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 17
    More: Stupid, Julian Pellegrino, Massachusetts, Chicopee, broken neck, Hampden Superior Court  
•       •       •

8433 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-11 08:51:52 PM
4 votes:
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
3 votes:
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 10:11:28 PM
2 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: 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


Uh, did you read the article? Pellegrino, the drunk driver, lost control of his pickup truck and fishtailed into oncoming traffic, hitting the victim's car. The only contribution the victim had to the accident was that his car happened to be in the exact spot where it was when the drunk farktard lost control of his truck.
2013-02-11 09:49:12 PM
2 votes:
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 09:01:33 PM
2 votes:

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 10:37:50 PM
1 votes:

Warlordtrooper: 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.


True. But not everyone subscribes to this, i.e., the current ad campaign 'Buzzed driving IS drunk driving'.

Must be nice to look at the world w/o shades of grey. Everything so cut and dried, black and white.

FTS.
2013-02-11 10:02:06 PM
1 votes:

Warlordtrooper: There is a difference between driving drunk and driving home from having 2 beers at dinner.


If you're having 2 beers for dinner, you're either having a lengthy dinner or you shouldn't be driving.  Are you buzzed? You shouldn't be driving. How hard is this? If you're drinking alcohol away from home, don't drive home unless enough time has past to metabolize the alcohol to put you under the limit.
2013-02-11 09:51:51 PM
1 votes:

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 09:32:09 PM
1 votes:

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 09:26:59 PM
1 votes:

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 09:03:07 PM
1 votes:
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 08:58:21 PM
1 votes:
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 08:57:36 PM
1 votes:

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 08:56:46 PM
1 votes:
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 08:56:16 PM
1 votes:
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 08:54:20 PM
1 votes:
Huh. He only registered .09. That wouldn't have even been considered driving drunk a few years ago.
2013-02-11 08:54:01 PM
1 votes:
was this written to protect the endangered Kennedy?
 
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report