If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MassLive)   Massachusetts lets imprisoned drunk drivers sue their victims   (masslive.com) divider line 88
    More: Stupid, Julian Pellegrino, Massachusetts, Chicopee, broken neck, Hampden Superior Court  
•       •       •

8434 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Feb 2013 at 8:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-11 08:51:52 PM  
As my dad always tells me "You can sue for anything.  Winning is a different story."

/he's not a lawyer
 
2013-02-11 08:51:54 PM  
Getting hit by a sober driver while drunk driving is the biggest scam around.

If the sober driver was at fault for the accident, and the drunk only at fault due to a legal technicality, then why shouldn't the drunk driver be allowed to sue?
 
2013-02-11 08:52:07 PM  
Lawyers - gotta love 'em.
 
2013-02-11 08:52:29 PM  
Not only that, but the passenger that was in the victim's car is also suing both drivers. I'm surprised neither driver is suing the passenger, just for the hell of it.
 
2013-02-11 08:53:10 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Getting hit by a sober driver while drunk driving is the biggest scam around.

If the sober driver was at fault for the accident, and the drunk only at fault due to a legal technicality, then why shouldn't the drunk driver be allowed to sue?


Then don't drive drunk, genius.
 
2013-02-11 08:53:37 PM  
Wow. Drunk and passenger of said drunk sueing each other, a construction company AND the victim.

/ can you say frivolous?
 
2013-02-11 08:54:01 PM  
was this written to protect the endangered Kennedy?
 
2013-02-11 08:54:20 PM  
Huh. He only registered .09. That wouldn't have even been considered driving drunk a few years ago.
 
2013-02-11 08:54:28 PM  
Since everyone seems to be getting a slice of this pie but me, I should reveal that I have no connection to any of the parties involved, but I've just filed suit against all three of them.
 
2013-02-11 08:55:14 PM  

had98c: Not only that, but the passenger that was in the victim's car is also suing both drivers. I'm surprised neither driver is suing the passenger, just for the hell of it.


They're probably all going after the insurance money.
 
2013-02-11 08:55:27 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: AverageAmericanGuy: Getting hit by a sober driver while drunk driving is the biggest scam around.

If the sober driver was at fault for the accident, and the drunk only at fault due to a legal technicality, then why shouldn't the drunk driver be allowed to sue?

Then don't drive drunk, genius.


Blame the victim. That always works.
 
2013-02-11 08:55:39 PM  
Too bad the judge can't unsuspend his suspended sentence because he's not only a property destroying, life endangering, self indulgant, irresponsible person, he's just, to use a technical psychological term, a "dick".
 
2013-02-11 08:56:16 PM  
just because someone you hit is drunk, it doesn't follow that you can operate your vehicle negligently and deny responsibility for injury and damage.
 
2013-02-11 08:56:46 PM  
Ferchrissakes, there is no ban on "suing", you can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything.

You can "sue" your neighbor for having a blue cat or your boss because she looked at you funny.

The law stops lawsuits AFTER you sue.

Stupid headline.
 
2013-02-11 08:57:00 PM  
When Pellegrino pleaded guilty in November 2011 . . .

 . . . he lost the right to sue the guy he nearly killed for causing the accident.
 
2013-02-11 08:57:36 PM  

enry: As my dad always tells me "You can sue for anything.  Winning is a different story."

/he's not a lawyer


Just to make a counter-point, before the advent of various states instituting no civil fault laws for CCW holders involved in a self-defense shooting, it was commonplace for attackers and burglars who survived a home owner defending themselves to file suit against the person who shot them, and win.

That's why Florida's Stand Your Ground law, in part, causes so much controversy in cases like the Trayvon Martin Case - There's no civil recourse if a shooting is deemed "justified" based on evidence, or lack there-of.

Double-edged sword.
 
2013-02-11 08:57:44 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Huh. He only registered .09. That wouldn't have even been considered driving drunk a few years ago.


I'd be curious to see the police accident report on this one.  When you look at all the injuries sustained by various parties that was one hell of a collision.  Be interesting to see if the cops felt the sober guy was operating recklessly or not.
 
2013-02-11 08:58:21 PM  
Still trying to figure out how you can tell whether or not a Massachusetts' driver is driving drunk, or if he's driving unimpaired.

/No difference.
 
2013-02-11 08:58:55 PM  

NutWrench: When Pellegrino pleaded guilty in November 2011 . . .

 . . . he lost the right to sue the guy he was nearly killed byfor causing in the accident.


FTFY
 
2013-02-11 09:01:33 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Getting hit by a sober driver while drunk driving is the biggest scam around.

If the sober driver was at fault for the accident, and the drunk only at fault due to a legal technicality, then why shouldn't the drunk driver be allowed to sue?



Anybody can sue whomever they want. However...

When Pellegrino pleaded guilty in Hampden Superior Court, Assistant District Attorney James M. Forsyth said Pellegrino was driving east in his Ford Ranger pickup truck on Granby Road in Chicopee at about 2:20 p.m. on Dec. 20, 2009, when he fishtailed and crossed over the yellow line and collided with Costa's Acura sedan, which was traveling west.

If the sober driver had fishtailed and hit the drunk driver in his own lane, then the DD might actually have a chance of winning. In this instance, he's just an asshole.
 
2013-02-11 09:01:48 PM  
In before Fark's most unabashed drunk driver complains that it's always ok to drive drunk, provided you stop at the lights.
 
2013-02-11 09:03:07 PM  
FTA--Pellegrino was driving east in his Ford Ranger pickup truck on Granby Road in Chicopee at about 2:20 p.m. on Dec. 20, 2009, when he fishtailed and crossed over the yellow line and collided with Costa's Acura sedan, which was traveling west.

I'd say we're done here. Or did I miss something?
 
2013-02-11 09:03:26 PM  
FTA:   [Pellegrino] is the son of ... a former police commissioner, and [a] retired Springfield Juvenile Court Judge...

Oh.  That explains why he might be a self-entitled douchebag.
 
2013-02-11 09:03:32 PM  
I lost a cousin to a drunk driver and after the drunk was sentenced his sons started physically beating up my other cousin, the little brother of the first mentioned cousin, on a daily basis.  My uncle had to personally put an end to it.  I hope they electrically fries this guy's balls till Darwin is satisfied.

/quite a time for my cousin: he lost his oldest brother two years prior, grandma one year prior and then to get his butt kicked by his brother's killer's sons.
 
2013-02-11 09:06:31 PM  

NutWrench: When Pellegrino pleaded guilty in November 2011 . . .

 . . . he lost the right to sue the guy he nearly killed for causing the accident.


Nope, pleading guilty (or being convicted) just makes it more difficult to win.

Comparative negligence: if Drunk is 70% responsible for the accident (ran stop sign, wrong side of the road, etc.), but Victim is 30% responsible (driving too fast and thus, unable to avoid Drunk when a driver travelling at a reasonable speed probably could have done so), Drunk might recover 30% of the value of his injuries from Victim.

There are lots of weird little tort and statutory rules that can modify these results in different jurisdictions, but the general common law certainly would permit the Drunk to recover something from the Victim if the necessary proof is there...
 
2013-02-11 09:06:47 PM  
the passenger shouldn't be able to sue the guy who had 6 beers in two hours though. that should be assuming the risk. suing the local y for a broken ankle on the basketball court. same goes for getting into a car with a known diabetic that goes into shock frequently.
 
2013-02-11 09:07:04 PM  

John Buck 41: FTA--Pellegrino was driving east in his Ford Ranger pickup truck on Granby Road in Chicopee at about 2:20 p.m. on Dec. 20, 2009, when he fishtailed and crossed over the yellow line and collided with Costa's Acura sedan, which was traveling west.

I'd say we're done here. Or did I miss something?


My guess would be Pellegrino will try saying that's not what really happened, that the ADA was wrong, or something.  You know, nevermind the fact that he pled guilty to doing it...
 
2013-02-11 09:08:42 PM  

enry: As my dad always tells me "You can sue for anything.  Winning is a different story."

/he's not a lawyer


The scumsuckingmaggotlawyers win. Even thought her defendent may nto lose th case her she is stil out legal cost, time stress.

We need loser pays and sanctions on scumsuckingmaggotlawyers who engage in tis type of activity.

We need fewer scumsuckingmaggotlawyers in this country. There is one scumsuckingmaggotlawyer for every 265 Americans, most per captia.

45,000 people graduate from scumsuckingmaggotlawyer school every year

17,364 people graduate from medical school in 2011Link
 
2013-02-11 09:10:36 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: JohnAnnArbor: AverageAmericanGuy: Getting hit by a sober driver while drunk driving is the biggest scam around.

If the sober driver was at fault for the accident, and the drunk only at fault due to a legal technicality, then why shouldn't the drunk driver be allowed to sue?

Then don't drive drunk, genius.

Blame the victim. That always works.


I don't care. I don't drive drunk and care not a whit for those who do.
 
2013-02-11 09:11:29 PM  
I misread the article. It seems Pellegrino was crossing over the line after losing control of his car. Still, automatic fault for DUI is a bad thing.
 
2013-02-11 09:11:41 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Getting hit by a sober driver while drunk driving is the biggest scam around.

If the sober driver was at fault for the accident, and the drunk only at fault due to a legal technicality, then why shouldn't the drunk driver be allowed to sue?


That may be true, but the guy over the legal limit fishtailed into the wrong side of traffic and hit another car. Maybe there's more explanation somewhere, but it's not clear to me how the other guy is at fault here.
 
2013-02-11 09:12:09 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: AverageAmericanGuy: JohnAnnArbor: AverageAmericanGuy: Getting hit by a sober driver while drunk driving is the biggest scam around.

If the sober driver was at fault for the accident, and the drunk only at fault due to a legal technicality, then why shouldn't the drunk driver be allowed to sue?

Then don't drive drunk, genius.

Blame the victim. That always works.

I don't care. I don't drive drunk and care not a whit for those who do.


So you hit them on purpose? You're a monster. Worse than any drunk driver.
 
2013-02-11 09:12:11 PM  

hasty ambush: enry: As my dad always tells me "You can sue for anything.  Winning is a different story."

/he's not a lawyer

The scumsuckingmaggotlawyers win. Even thought her defendent may nto lose th case her she is stil out legal cost, time stress.

We need loser pays and sanctions on scumsuckingmaggotlawyers who engage in tis type of activity.

We need fewer scumsuckingmaggotlawyers in this country. There is one scumsuckingmaggotlawyer for every 265 Americans, most per captia.

45,000 people graduate from scumsuckingmaggotlawyer school every year

17,364 people graduate from medical school in 2011Link


not many people graduate from medical school because the AMA got congress to put a cap on residency a couple of decades ago so they could become even richer while America's poor suffered. you see, there is no point to get a md if you can't get trained.
you should be happy lawyers aren't as scumbaggy as the docs, or you'd have to pay a lot f*cking more for a lot of things.
 
2013-02-11 09:14:49 PM  

JohnHall: AverageAmericanGuy: Getting hit by a sober driver while drunk driving is the biggest scam around.

If the sober driver was at fault for the accident, and the drunk only at fault due to a legal technicality, then why shouldn't the drunk driver be allowed to sue?

That may be true, but the guy over the legal limit fishtailed into the wrong side of traffic and hit another car. Maybe there's more explanation somewhere, but it's not clear to me how the other guy is at fault here.


well that's obviously not his theory. and it would be stupid to preclude an investigation of the facts surrounding the accident. the person at fault should pay.
 
2013-02-11 09:16:35 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: JohnAnnArbor: AverageAmericanGuy: JohnAnnArbor: AverageAmericanGuy: Getting hit by a sober driver while drunk driving is the biggest scam around.

If the sober driver was at fault for the accident, and the drunk only at fault due to a legal technicality, then why shouldn't the drunk driver be allowed to sue?

Then don't drive drunk, genius.

Blame the victim. That always works.

I don't care. I don't drive drunk and care not a whit for those who do.

So you hit them on purpose? You're a monster. Worse than any drunk driver.


Ah, no, not what I said.  Not even a very good try.  I just don't care when they get in trouble.  "Waaaaah!  I was driving drunk but I totally didn't cause the accident!"  Whatever, asshole.
 
2013-02-11 09:25:44 PM  

Ed 'Too Tall' Jones: Since everyone seems to be getting a slice of this pie but me, I should reveal that I have no connection to any of the parties involved, but I've just filed suit against all three of them.


Everybody in this thread can expect to hear from my attorney shortly. He is currently tied up defending Apple's patent trolling in another thread.
 
2013-02-11 09:26:59 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: JohnAnnArbor: AverageAmericanGuy: Getting hit by a sober driver while drunk driving is the biggest scam around.

If the sober driver was at fault for the accident, and the drunk only at fault due to a legal technicality, then why shouldn't the drunk driver be allowed to sue?

Then don't drive drunk, genius.

Blame the victim. That always works.


Apparently it does, cause it's your strategy.
 
2013-02-11 09:27:22 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: "Waaaaah! I was driving drunk,

lost control and fishtailed into the opposite lane, but I totally didn't cause the accident!" Whatever, asshole.

More like it.

AverageAmericanGuy: I misread the article


Great, glad you could finally catch up and stop defending a drunk coont that nearly killed people.
 
2013-02-11 09:28:45 PM  

relcec: not many people graduate from medical school because the AMA got congress to put a cap on residency a couple of decades ago so they could become even richer while America's poor suffered.


It was in 1997 and the offical excuses were a fear of a glut of doctors and to control MEDICARE costs. It was also believed that technology would reduce the need for so many doctors.

Like paying farmers not to grow crops we (the tax payers ) paid medical schools to to produce doctors.

Paying Hospitals to Train Fewer Doctors

"In a strategy applauded by medical economists, the Medicare program has begun a pilot project aimed at reducing the number of new doctors training in teaching hospitals, on the theory that producing fewer specialists means generating fewer unnecessary medical tests, treatments and hospitalizations. Under the program, New York teaching hospitals, which train more doctors than any other city (15 percent of new residents) will earn $400 million in training subsidies during the next six years so long as they produce 2,000 fewer doctors, for a decrease of 20 percent in training rosters. Medicare, which has been subsidizing the physician education for thirty years, hopes in this way to wean the teaching hospitals away from the profitable practice of turning out an excess of specialists. Currently, hospitals earn an average of $100,000 for every resident they train, but pay the residents less than half of that, using the rest to bolster their overall finances. Says Bruce Vladeck, administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration, which runs the Medicare and Medicaid programs: "Until now Medicare has been giving hospitals an incentive to hire more residents. We need to change that." Even with such a generous specialist detox program, Medicare will save $300 million"

meanwhile:

California to Deal with ObamaCare Doctor Shortage by Redefining Pharmacists and Optometrists as Doctors

Some lawmakers want to fill the gap by redefining who can provide healthcare.

They are working on proposals that would allow physician assistants to treat more patients and nurse practitioners to set up independent practices. Pharmacists and optometrists could act as primary care providers, diagnosing and managing some chronic illnesses, such as diabetes and high-blood pressure .

/More government anyone?
 
2013-02-11 09:30:05 PM  

enry: As my dad always tells me "You can sue for anything.  Winning is a different story."

/he's not a lawyer


Son???
 
2013-02-11 09:32:09 PM  

Uzzah: NutWrench: When Pellegrino pleaded guilty in November 2011 . . .

 . . . he lost the right to sue the guy he nearly killed for causing the accident.

Nope, pleading guilty (or being convicted) just makes it more difficult to win.

Comparative negligence: if Drunk is 70% responsible for the accident (ran stop sign, wrong side of the road, etc.), but Victim is 30% responsible (driving too fast and thus, unable to avoid Drunk when a driver travelling at a reasonable speed probably could have done so), Drunk might recover 30% of the value of his injuries from Victim.

There are lots of weird little tort and statutory rules that can modify these results in different jurisdictions, but the general common law certainly would permit the Drunk to recover something from the Victim if the necessary proof is there...


Massachusetts has contributory negligence, meaning you can recover from the other person so long as you are equally or less negligent. Given that he was both drunk and fishtailing, he's up shiat's creek
 
2013-02-11 09:32:57 PM  

iheartscotch: Wow. Drunk and passenger of said drunk sueing each other, a construction company AND the victim.

/ can you say frivolous?


Frivver,, Felvil... Frevus..

Damn!~


Try me again when I'm soberer.
 
2013-02-11 09:34:28 PM  

hasty ambush: relcec: not many people graduate from medical school because the AMA got congress to put a cap on residency a couple of decades ago so they could become even richer while America's poor suffered.

It was in 1997 and the offical excuses were a fear of a glut of doctors and to control MEDICARE costs. It was also believed that technology would reduce the need for so many doctors.

Like paying farmers not to grow crops we (the tax payers ) paid medical schools to to produce doctors.

Paying Hospitals to Train Fewer Doctors

"In a strategy applauded by medical economists, the Medicare program has begun a pilot project aimed at reducing the number of new doctors training in teaching hospitals, on the theory that producing fewer specialists means generating fewer unnecessary medical tests, treatments and hospitalizations. Under the program, New York teaching hospitals, which train more doctors than any other city (15 percent of new residents) will earn $400 million in training subsidies during the next six years so long as they produce 2,000 fewer doctors, for a decrease of 20 percent in training rosters. Medicare, which has been subsidizing the physician education for thirty years, hopes in this way to wean the teaching hospitals away from the profitable practice of turning out an excess of specialists. Currently, hospitals earn an average of $100,000 for every resident they train, but pay the residents less than half of that, using the rest to bolster their overall finances. Says Bruce Vladeck, administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration, which runs the Medicare and Medicaid programs: "Until now Medicare has been giving hospitals an incentive to hire more residents. We need to change that." Even with such a generous specialist detox program, Medicare will save $300 million"

meanwhile:

California to Deal with ObamaCare Doctor Shortage by Redefining Pharmacists and Optometrists as Doctors

Some lawmakers want to fill the gap by redefining who can prov ...


as if healthcare in the united states didn't cost enough.
it is perhaps the most outrageous thing in governance since the war on drugs, but at least that was paved with good intentions originally.
the governmentally educed doctor shortage was just a plain old money grab by the most highly paid profession in the richest country in the history of the world. people millions probably died for it too.
 
2013-02-11 09:34:54 PM  

Amos Quito: iheartscotch: Wow. Drunk and passenger of said drunk sueing each other, a construction company AND the victim.

/ can you say frivolous?

Frivver,, Felvil... Frevus..

Damn!~


Try me again when I'm soberer.


When might that be?

j/k
 
2013-02-11 09:37:11 PM  
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

Sue the mayor...it happened on his farking road...
 
2013-02-11 09:45:01 PM  

hasty ambush: Some lawmakers want to fill the gap by redefining who can provide healthcare.

They are working on proposals that would allow physician assistants to treat more patients and nurse practitioners to set up independent practices. Pharmacists and optometrists could act as primary care providers, diagnosing and managing some chronic illnesses, such as diabetes and high-blood pressure .


Nurse practitioners have been able to independently practice in the Western states since the late 90s. Physician Assistants are grossly underutilized thanks to unnecessarily aggressive oversight and Draconian rules.

In addition, the role of Paramedics are growing into the roles of Primary Care and Community Care Paramedics, who treat minor illnesses and injuries on scene rather than just providing transport, and help with the management of Chronic health conditions.
 
2013-02-11 09:48:22 PM  

BronyMedic: hasty ambush: Some lawmakers want to fill the gap by redefining who can provide healthcare.

They are working on proposals that would allow physician assistants to treat more patients and nurse practitioners to set up independent practices. Pharmacists and optometrists could act as primary care providers, diagnosing and managing some chronic illnesses, such as diabetes and high-blood pressure .

Nurse practitioners have been able to independently practice in the Western states since the late 90s. Physician Assistants are grossly underutilized thanks to unnecessarily aggressive oversight and Draconian rules.

In addition, the role of Paramedics are growing into the roles of Primary Care and Community Care Paramedics, who treat minor illnesses and injuries on scene rather than just providing transport, and help with the management of Chronic health conditions.


And Pharmacists and Optometrists?
 
2013-02-11 09:49:12 PM  
I don't have a problem with this in theory.  Assuming that the "sober person" is the one who violated the traffic laws.

Imagine this:  Lets say you have driver A who is being followed by driver B.  Driver B does not leave a safe distance to ensure the ability to stop before hitting Driver A.  By law, driver B is at fault for tailgating.  The law is clear that you would have to leave enough room to safely stop when the person in front of you stops.  The fact that driver A was drunk does not change anything about this situation.
 
2013-02-11 09:51:51 PM  

gadian: In before Fark's most unabashed drunk driver complains that it's always ok to drive drunk, provided you stop at the lights.


There is a difference between driving drunk and driving home from having 2 beers at dinner.
 
2013-02-11 09:56:05 PM  
"The lawyers/law firms industry encompasses a variety of law-related interests. It consists of both trade organizations that promote legislation beneficial to the industry and members of prestigious firms - including former lawmakers and high-ranking government staffers -- that are highly involved in various political processes. Members of this group of politically embedded law firms frequently show up in the Center for Responsive Politics' Revolving Door database."

"Contributions to federal candidates and political committees by lawyers have increased during the past 10 years, and collectively, they are consistently larger during presidential election years. Each cycle, the contributions significantly favor Democrats. In the 2008 election cycle, the industry contributed a massive $234 million to federal political candidates and interests , 76 percent of which went to Democratic candidates and committees"


Link
 
Displayed 50 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report