Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Holly Hunt rolled her sport utility vehicle on Highway 36 at McCaslin Boulevard on the night of Nov. 2.

Man, things really went downhill for her after Saving Grace got canceled.

That was Holly Hunter

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: SundaesChild: That was Holly Hunter

[img200.imageshack.us image 400x328]

I'm so glad he's no longer my governor.

To the case at hand: If she had no insurance, of course they're going to go after her. Since she did have insurance, the insurance company will take care of her and jack up her rates accordingly.

That's messed up. The bus driver should not be going so fast that he can't dodge something already STALLED in the middle of the road. His accident is a single-vehicle accident, really, because the rolled over van was no longer participating in anything, it was merely an already existing obstacle.

I mean, what happens next time when a tree blows over into the street?

basemetal: She was illegally driving (no insurance) and recklessly driving, causing a rollover of her own car. She is at fault for everything that her vehicle caused after that. If she wasn't on the road (illegally), none of this would have happened. I don't see the outrage. Pay up, biatch.

/I give no sympathy to uninsured drivers

"Hunt did not provide proof of insurance at the time of the accident, but is covered by State Farm."

GAT_00
It's her fault the idiot bus driver hit a stationary obstacle?

Clearly. Bus drivers are never at fault for anything. Just ask their union. He was probably under a lot of stress and therefore was unable to keep his bus in the correct lane at a safe speed, or apply the brakes in a timely manner.

Fark_Guy_Rob: basemetal: She was illegally driving (no insurance) and recklessly driving, causing a rollover of her own car. She is at fault for everything that her vehicle caused after that. If she wasn't on the road (illegally), none of this would have happened. I don't see the outrage. Pay up, biatch.

/I give no sympathy to uninsured drivers

"Hunt did not provide proof of insurance at the time of the accident, but is covered by State Farm."

This is Fark; why let accuracy and logic get in the way of a good rant?

"Her accident caused the subsequent accident with the bus, so in our opinion that is the chain of events that occurred resulting in the damage to our bus," said RTD spokesman Scott Reed.

No, the damage to your bus resulted from: According to investigators, the bus driver did not brake prior to the accident.

This seems like it should be pretty clear-cut. I was in an accident where I hit the car in front of me when he hit the car in front of him. My hitting the car in front of me was my fault. Why wouldn't this be the bus driver's fault?

The most important fact found in this article is being over looked and it is as follows:


PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HOW TO farkING DRIVE IN DENVER.

You know, I can't blame the bus driver. I would have hit it too.

itazurakko: I mean, what happens next time when a tree blows over into the street?

You sue the fairy dust out of those Keebler farkers.

basemetal: Fark_Guy_Rob: basemetal: She was illegally driving (no insurance) and recklessly driving, causing a rollover of her own car. She is at fault for everything that her vehicle caused after that. If she wasn't on the road (illegally), none of this would have happened. I don't see the outrage. Pay up, biatch.

/I give no sympathy to uninsured drivers

"Hunt did not provide proof of insurance at the time of the accident, but is covered by State Farm."

Yeah, I'll give her that then. But she was still driving recklessly and her wake caused another accident. She will lose in court. Actually, her insurance carrier will advise not to go to court.

That's only because they ALWAYS settle. Insurance companys rarely, if ever, go to court. It costs too much.

basemetal: Yeah, I'll give her that then. But she was still driving recklessly and her wake caused another accident. She will lose in court. Actually, her insurance carrier will advise not to go to court.

Not with the sort of attorney they could afford.

FTA: "Her accident caused the subsequent accident with the bus, so in our opinion that is the chain of events that occurred resulting in the damage to our bus," said RTD spokesman Scott Reed. "The fact that she was cited for careless driving means that she was in fact responsible for causing the damage to our bus."
"This is done to protect taxpayers. It's unfortunate that she had the accident. It's unfortunate that our bus then struck her vehicle that caused the accident. It's not fair for taxpayers to be on the hook for the bill for something that she caused," said Reed.

Said Allen. The end: Scott Reed is a living fart. A walking turd. He is as bad as an insurance company shill.

basemetal: Fark_Guy_Rob: basemetal: She was illegally driving (no insurance) and recklessly driving, causing a rollover of her own car. She is at fault for everything that her vehicle caused after that. If she wasn't on the road (illegally), none of this would have happened. I don't see the outrage. Pay up, biatch.

/I give no sympathy to uninsured drivers

"Hunt did not provide proof of insurance at the time of the accident, but is covered by State Farm."

Yeah, I'll give her that then. But she was still driving recklessly and her wake caused another accident. She will lose in court. Actually, her insurance carrier will advise not to go to court.

The wake of her car rolling over did not cause the accident. The bus driver/mechanic's failure to brake BEFORE HE HIT A STATIONARY OBJECT ON THE HIGHWAY and inability to stay in the proper lane caused it. If I were on the jury for this case, I would laugh RTD and the other truck company out of court.

How old is she?
Stupid article only says "teen".
If she's under 18, isn't it mostly her parents' problem?
You can't go after a minor for money.

basemetal: Yeah, I'll give her that then. But she was still driving recklessly and her wake caused another accident.

No it didn't. RTFA. Somebody had time to stop and pull her out of her SUV before a bus came along and crashed into it. If you hit a stopped object on the road, it's your damn fault.

I love seeing SUV's crash......... People can't handle some very specific scientific calculations when driving a SUV, resulting in over-correcting for what would be a simple swerve(in a car) away from road hazards.

/Sign said "bump in road", so I bumped and the car jumped and thats why my car now on this homes roof.

What if she hadn't wrecked, but instead was the last car in a line of traffic that had stopped? Would it be her fault then, too? Yeah, her bad for the initial accident. But Mr Bus Driver is at fault for hitting her car.

State Farm should go to court.

I get the feeling this is one of those instances where we're not hearing the full story.

HOWEVER, if this sentence is really true:

"About three minutes later, an RTD bus hit the disabled vehicle."

...then sorry, but no, RTD. You don't arrive three full minutes after an accident, and have your own accident caused by the earlier one. If you're involved in the initial accident, that's one thing. Showing up three minutes later and driving straight into the earlier accident simply shows that either you were driving dangerously fast (unable to stop on seeing a stationary object in the road in front of you), or you were not paying due attention (failing to see the stationary object on the road in front of you, in time to stop), or your vehicle was not properly maintained (unable to stop before hitting stationary object a large distance down the road). Or perhaps, some combination of all three.

Either way, if you show up three minutes after an accident and hit it, it is 100% your own fault. RTD should be extracting their $70,000 from their own driver (if he/she was at fault), their maintenance department (if they were at fault), or both.

Give them the State Farm policy number and tell them to make a claim. No need to freak out about it. You don't need to have an insurance card in your car to be covered by your policy. State Farm will tell them all about proximate cause.

"Did I hit something?"

This is why trucks should not be passenger vehicles.

Maybe next time she'll buy something that can maneuver without flipping the fark over.

Begoggle: How old is she?
Stupid article only says "teen".
If she's under 18, isn't it mostly her parents' problem?
You can't go after a minor for money.

This article says she's 19.

gweilo8888: I get the feeling this is one of those instances where we're not hearing the full story.

HOWEVER, if this sentence is really true:

"About three minutes later, an RTD bus hit the disabled vehicle."

...then sorry, but no, RTD. You don't arrive three full minutes after an accident, and have your own accident caused by the earlier one. If you're involved in the initial accident, that's one thing. Showing up three minutes later and driving straight into the earlier accident simply shows that either you were driving dangerously fast (unable to stop on seeing a stationary object in the road in front of you), or you were not paying due attention (failing to see the stationary object on the road in front of you, in time to stop), or your vehicle was not properly maintained (unable to stop before hitting stationary object a large distance down the road). Or perhaps, some combination of all three.

Either way, if you show up three minutes after an accident and hit it, it is 100% your own fault. RTD should be extracting their $70,000 from their own driver (if he/she was at fault), their maintenance department (if they were at fault), or both.

Their lawyer is going to try. He or she probably figures, since the accident report showed no insurance policy number, that the girl was an uninsured wreck and would be scared into paying something.

Begoggle:
If she's under 18, isn't it mostly her parents' problem?
You can't go after a minor for money.

Uh... who told you that?

You can sue kids six ways to Sunday.

basemetal: She was illegally driving (no insurance) and recklessly driving, causing a rollover of her own car. She is at fault for everything that her vehicle caused after that. If she wasn't on the road (illegally), none of this would have happened. I don't see the outrage. Pay up, biatch.

/I give no sympathy to uninsured drivers

so then you're not outraged at all, right?

Because it's made pretty clear that she has insurance, but didn't have a copy of the paperwork with her at the time (frankly, the police can look up this info pretty readily in most places).

Careless driving? Yep, cited for that.

Now what's telling from the article is the statement that the driver of the bus never hit the brakes. That's a bit of a WTH right there, and should limit culpability (if not outright dismiss it). If you've ever seen an accident similar to this one, you quickly realize just how many people merely zone out when they're driving and don't notice a car stopped in the middle of a freeway. It's kind of scary when you think about it.

Back in the late 90s, I used to spend a lot of time listening to my neighbors 49mhz cordless phone conversations with a scanner.

I would tell them the same thing my neighbor used to tell the medical bill collectors who called him daily:

"Sue me!" ::click::

indylaw: Begoggle:
If she's under 18, isn't it mostly her parents' problem?
You can't go after a minor for money.

Uh... who told you that?

You can sue kids six ways to Sunday.

In Indiana, the parents sign a waiver for children under 18 and assume financial liability. If you sue the kid, you're not going to be getting money from them. It's coming from whoever signs the liability form.

DrippinBalls: Tell them to GO F*CK U!

/state farm is the most useless insurance company in the world

This.

And, fark the RTD and any other local government vehicles. Around here, if you are hit by one (their fault) you are SOL, you can't do shiat. Other way around and you have to pay up. It's complete bullshiat. They drive like people with impunity, especially the buses.

Douchebag bus driver in this case should be charged for reckless driving or failure to control. You sure as hell would be if you ran into a car that's been wrecked for 3 minutes prior.

Yeah, sorry, nope. Not buying the whole "she caused the second collision" thing in the slightest.

The facts are these:

1) The second accident happened 3 minutes after the first
2) The bus was driving in the passing lane, when not passing
3) The bus made no attempt to break and plowed into the SUV wreck at full-speed.

Bus driver was inattentive to the road and struck a stationary object.

It'll either get reduced after bad publicity (to 0 or very little settled) or go to court and find 50% liable from both parties (if its a jury trial it'll be 90%+ bus driver's fault.)

Despite her actions and how right she thinks she is, she's better off right now getting a lawyer, or having her insurance take care of it.

indylaw: Begoggle:
If she's under 18, isn't it mostly her parents' problem?
You can't go after a minor for money.

Uh... who told you that?

You can sue kids six ways to Sunday.

A minor cannot legally enter into a binding contract. Any legal actions are to be pursued against their guardians.

MoronLessOff: Begoggle: How old is she?
Stupid article only says "teen".
If she's under 18, isn't it mostly her parents' problem?
You can't go after a minor for money.

This article says she's 19.

===================

Even if she's age of majority, the parents, or some other third party, can be held liable. Couple of examples: 1) If the plaintiff can prove agency. " I was on my way to the market to go shopping for my mother." 2) Negligent entrustment. Mom loans the kid the family car, even though mom knew little Miss Sunshine had 4 DUI's and 3 wrecks in the previous week.

Girion47: indylaw: Begoggle:
If she's under 18, isn't it mostly her parents' problem?
You can't go after a minor for money.

Uh... who told you that?

You can sue kids six ways to Sunday.

A minor cannot legally enter into a binding contract. Any legal actions are to be pursued against their guardians.

... most lawsuits are not based on contracts.

indylaw: Girion47: indylaw: Begoggle:
If she's under 18, isn't it mostly her parents' problem?
You can't go after a minor for money.

Uh... who told you that?

You can sue kids six ways to Sunday.

A minor cannot legally enter into a binding contract. Any legal actions are to be pursued against their guardians.

... most lawsuits are not based on contracts.

Okay, so lets say I'm 19, sue me, go after my non-existent assets. Everything this girl has is probably owned by her parents. She sure as hell doesn't have $70k. Since she isn't a minor who can they collect from?

redmid17: indylaw: Begoggle:
If she's under 18, isn't it mostly her parents' problem?
You can't go after a minor for money.

Uh... who told you that?

You can sue kids six ways to Sunday.

In Indiana, the parents sign a waiver for children under 18 and assume financial liability. If you sue the kid, you're not going to be getting money from them. It's coming from whoever signs the liability form.

Is that on the driver's license or in the insurance policy? What if the child driving is unlicensed and uninsured?

Usually you sue the parents through the "family car doctrine," which creates a rebuttable presumption that a car owner's child or other close family member is driving the car as an agent for the owner.

But it's untrue that you can't sue a child. If a 15 year old kid torches my house over some fight with my son, I can sue him for the damage.

Girion47: indylaw: Girion47: indylaw: Begoggle:
If she's under 18, isn't it mostly her parents' problem?
You can't go after a minor for money.

Uh... who told you that?

You can sue kids six ways to Sunday.

A minor cannot legally enter into a binding contract. Any legal actions are to be pursued against their guardians.

... most lawsuits are not based on contracts.

Okay, so lets say I'm 19, sue me, go after my non-existent assets. Everything this girl has is probably owned by her parents. She sure as hell doesn't have $70k. Since she isn't a minor who can they collect from?

=============

In some states a judgement can be good for 20 years, and can even be renewed before it expires. She doesn't have any assets now, but what about 20 years from now when her parents die and leave her an inheritance?