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.

(WTOP)   World's seventh richest woman gets in car accident in Virginia, damaging her Porsche SUV. She killed some plebe, too, but let's try to stay focused on what's important, okay?   (wtop.com) divider line 25
    More: Sad, Porsche SUV, Northern Virginia, the heaviest people, Mars Inc.  
•       •       •

11998 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Oct 2013 at 10:22 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2013-10-09 10:29:31 AM
3 votes:

kronicfeld: Yeah, it's the lack of a seatbelt's fault that the other driver was negligent. Good call.


One person can cause an accident while the other person can cause it to be severe. It's not an either/or proposition. Fault can be and often is apportioned to multiple involved parties in crashes, I don't see why the severity of injuries shouldn't also be taken into consideration if it can be reasonably surmised that the only reason the person was badly injured or killed is because they chose to make no effort to prevent the outcome. Why should one person's negligence be used to complete excuse another's?
2013-10-09 11:04:53 AM
2 votes:
what_now:  It probably wouldn't have been a tragic accident if the idiot had worn her seatbelt.

If the victim had been wearing a seatbelt, she might have survived.  Too many variables in play, so it's impossible to say for sure.

If the murderer had stayed in her lane of travel, there would have been no accident.  The likelihood of this scenario approaches 100%.

/as does the likelihood that I've been trolololed
2013-10-09 10:54:01 AM
2 votes:

skozlaw: kronicfeld: You take your victim as you find him. If the victim was not himself or herself a contributing cause to the occurrence of the negligence, then it is irrelevant whether the victim was particularly more or particularly less prone to injury for any reason.

That's not the point. Why shouldn't that be considered? I'm not saying it is, but upon what justification is it not?


Depends on the state.Virginia has a pure contributory negligence law, so the case could be thrown out if the Mars were able to show that the 86-year-old did anything negligent that contributed to the accident. I don't think you can claim negligence as a factor in the severity of injuries, though. Mars is 100 percent liable for the accident, and the old lady would have sustained no injuries if Mars had stayed on her side of the road, so I don't think you can argue that not wearing a seatbelt was negligent. If the old lady had been on the phone and that caused her to fail to swerve out of Mars' way, that would be different.

/People who think it's weird the old lady made it to 86 without wearing a seat belt. NOBODY wore seatbelts prior to about 1980, except for a few safety nerds, and most cars didn't even have seatbelts until the mid-1960s. And 99.9-something percent got away with it their entire driving careers.Same goes for bike helmets, but you can add some decimal places.

//Porsche and SUV are not words that should be in close proximity. The Cayenne and Panamera are abominations unto the gods of motoring.
2013-10-09 10:49:12 AM
2 votes:
Was this her?

houston.culturemap.com
2013-10-09 10:42:33 AM
2 votes:

kronicfeld: You take your victim as you find him. If the victim was not himself or herself a contributing cause to the occurrence of the negligence, then it is irrelevant whether the victim was particularly more or particularly less prone to injury for any reason.


I disagree. If the lady was wearing a seatbelt, and she walked away from that crash with like..a broken arm.. we wouldn't be hearing about this.
2013-10-09 10:31:35 AM
2 votes:

kronicfeld: DoBeDoBeDo: They were both negligent.

One of them caused the collision. The other didn't. This is not BSABSVD1.

1Both Sides Are Bad So Vote Defendant


Virginia has seat belt laws, the victims lack of following the law shouldn't mean extra charges on the defendant.
2013-10-09 10:28:31 AM
2 votes:

DoBeDoBeDo: They were both negligent.


One of them caused the collision. The other didn't. This is not BSABSVD1.

1Both Sides Are Bad So Vote Defendant
2013-10-09 10:25:54 AM
2 votes:

kronicfeld: enry: Dunno, I'd say if you want to forego wearing a seatbelt you should agree not to use public funds for your medical bills nor be sued for any reason in the event of an accident.

Yeah, it's the lack of a seatbelt's fault that the other driver was negligent. Good call.


They were both negligent.  It's like offsetting penalties in football but you don't get to replay the down.
2013-10-09 10:24:51 AM
2 votes:
Not wearing a seatbelt.  No sympathy.
2013-10-09 10:23:47 AM
2 votes:

Walker: If you think she'll serve even one minute of jail time I've got a bridge to sell you...and it's made of chocolate.


It doesn't sound ...from that description at least... that she's done anything that would require jail time. If she was drunk or speeding or reckless, yes, but it sounds like it was an accident.

It probably wouldn't have been a tragic accident if the idiot had worn her seatbelt.
2013-10-09 10:04:59 AM
2 votes:
Dunno, I'd say if you want to forego wearing a seatbelt you should agree not to use public funds for your medical bills nor be sued for any reason in the event of an accident.
2013-10-09 11:21:52 AM
1 votes:

Walker: Rhino_man: kronicfeld: enry: Dunno, I'd say if you want to forego wearing a seatbelt you should agree not to use public funds for your medical bills nor be sued for any reason in the event of an accident.

Yeah, it's the lack of a seatbelt's fault that the other driver was negligent. Good call.

No, but if she'd been wearing her seat belt, she'd have survived the head-on crash IN A FARKING 25MPH ZONE.

I'm sure the woman in the Porsche was going 25 mph.



It was a Porsche Cayenne SUV being driven by an elderly woman.  Just because it has a Porsche badge on it, doesn't mean that it is automatically going to be driven everywhere at light speed.  The place I work is surrounded by a few affluent "old money" neighborhoods and there are lots of Porsches and Aston Martins dawdling along at five under the speed limit.
2013-10-09 11:04:06 AM
1 votes:

what_now: Walker: If you think she'll serve even one minute of jail time I've got a bridge to sell you...and it's made of chocolate.

It doesn't sound ...from that description at least... that she's done anything that would require jail time. If she was drunk or speeding or reckless, yes, but it sounds like it was an accident.

It probably wouldn't have been a tragic accident if the idiot had worn her seatbelt.


Crossed the center line, head on collision, killed a person. At the very least it's involuntary manslaughter.
I'd like to live in your world, where you can kill someone and not get in any trouble. Must be a cool place.
2013-10-09 11:03:13 AM
1 votes:
I don't think you can argue that the dead lady's negligence contributed to the accident, so Mars is gonna lose that lawsuit. But financially, you could argue that the lack of seatbelt contributed to some percentage of the injuries, and if the hospital and funeral home are trying to get their money from the insurance companies, the old lady could be held liable for part of the payments. If she were the rich one, and Mars had no money, the victim could be liable for ALL of their claim, under joint and severable liability. That also might reduce the amount of the wrongful death claim award to the victim's family. But it's not a case of contributory negligence that could lead to the suit being tossed.
2013-10-09 10:59:20 AM
1 votes:

kronicfeld: enry: Dunno, I'd say if you want to forego wearing a seatbelt you should agree not to use public funds for your medical bills nor be sued for any reason in the event of an accident.

Yeah, it's the lack of a seatbelt's fault that the other driver was negligent. Good call.


some courts have discussed whether an innocent driver's failure to wear a seatbelt should be a factor in the calculations of damages.  generally, all of us have a duty to mitigate the harm done to us, where possible, and some have argued that a failure to wear a seatbelt is a failure to mitigate the risk of harm.

that does not in any way affect liability, but when damages are calculated (after someone is found liable), the total recovery might be less because you have more damages than you would have had, had you have worn a seatbelt...

(i'm not a personal injury lawyer, so i don't remember whether/which courts are for or against the seatbelt argument... either way, it is a factor for the damages calculation, not the calculation of liability.  someone driving over the median into oncoming traffic is no less liable because she plowed into someone who was not wearing a seatbelt - and trying to argue otherwise is silly/trolly)
2013-10-09 10:55:02 AM
1 votes:
Everyone makes mistakes when driving and money has nothing to do with the cause of the accident or whether someone dies. But that won't stop someone thinking "oh my god filthy rich person did something wrong, now I have an excuse to sue and get mine". If no rich person was involved we wouldn't be hearing about this incident, also sad.
2013-10-09 10:53:14 AM
1 votes:

skozlaw: kronicfeld: Yeah, it's the lack of a seatbelt's fault that the other driver was negligent. Good call.

One person can cause an accident while the other person can cause it to be severe. It's not an either/or proposition. Fault can be and often is apportioned to multiple involved parties in crashes, I don't see why the severity of injuries shouldn't also be taken into consideration if it can be reasonably surmised that the only reason the person was badly injured or killed is because they chose to make no effort to prevent the outcome. Why should one person's negligence be used to complete excuse another's?


Here's the thing that you might be missing.  The accident wouldn't have happened AT ALL if the lady hadn't crossed the center line.  Period. End of story.  It doesn't matter if the victim was or was not wearing a seatbelt.  It's who is AT FAULT for the accident.
2013-10-09 10:51:13 AM
1 votes:

enry: I didn't say the other driver couldn't be criminally charged, just that the injuries would have been far less had the seatbelt been used properly.


Since we don't know what her injuries were, we don't know that the seatbelt would have helped. I've seen elderly/infirm/brittle people severely injured in collisions that don't look particularly "catastrophic" on their face.
2013-10-09 10:45:25 AM
1 votes:
The patrons of the Aldie Farmers Market felt a great weight lifted from their shoulders, though they knew not why...
2013-10-09 10:39:35 AM
1 votes:
Seatbelts help keep ya from bouncing around (or out) of your car.  Was going to post something about how old people should be retested every couple years to be able to legally drive.  Or how we have some really huge passenger vehicles on the road, and some really small ones...the small vehicles don't stand a chance.

But hard to be outraged if you're not wearing ya damn seatbelt
2013-10-09 10:28:27 AM
1 votes:

what_now: Walker: If you think she'll serve even one minute of jail time I've got a bridge to sell you...and it's made of chocolate.

It doesn't sound ...from that description at least... that she's done anything that would require jail time. If she was drunk or speeding or reckless, yes, but it sounds like it was an accident.

It probably wouldn't have been a tragic accident if the idiot had worn her seatbelt.


Mars' Porsche crossed the center line into oncoming traffic.  That's going to lead to very bad things 9 times out of 10.
2013-10-09 10:25:06 AM
1 votes:

kronicfeld: Yeah, it's the lack of a seatbelt's fault that the other driver was negligent. Good call.


You can't control the other driver. You can, however, prevent yourself from rattling around like a ping pong ball if the other driver hits you.
2013-10-09 10:23:51 AM
1 votes:

enry: Dunno, I'd say if you want to forego wearing a seatbelt you should agree not to use public funds for your medical bills nor be sued for any reason in the event of an accident.


Yeah, it's the lack of a seatbelt's fault that the other driver was negligent. Good call.
2013-10-09 10:19:42 AM
1 votes:
If you think she'll serve even one minute of jail time I've got a bridge to sell you...and it's made of chocolate.
2013-10-09 09:55:53 AM
1 votes:
The victim lived to 86 without wearing her seatbelt.  Impressive.  I'm sure her family won't sue the sh*t out of Mars for gross negligence.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report