Silly Law Suits

https://www.yahoo.com/news/21-old-ki...203915679.html

"A 21-year-old athlete was struck and killed after he was left on the side of a busy highway by his Uber driver, according to a California lawsuit.

The man’s parents, who filed the lawsuit, accuse the rideshare company of negligence and wrongful death.

A spokesperson for Uber declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Fatally struck
Cory Hunter was riding in an Uber with five other passengers on Highway 91 in Corona, which is about 50 miles southeast of Los Angeles, at about 2:30 a.m. on May 21, the lawsuit says.

The vehicle pulled onto a shoulder, and Hunter, who had fallen asleep in the car, was woken up by other passengers and told to get out so he could let someone out to vomit, the lawsuit says.

After exiting the vehicle, Hunter did not get back in, according to the lawsuit.

The Uber driver then drove away without Hunter, “essentially leaving a completely disoriented individual on the side of a busy highway, knowingly endangering” Hunter, the lawsuit says.

Just before 3 a.m., Hunter was struck by a vehicle, the lawsuit says.

Hunter was walking in the fast lane when he was struck by a Toyota Corolla, the California Highway Patrol told the Los Angeles Daily News.

The driver stopped to help, and she was not investigated for a crime, a spokesperson for the California Highway Patrol told McClatchy News.

Theida Salazar, an attorney for the Uber driver, told McClatchy News that his client drove back to the area where Hunter had exited the vehicle to try to look for him but couldn’t find him.

When his client found out that Hunter had died, he was very “shaken up,” but, Salazar said, he did everything he could under the circumstances.

“It’s a tragic incident, it’s a loss of life,” he said. “My client is a father, he’s a brother, he’s a son. He’s passionate about his community, and he’s very compassionate about other people. It is not something he takes lightly.”

"

This is silly. The guy was violating the public intoxication laws, sounds like he was *with his friends* and didn't get back into a car after one of his friends had to puke. Every time something bad happens Americas legal systems looking to try to make it someone else's fault when it was the dude's own negligence.

Sounds like both parties are at least partially to blame. Which is what civil lawsuits are meant to address.

What exactly did the driver do that would entitle the idiot's family to be owed compensatory damages?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

What exactly did the driver do that would entitle the idiot's family to be owed compensatory damages?

---

You wrote as if the guy refused to get back in the car. That's an over-interpretation of the text that's been provided. Do you have another source to justify that claim? Because by my reading, it's also a reasonable interpretation that the person was not provided sufficient opportunity to get back in. In which case there most certainly IS responsibility on the driver. All your text provides is the neutral statement that the person had not reentered the car before it proceeded on its way. You do that a lot, Lewk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

You wrote as if the guy refused to get back in the car. That's an over-interpretation of the text that's been provided. Do you have another source to justify that claim? Because by my reading, it's also a reasonable interpretation that the person was not provided sufficient opportunity to get back in. In which case there most certainly IS responsibility on the driver. All your text provides is the neutral statement that the person had not reentered the car before it proceeded on its way. You do that a lot, Lewk.

---

Balance of probabilities. Think it through, what's the more likely scenario here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Balance of probabilities. Think it through, what's the more likely scenario here?

---

Beats me. There were three or maybe even four people as passengers in that car, was the driver even trying to keep track of them? (it's not like that's something the driver would normally have to do) The dead kid/guy let the friend out to puke, he decided to puke himself, or urinate, or something else; she climbed back in and everyone else drove off. Couldn't see him, thought he was already back in the car, plenty of reasons it might happen. All the passengers were drunk, we know they weren't likely tracking too well.

I don't know if the case has passed through summary judgement yet or not. If it has, then there was enough material to persuade at least one judge that there's sufficient evidence that a case can be made, either against the driver or against the rideshare company from the driver following its policies/expectations.

What's important, Lewk, is that we don't have to make guesses or think about what the "most likely scenario" might be. There was an actual sequence of events and the case itself is gonna be exploring that over and over again. There is no need or reason to rush to make any judgement about what happened right now, when we know next to nothing about what happened. Why would we even want to try when we know we're ignorant right now and that we don't have to rush to judgement ahead of the information? I understand that your mind gives you a chemical thrill when you pronounce judgement but why does it make the thrill better for you when you know that you're doing so in ignorance of what actually happened?

Because, to people like Lewk, ignorance is bliss in a very different way from how that expression is typically used. Expressing wilful disregard—or outright contempt—for truth/knowledge/rules/norms etc. gives a rush all on its own. Wannabe fascists are addicted to it.