Wildwilly54 t1_j64eqqg wrote
This guy can fuck off too, it was 100% his fault. If she would have stopped, this wouldn’t even be an issue.
doglywolf t1_j64lubi wrote
If she would of stopped , she could of been the one suing him.
The fleeing the scene puts an interesting legal spin on it.
There is a thing called something like reasonable diligence or something along those lines . That if there is an accident that is someone else fault it could still be your fault if you can't prove you didn't have a best effort to avoid it.
She never even braked....out of this entire thing that the part the shocks me...not even so much as a break tap till she is almost at the corner of the end of the block before you see break lights ...
That shows depraved indifference or an inebriated state which would make her liable .That whats going to make this an interesting shit show.
Some law firm probably doing it probably for like 60-70% of the take . Probably came to this guy and were like hey we can probably get you a few hundred thousand for this and wont charge you shit just sign this letting us sue for you.
If i were him and someone came to me and said hey we might be able to get a few hundred K from this clearly horrible person at no cost to you win or lose. Id be like fuck ya go for it.
Wildwilly54 t1_j64p9m8 wrote
You do bring up a good point. If I’m a Uber eats delivery guy, and some ambulance chasing lawyer offered me a chance at 1mill I’d take it.
doglywolf t1_j64r08p wrote
Its zero cost to him - most injury lawyers work on commission but they take the lions share to compensate for the risk .
My mom got a million dollar settlement from an accident that jacked up her arm for life. She barely got enough out of it to cover medical cost .
After medical bills which were about 80k after multiple surges (AFTER insurance covered their part no less) i think she got like less then 40k and lawyers ended up with the rest.
PolarExpress333 t1_j64tcv0 wrote
Actually by law in NJ the most lawyers can take on a personal injury contingency is 30%.
Edit: actually it’s 33.3% max to be exact
Marshalrusty t1_j65mfry wrote
Keep in mind that, if you take a close look at N.J. Ct. R. 1:21, any out-of-pocket fees are taken off the top, prior to the calculation of the contingency fee. This includes things like paying for expert witnesses, and can be very substantial in a tort case. This is why many firms won't even bother with cases where the expected payout is under 6 figures.
So it's absolutely possible to have a court award $150K, of which half is paid out as fees, and then for the attorneys to take $25K of the remaining $75K, leaving just $50K for the injured party.
doglywolf t1_j64tj5c wrote
they are lawyers im sure they find ways around that because 2x that has not been the experience i have seen and multiple others heard of
Mysterious_Ad_8105 t1_j66demh wrote
>Some law firm probably doing it probably for like 60-70% of the take
I have no views on this case, but I’ll just point out that under New Jersey Court Rule 1:21-77, attorney contingency fees in cases of this type are capped at 33.3% of the net recovery. An agreement purporting to award an attorney a higher contingency fee would be unenforceable.
samwiseganja96 t1_j661upn wrote
Id argue that the video alone would be enough to show she probably couldn't have done anything to avoid the accident. You can watch the biker go into multiple blind spots for the intersection. This video would 100% be shown in bike safety videos of what not to do in an intersection.
Muchamuchacha42 t1_j6cye9q wrote
Yeah. There’s nothing she could have done except drive the speed limit, avoid intoxication, stop at the scene, and report to the police sooner than 6 hours later. SIX HOURS.
samwiseganja96 t1_j6d0hst wrote
I agree people should do that.
doublen00b t1_j64l9gc wrote
There is merit here- drivers are supposed to take “evasive action” and avoid “failure to yeild”.
Amy was clearly not paying attention, failed to even attempt to stop, stay at scene etc. Right of way doesn’t overrule common sense. Its why cars cant simply run over protesters when they block highways or roads.
cC2Panda t1_j64prtc wrote
Amy is a piece of shit but he came out from behind stopped cars, it'd be hard to convince a reasonable person that she could have reasonably avoided the accident.
kulgan t1_j64t9o0 wrote
If she'd slammed on her brakes at any point, and of course stopped and rendered aid if she did hit him, maybe. Instead, she had no reaction at any point in the next 6 hours.
cC2Panda t1_j6521w5 wrote
We're not arguing whether or not she did the right thing after the fact. She had a second or two at the most to react from the time he appeared from behind the parked cars on the street. I don't think many civil juries would say that given the circumstances that she was at fault for the accident.
kulgan t1_j6537ce wrote
She had closer to 3 seconds if I recall correctly. That's enough time to get your foot off the gas and onto the brake, even if it's not enough time to stop. She did none of those things.
cC2Panda t1_j656uzz wrote
You can watch the video it's not 3 seconds, regardless in NYC(the nearest I can find actual stats for) less than a third of drivers in fatal accidents with cyclists/pedestrians are even charged let alone convicted of anything. Our society has decided the privileges of incompetent drivers supercede the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. I seriously doubt the cyclist will convince a jury to award him anything.
doublen00b t1_j65353h wrote
None of what you are saying rules out drugs, alcohol, medication, phone use etc… all of which would put her at fault.
Wildwilly54 t1_j64mggf wrote
She has the green light, and it wasn’t like it just turned green …it’s a good ten seconds. There’s also a car illegally parked in the crosswalk on the corner obstructing her view from where this clown was coming from. 95% of drivers would have tagged him.
Granted I would have slowed down when I saw the car parked in the cross walk because I’ve had plenty of morons pop out from behind them over the years. But everything leading up to her hitting the guy wasn’t really her fault at all.
doublen00b t1_j64qoue wrote
I understand completely what you are saying. My understanding is that the law is written that you are to try and avoid accidents all costs. She pled guilty already to fleeing the scene of accident and failure to report.
I would bet a good attorney sees a window and can create a scenario that she was negligent or not fully paying attention and did nothing to avoid the accident. Maybe cell records will be requested, medical history etc (driving on meds when not supposed to etc), substance abuse, without knowing a lot more its hard to say what happened.
I would put money on out of court settlement.
objectimpermanence t1_j64zb94 wrote
> There’s also a car illegally parked in the crosswalk on the corner obstructing her view from where this clown was coming from. 95% of drivers would have tagged him.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Most drivers probably would have hit him.
But technically drivers are supposed to slow down when approaching an intersection with obstructed views. Having the green light doesn’t absolve you of the responsibility to take reasonable steps to avoid hitting someone.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if the cyclist’s lawyer tries to make that argument.
Even though slowing down might not have avoided the collision, it would have reduce the severity of the injuries. The fact that she hit him and didn’t even tap the brakes afterward is a really bad look for her.
joejoeaz t1_j68nd2c wrote
Completely not at fault.... Until she fled the scene... If she was not in the wrong, she really, really, really, should have stayed. But alas she fled, and now she's infamous for being a piece of human garbage.
GhostOfRobertTreat t1_j6530og wrote
This guy should have been fined too! Just blew right through a red light into traffic!
kulgan t1_j64kbln wrote
He caused the situation, but I disagree on 100%. When you're driving a car, you should be alert and aware of the road in front of you. She easily had time to at least start to apply the brakes, if not completely stop, when the dumb human slowly and obliviously crossed her path.
Blankman8 t1_j64ota5 wrote
Shouldn’t you be just as aware when riding a bicycle? Honestly, she’s wrong for leaving but i really believe she didn’t see him. There’s just no way someone can hit something or someone and not even flinch or even tap the break when reacting.
jersey-city-park t1_j64tkqd wrote
She was absolutely drunk, high, or tripping out of her mind. Why else would someone whos not at fault drive away
Blankman8 t1_j64wx09 wrote
Shiiiiit there’s a couple parts of JC i wouldn’t stop lol
SecondOfCicero t1_j68fza7 wrote
Your comment made me think of something that happened in my neighbourhood when I was young. Kids were always always always playing in a busy road, and finally one of them got hit by some old dude, who did stop and get out to check on the kid. People started beating the shit out of the old dude for hitting the kid (the kid bounced and was fine) and put him in the hospital.
Sucks for everyone involved
Blankman8 t1_j68ic04 wrote
Exactly!!
kulgan t1_j64rsjj wrote
> Shouldn’t you be just as aware when riding a bicycle?
Sort of, but not really. The burden of responsibility is much higher for the activity that can and does fairly regularly kill lots of people, knock down buildings, etc. Dude was an idiot, but he wasn't traveling at a speed and mass to do much damage.
How do you even start to explain her not seeing him? Was she drunk? A large man was right in front of her for about 3 seconds and her only reaction was to open her mouth in the frame that she hit him. If she didn't see him, she maybe shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Wildwilly54 t1_j64tbdz wrote
There’s a car parked on the corner in the cross walk, completely blocking her view from the way he was traveling. She could have been whacked out of her mind, we’ll never know. But the majority of drivers in this city would have tagged him.
kulgan t1_j64tvqj wrote
Nonsense. If I recall correctly, it's about 2.7 seconds from him coming into view until the impact. Even if that's not enough time to fully stop, it's enough time to apply the brakes or at least come off the accelerator. She doesn't even have the excuse of looking at her phone or something. Her hands were at ten and two, eyes straight ahead. She plowed through the guy at full speed and kept going.
Blankman8 t1_j64w25q wrote
Did you watch the video? She didn’t even flinch. Do you drive? Try not tapping your break for 10 seconds while driving through the city. It’s an instant reaction even if you’re going to hit a pothole. The fact that her brain didn’t even hesitate to keep driving makes me question if she saw him or if she was heavily impaired.
kulgan t1_j64wqha wrote
I have probably watched the various angles more than I've seen the Zapruder film. "Heavily impaired" is the only thing that makes any sense.
Blankman8 t1_j64x70v wrote
Or not seeing him… the fact that the break lights didn’t even flash red as if she didn’t even touch her break to think about it is what makes me think this
kulgan t1_j64xl17 wrote
But the only way she didn't see him is if she was paying no attention to the road, or she's actually blind.
Blankman8 t1_j64xqco wrote
Her face was up in the video so no phone excuse.
kulgan t1_j64y664 wrote
Right. She's spaced out, heavily impaired, blind, a complete sociopath, or some combination.
Blankman8 t1_j64yb2c wrote
Can we just agree that bikers need to be just as aware. Not giving her slack but he was heavily at fault
kulgan t1_j6505t5 wrote
I am on board that he was irresponsible in an idiotic way. Put himself in danger, wasn't aware, etc. It's not a good idea. But there are a lot of reasons we require a license and liability insurance to drive a car and don't for riding a bike. If she'd slammed on her brakes but still hit him, there's really no outrage, no story here. He fucked up. But the higher burden is always on the heavier, faster mode of travel. Pedestrians bear less responsibility than bicyclists and they bear less responsibility than drivers. She needed to try to avoid hitting the human that showed up in her path, regardless of the color of the light.
Blankman8 t1_j650k8p wrote
Now let me give you this scenario…
If she swerved because she couldn’t stop and ended up on the side walk hitting a couple people perhaps killing one because his ignorance who would we be mad at?
Another scenario.. a car railing you and if she breaks she’s getting hit hard from behind(no pun intended)
kulgan t1_j6519f5 wrote
Swerving in that scenario would be irresponsible. She was on a neighborhood street, and not even traveling that fast. Just apply the brakes.
Rear ending someone will always be the fault of the driver who didn't stop, not the one who does. This is basic stuff in the manual and on the test. Keep a safe following distance, be aware of what's in front of your car.
Blankman8 t1_j651jtt wrote
I’m just giving you scenarios that happens everyday. You can’t control someone tail hating you so chuck that manual and test out the window
kulgan t1_j651v1x wrote
Okay, if we're chucking the manual, yes, accept that you might get rear ended to avoid running into a human in front of your car. You've got crumple zones and their liability insurance will cover the damage.
[deleted] t1_j65es96 wrote
[deleted]
robotorigami t1_j65fn53 wrote
Are you arguing that it would be totally ok for me to run down a person who's in the crosswalk when my light is green because it would be their fault?
mmmmyah t1_j65qj3f wrote
No one is saying it's "totally ok". But this is a common situation where the bicyclist was at fault and any average driver could not stop as seen re: the circumstances on the video. In general if you don't obey the traffic laws be prepared to deal with the consequences. There are vehicular traffic laws in place for a reason and they apply to both motorists and bicyclists alike.
pixel_of_moral_decay t1_j64uw03 wrote
Driver has a legal obligation to not impact other persons or property. Or operate a vehicle in a way that can result in such a collision.
Same reason you’re responsible for an accident if you slid on ice or snow. You’re responsible for safe operation of the vehicle regardless of external elements. You have to slow to a speed in which you can safely operate, or if that’s not possible, get off the road until it is.
One persons negligence doesn’t absolve the driver of this responsibility.
She’s responsible by law for hitting him regardless of the light.
He could get a ticket, but that’s really it.
She’s absolutely responsible for the accident thanks to unsafe operation of the vehicle and being unable to stop and/or not looking before crossing the intersection. At a bare minimum it’s reckless driving. This is textbook stuff.
Wildwilly54 t1_j64zziz wrote
“Or operate a vehicle in a way that can result in such a collision”
She has a green light and is basically doing the speed limit. On what planet is that part reckless.
pixel_of_moral_decay t1_j652tkl wrote
That doesn’t mean she can hit someone. That’s still an offense. She had an obligation to stop in time. She willfully operated a vehicle in a way she couldn’t.
edk5 t1_j653jzy wrote
Out of curiosity, where did you go to law school? I don't remember this from Torts class way back when I took it.
Wildwilly54 t1_j658eic wrote
University of American Samoa Law School would be my guess.
pixel_of_moral_decay t1_j65owpl wrote
If you took Drivers Ed in NJ this is an actual topic.
Assuming you’re a licensed driver.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments