciding factor, but certainly doesn't help).

I don't think you will find anyone who thinks the driver's estate should not be sued, there's a very obvious case of negligence and I agree the insurance company would settle very easily on this one. 

Unless her parents are pre-deceased though, I don't think her brother is the appropriate party to the suit, as an individual, unless he's filing on behalf of her estate since Oklahoma law provides for sibling survivorship only if all linneal survivors are pre-deceased if she died intestate.  Based on her age, I would assume she hadn't thought of writing a will.

There also could be an excellent DRAM liability case if they were drinking at a bar beforehand.  That would make much more sense than suing a rock quarry who obviously had done everything they could to prevent a car from plummeting into their pit.  I do wonder if the attorney is going to argue there should have been some sort of light feature or reflective sign to warn stupid and inattentive people that they are about to crash into some huge boulders if they ignore the "Stop Ahead" and Stop signs while driving drunk.

[Noodlez]

While the driver is was clearly negligent he was no more negligent than the people that chose to ride in the truck with him. If the brother wishes to place blame why not place blame where is belongs with the parents for not teaching better judgment about getting in a truck with a drunk driver.

[DolfanBob]

Conan. Im not sure what DRAM is but you mentioned it as to sueing the possible bar or bars in question.
Would that or has it already been applied to the Kimberly Graham case involving one intoxicated Ms Graham and the possibly intoxicated motorcyclist she ran over.
She claimed she had been drinking at I think 3 different bars.
And the bikers were, well leaving a bar ?  

[Conan71]

Conan. Im not sure what DRAM is but you mentioned it as to sueing the possible bar or bars in question.
Would that or has it already been applied to the Kimberly Graham case involving one intoxicated Ms Graham and the possibly intoxicated motorcyclist she ran over.
She claimed she had been drinking at I think 3 different bars.
And the bikers were, well leaving a bar ?  

DRAM shop liability is also known as "social host" or "tavern owner" liability.  Essentially, if you get drunk at a bar, get in your car and run over someone, they can sue you and the bar.  So yes you are on the right track with that.  If Ms. Graham had reciepts in her purse from the three bars she was at, there's basis to name a bar in a suit, but proving she was drunk at a given point in time or that she even had drinks at the bar and wasn't just buying rounds for friends is hard to prove unless there were witnesses who saw her drinking.

In one particular case I'm familiar with, a bar's insurance carrier paid up to the policy limits.  There was compelling evidence in the case.  After a crash that killed the drunk driver, her passenger, and two others in another car, a police officer went to several nearby bars and offered descriptions of the drunk driver and her passenger.  A bartender gave a written statement that she had served these two people five pitchers of beer in 1 1/2 hours, the two customers started getting rowdy so the manager kicked them out of the bar.  That's bad enough, but there's more: the bartender and/or manager actually had to physically help these two people into their vehicle so they could leave.  I do believe the settlement happened about 90 to 120 days after the suit was filed.  The insurance company read the police report, crapped their pants and crapped out a big check.  There was no getting around liability on that one.

So, in this case, you'd need someone to corroborate that they saw the driver drinking at a bar.  This quarry case has an interesting twist though if you read the story: the police were never really sure who was actually driving the truck at the time of the crash.  You'd probably need to prove all four people were drunk and also be able to produce some people who will attest to it along with some reciepts.

There are some criminal laws on the books which are seldom, if ever, enforced.  It is a felony to serve alcohol to an intoxicated individual, which means pretty much every bar tender in the state of Oklahoma has been a repeat felon. 

[cannon_fodder]

While the driver is was clearly negligent he was no more negligent than the people that chose to ride in the truck with him. If the brother wishes to place blame why not place blame where is belongs with the parents for not teaching better judgment about getting in a truck with a drunk driver.

That would be contributory negligence.  Surely the argument can be made that it is negligent to get in the vehicle with a drunk driver.  But ultimately the duty to safely operate the vehicle is on the DRIVER, not the passenger.  Drunk, sober, blind . . . it doesn't matter.  If you take responsibility to driver passengers in your car you owe them a duty to do so in a responsible manner.  Particularity if you assume the passenger was also intoxicated and may not have been an adequate judge of the intoxication of another (knowing only that they were not capable of safely driving).  

What percent of the blame would you assign to the passengers?  10%, 20%?

Per DRAM shop:  

A bar owner [or other commercial vendor that sells liquor for on-the-premises consumption] has a duty to use ordinary care not to serve alcohol to a person that the bar owner [or other commercial vendor] knows or reasonably should know from the circumstances is already intoxicated.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=74074

It's a tougher case to make that you might think.  Who's to say the person was at the bar and intoxicated?  Did they leave the bar and have some more to drink.  Were they drunk when they got there and refused drinks?  It's a very hard case to make - particularity in very busy bars where no one is going to remember who served who or how much.

[patric]

Tool is pretty close and probably more fitting.  Richard Toon, Jr.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=8113.0

[cynical]

This is one of those cases that makes me lean toward advocating a change from our current system in which the parties to personal injury lawsuits each pay their own attorneys' fees to the English system in which the losing side to a lawsuit always pays the winning party's attorneys' fees.  This eliminate the need for contingent fees, would deter filing doubtful claims such as this suit against APAC, and would also deter dilatory defense tactics against good claims.  The result is fewer frivolous lawsuits, fewer frivolous defenses, and quicker resolution of cases that are filed, all without the cheap tactic of capping damages.  The problem is that it might tend to deter the filing of meritorious lawsuits by low-income plaintiffs because of the risk that they will lose because of an unforeseen technical defense of some sort and end up paying thousands for the defendant(s) attorneys' fees and other expenses.  

That is easily enough remedied by doing a proper amount of research before filing, though it is impossible to eliminate risk.  It would almost certainly shut down stupid claims like this one.