Taconic van accident---

[Nik's Mom]

I'm very sorry that your dh lost his brother to a drunk driver and I think its only natural to seek revenge, vengence and justice for the one that did it, when they are still alive. They should be punished for what they did and hopefully learn a lesson from it. But in this case what would getting restitution from the grieving husband do except punish him even further. There is no lesson that he could learn from it, the one who should died in that crash.
I don't fault the other family for doing what they are doing because of their loss, but I don't see how making the husband, and the living child pay even more for that woman's actions does any good for anyone. I can say that I would never go through with a lawsuit, in your dh's case I would in a heartbeat.
This is of course if he is found not to have any knowledge of what she was planning, if it comes out that he did, of course he should have to pay for that.

Restitution would not make this family feel any better. They may think that it will, but in the end, they will still have to deal with their loss. It's obvious that this family is outraged at this womans' actions. A law suit may very well be their quest for revenge. I don't know for sure, but it is very likely.

Does anyone know if those men have young children? I'm just thinking that maybe they are sueing to try to get money to help raise their children?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Vodka in the car after a camping trip does not surprise me. There could have been hot dog buns and half a bag of chips too.

We often take an adult beverage with us when we camp. (We do not consume it on the way home in the car though) It may have been packed in with what was left after the weekend.

I saw a video of the press conference where the dad is insisting she isn't alcoholic and that it had to have been medical. In the same press conference it was stated that the same bottle of vodka traveled back and forth on camping trips.

Also it was stated that he sometimes had a drink at the camp.

So devil's advocate--the "open" bottle could simply mean that it wasn't a sealed bottle.

I thought the autopsy revealed vodka in her system. However, I'm not sure they can prove it specifically from that bottle.

But in reality, it doesn't matter where it came from or if it was that specific bottle since it was in her system. Plus likely--the bottle was busted in the crash, so there would be no way to measure the remaining contents as it got absorbed into the environment.

 

[JessicaR]

Restitution would not make this family feel any better. They may think that it will, but in the end, they will still have to deal with their loss. It's obvious that this family is outraged at this womans' actions. A law suit may very well be their quest for revenge. I don't know for sure, but it is very likely.

Does anyone know if those men have young children? I'm just thinking that maybe they are sueing to try to get money to help raise their children?

The men were 81, 74 and 49. I dont believe the 49 year old was married and didnt have children.

 

[allison443]

All five children in the minivan had been properly buckled in seat belts or safety seats, Investigator Shannon Morrison said.

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090728/NEWS01/907280321

I thought it wasn't disclosed who the owner of the vehicle was just that her brother held the registration. Regardless a civil suit can be brought against him since he would be the insured. I think the *******i family will bring suit against all parties involved.

ETA - I just read an article that said her brother did own the vehicle.

Thanks for the info about the safety seats. I hadn't seen that.
Also whoever's name is on the registration is the registered owner of the car, as far as the lawsuit is concerned.

 

[JessicaR]

Thanks for the info about the safety seats. I hadn't seen that.
Also whoever's name is on the registration is the registered owner of the car, as far as the lawsuit is concerned.

Wouldnt the person holding the title of the car be the owner?

 

[java]

I saw on the news today that Child Protective services is looking into the Dad.

 

[allison443]

Wouldnt the person holding the title of the car be the owner?

By law the registered owner must carry the liability insurance in their name. That is why they are sued.

 

[JessicaR]

By law the registered owner must carry the liability insurance in their name. That is why they are sued.

Yes I'm aware that the registration holder and insurance holder have to be the same person but the 'owner' of the vehicle is the person that holds the title and does not have to be the registrant. So in actuality if the brother was the insured/registrant and the Schulers were the owners both could be sued.

 

[allison443]

Yes, except if the title holder is a leasing company-they are not vicariously liable for the driver's negligence.
Most lawsuits are only looking to go after the available insurance. Of course this Taconic case is unfortunately so much worse than other cases. Every time I read about it or see something about it, it is so upsetting.

 

[mjkacmom]

Could it have been possible the lawyer called him?

I mean--he is grieving (no matter what my opinions are)--is it likely he associates that attorney with his notoriety?

I am always surprised when "victims" seek counsel so quickly, but he had to have be informed that the bleep was going to hit the fan.

And now with Billy Mays' family issuing a statement that they want an independent autospy for him from the cocaine usage....

I guess it is a normal response. For Billy, they want to restore a good name.

For this mom--I think the husband is doing what he can to make sure he doesn't lose everything and the attorney is for "defense" purposes.

I sincerely doubt he went attorney shopping. This guy obviously contacted him.

 

[Disney Doll]

The limit would be the half of their estate that she owned or was entitled to under community property loss in the state of New York.

He won't lose everything. But likely, he may have to sell his home to make good for the "damage" she left behind.

And if it is proven to be a willful act (or otherwise disproven as some act she could not control).

Unless he is deemed responsible by CPS, he won't lose "everything" as "he" would not be accountable for her actions. Now he may be forced to sell his home in order to pay out her portion of damages.

But I don't get the logic that a person is suffering enough. It doesn't recuse his deceased wife's negligence nor her responsibility to take care of it even after death.

I disagree. But you and I sem to be looking at this particular issue from very different perspectives.

 

[Disney Doll]

That's the thing about grief. You don't really know how you would react if this were you. I'd like to say that I wouldn't sue or be out for revenge, but I don't know how I would react. DH's brother was killed by a 3rd time convicted drunk driver. We weren't out for blood, but we certainly wanted jail time. Some would say that we were seeking revenge. Not at all, we simply wanted the guy to finally learn his lesson.

I only hope that out of this tragic story, a lesson will be learned.

And I would agree that if the perpetrator of the crime is alive, that he/she should pay for the crime.

But, in your situation, had the drunk driver also been killed, would you have thought that his wife, mother, child, other remaining relative should be punished?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I disagree. But you and I sem to be looking at this particular issue from very different perspectives.

With what are you disagreeing and why?

My husband doesn't agree with lawsuits either. I believe they have their place. And sometimes--a lawsuit is the only way to get to the truth and sometimes it isn't about the money.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

And I would agree that if the perpetrator of the crime is alive, that he/she should pay for the crime.

But, in your situation, had the drunk driver also been killed, would you have thought that his wife, mother, child, other remaining relative should be punished?

Punished how? By not getting the criminals share of the estate?

I believe the criminals portion of the estate must stand good for the damage that was left behind.

Suing OJ didn't bring Nicole Brown Simpson back--but it seemed to be the only way to get proper justice.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...I believe the criminals portion of the estate must stand good for the damage that was left behind....

The law disagrees...

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The law disagrees...

Citation?

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Citation?

Google is your friend...

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

I'm not condeming him NOW--but I find his reaction just as illogical as his premise that his wife did no wrong.

I truly believe that any one of us would do the same thing. If your loved one purportedly behaved in a way that was so completely out of character, your gut instinct is that someone made a mistake.

I can say without hesitation that if it were me who had been behind the wheel of that vehicle, my family would be doing the exact same thing. I don't drink and they know it. If someone said that I had been they would do everything in their power to prove my innocence.

In my case, someone would have made an error. In this case, who knows what will happen. But I don't find his reaction all that strange. And when you add grief to that mix, it makes it even worse.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Google is your friend...

You bring it up--you back it up.






New York Wrongful death law:

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2006/606/essentials/p50.htm

Estate can sue--for lots of factors and the law allows the lawsuit.

There is no--disqualification listed just b/c the drunk driver is deceased.


Your turn to find what you claim. I promise I won't beat you with a kid leash.

ETA: Did find citations that say it might be difficult. It didn't say that it was impossible.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

You bring it up--you back it up.

Did I ask the same of you when you brought up Florida's sunshine laws in the Cocaine death thread? I looked it up myself and found that you were correct.

ETA: Did find citations that say it might be difficult. It didn't say that it was impossible.

The problem - most states do not divide estates of married couples unless there is a divorce. In the case of death, only things which can clearly be shown to only be hers (not a part of the joint properties) would even be considered, and then there would be a huge fight in court...

In other words, in a marriage, most property has joint ownership, not divided ownership. There is no "half" to sue for...