View Poll Results: What is your verdict and how much?

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • For the Truck Company

    11 57.89%
  • For GC

    0 0%
  • $0.00

    5 26.32%
  • $1.00

    1 5.26%
  • $70,000

    0 0%
  • $100,000

    0 0%
  • $250,000

    2 10.53%
Page 3 of 48 FirstFirst 1234567891013 ... LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 621
  1. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Poodle Head Mikey View Post
    The negligent actions of the agents of the truck deploying company created a foreseeable hazard. They were aware, or should have been made aware, of the both the potential circumstances and the laws pertaining to their work environment's safety. The suit should have named the workers all personally, the company they worked for, and the jurisdiction in which it occurred. I would have also named the manufacturer of the bicycle, the manufacturer of any safety equipment worn by the bicycle's operator, and the manufacturer of the truck.

    The most basic standard the law requires the defendants to maintain is: The Way Of A Reasonable Man. And in this case "reasonable" means: "reasoned"; the application of sound reasoning. The question to be answered is: Did the workers, and through them; their employer, act as a reasonable man would have been typically acted in the same circumstance? Sans a 'yes' answer - their actions were legally negligent.

    Further; above that basic standard are the application of the specific laws governing their actions. Ignorance of the laws cannot stand as a qualifier. The obligation to know the applicable law is completely with the offender of any applicable laws. With the subsequent question being: did the defendant's failure to follow all applicable laws increase risk? If so: they are legally negligent.

    It is my opinion that anyone losing this case had an incompetent, or unconcerned, or distracted, attorney.

    PHM
    ---------
    You have a spot-on understanding of what happened.

    When it was over I wrote down about thirty points that my lawyer missed. Missed opportunities you only have one time to get right. There was too much damage done to me and not enough fixing by him.

  2. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,954
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Poodle Head Mikey View Post
    The negligent actions of the agents of the truck deploying company created a foreseeable hazard. They were aware, or should have been made aware, of the both the potential circumstances and the laws pertaining to their work environment's safety. The suit should have named the workers all personally, the company they worked for, and the jurisdiction in which it occurred. I would have also named the manufacturer of the bicycle, the manufacturer of any safety equipment worn by the bicycle's operator, and the manufacturer of the truck.

    The most basic standard the law requires the defendants to maintain is: The Way Of A Reasonable Man. And in this case "reasonable" means: "reasoned"; the application of sound reasoning. The question to be answered is: Did the workers, and through them; their employer, act as a reasonable man would have been typically acted in the same circumstance? Sans a 'yes' answer - their actions were legally negligent.

    Further; above that basic standard are the application of the specific laws governing their actions. Ignorance of the laws cannot stand as a qualifier. The obligation to know the applicable law is completely with the offender of any applicable laws. With the subsequent question being: did the defendant's failure to follow all applicable laws increase risk? If so: they are legally negligent.

    It is my opinion that anyone losing this case had an incompetent, or unconcerned, or distracted, attorney.

    PHM
    ---------
    If I do a crappy job installing an AC, and all the freezy-stuff hisses out suddenly and loudly... Am I responsible for the EPA fine... or can a motorist who got distracted by the noise sue me for hitting a brick wall?

  3. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by davidadavis View Post
    If I do a crappy job installing an AC, and all the freezy-stuff hisses out suddenly and loudly... Am I responsible for the EPA fine... or can a motorist who got distracted by the noise sue me for hitting a brick wall?
    See PHM, I could have had an outstanding lawyer but I'd still have guys like David who cannot understand your post, no matter how many times you explain it. So is that due to a bad lawyer or a bad jury?

    If all they understand is "should have seen it" then all the explaining in the world will not penetrate and you lose the case. That is what the insurance company relied on, and it's mainly why they won.

    Shallow juries. Give me a judge any day.

  4. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,954
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    See PHM, I could have had an outstanding lawyer but I'd still have guys like David who cannot understand your post, no matter how many times you explain it. So is that due to a bad lawyer or a bad jury?

    If all they understand is "should have seen it" then all the explaining in the world will not penetrate and you lose the case. That is what the insurance company relied on, and it's mainly why they won.

    Shallow juries. Give me a judge any day.
    Oh so I am shallow am I?

    Listen, there are many reasons people would rule against you... the only path to rule for your case is the letter of the law legal angle. I understood the legal analysis PHM laid out, but it is not what I think should be, nor have I found it even applies for all judges in my limited experience with courts. Most people try to apply some common sense.

    The way I see it, yes, the trucking company did "wrong," but you also did "wrong." So the question is what % liable each party is. The problem you have is that every driver is taught to leave enough space in front of them to stop if there is a hazard. So while the truck shouldn't have been there, I see limited increase in risk to you versus if it was stopped for an emergency. So I place the actual accident liability primarily on you. I would just hope that the trucking company gets a fine for their "wrong."

    I, and I am sure many others, do not like when liability is used to enforce regulation.

  5. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    14,496
    Post Likes
    One question ... Somewhere you mentioned 23 mph ..... What was your initial speed before getting slowed to 23 mph.
    Were you hunched over (bars rotated below gooseneck)
    Do you have mirrors.... Ok more than one question.

    And while nothing against you.. all of this could have been avoided had they not decided to have marathon runners routed to a very busy roadway... Traffic is bad enough there already.
    One more question what was the total distance after a hill or curve before the truck come into view.

    And against nothing against you... Before that was a bike lane it was a shoulder ... Where a UPS driver could jump out and drop a package... Truck driver re tighten his chains after the load shifted?.. and cyclist rode down it to stay out of people's way?
    The point I am trying to make weren't we better off with the shoulder?
    I don't know about your cone laws there... But here a truck will have have the warning lights and possibly a cone behind it.
    People block lanes when there really isn't an option... City trucks are the worst... No cones.. just light atop

    Sent from LG Stylo 4 using Tapatalk
    ...

  6. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by davidadavis View Post
    Oh so I am shallow am I?

    Listen, there are many reasons people would rule against you... the only path to rule for your case is the letter of the law legal angle. I understood the legal analysis PHM laid out, but it is not what I think should be, nor have I found it even applies for all judges in my limited experience with courts. Most people try to apply some common sense.

    The way I see it, yes, the trucking company did "wrong," but you also did "wrong." So the question is what % liable each party is. The problem you have is that every driver is taught to leave enough space in front of them to stop if there is a hazard. So while the truck shouldn't have been there, I see limited increase in risk to you versus if it was stopped for an emergency. So I place the actual accident liability primarily on you. I would just hope that the trucking company gets a fine for their "wrong."

    I, and I am sure many others, do not like when liability is used to enforce regulation.
    I did not say you were shallow, rather I think you have a shallow understanding of this complex issue.

    The truck not only should not have been there. They were required to set out cones. They should not have given me potentially deadly directions to veer into 70mph traffic without first clearing that lane for me. They did not have to block my whole lane. They should have known it was a bike lane.

    If a car runs a red light and injures someone, should they only receive a red-light ticket and not be liable for the injury? That seems to be what you are saying.

  7. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    14,496
    Post Likes
    Oh and one more thing.... Where at on PCH.. I just googled earthed several miles of it... It shows parking and not bike lanes

    Sent from LG Stylo 4 using Tapatalk
    ...

  8. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    7,366
    Post Likes
    This is why my latest surgical procedure was such a hassle, why listening to commercials can be so irritating and the prices of everything (including previously alluded health care) are SO. #%$*&^%. EXPENSIVE. The scourge of drive-by cottage industry lawsuits is never ending in the dollars and lives they consume.
    Is the Religious Right to blame for Christianity's decline?

    They argued that, as the Religious Right became increasingly visible and militant, it became associated with Christianity itself. And if being a Christian meant being associated with the likes of Jerry Falwell, many people—especially political moderates and liberals—decided to simply stop identifying as Christians altogether.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.c...nitys-decline/

  9. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,954
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    I did not say you were shallow, rather I think you have a shallow understanding of this complex issue.
    What you have described is not terribly complex. They violated regulations. You were not able to stop in time before a hazard. If there is more, you have not shared it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    If a car runs a red light and injures someone, should they only receive a red-light ticket and not be liable for the injury? That seems to be what you are saying.
    Better question would be... if there is a 4 way stop where all four lanes have a red light to allow pedestrians to cross and car A runs the red light, but car B also runs the red light but also slams into the side of car A... is driver A responsible for damage to car B?

  10. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by davidadavis View Post
    What you have described is not terribly complex. They violated regulations. You were not able to stop in time before a hazard. If there is more, you have not shared it.



    Better question would be... if there is a 4 way stop where all four lanes have a red light to allow pedestrians to cross and car A runs the red light, but car B also runs the red light but also slams into the side of car A... is driver A responsible for damage to car B?
    That is an oversimplification, IMO.

  11. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    26,321
    Post Likes
    With common sense logic I disagree with your position. But with legal logic your position has weight in both Equity and in Law.

    Was there any pre-trial run through? Briefing? A mock-defense argued against? Present day Law is like playing chess has always been - a logical anticipation of all of your opponent's available moves. Or rather . . . . . it Should be. <g>

    As much as I dislike what lawyers do - and how they do it - I can appreciate their work when it is excellent.

    PHM
    -------


    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    You have a spot-on understanding of what happened.

    When it was over I wrote down about thirty points that my lawyer missed. Missed opportunities you only have one time to get right. There was too much damage done to me and not enough fixing by him.
    PHM
    --------
    The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.

  12. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    14,496
    Post Likes
    Oh and GC one more thing... When did they up the speed limit to 70 on PCH.. I remember much of it actually being slow like 35 mph and such.


    Sent from LG Stylo 4 using Tapatalk
    ...

  13. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    26,321
    Post Likes
    Yes; but there is another side to it.

    Trial lawyers filing liability lawsuits have also substantially modified the laws to everyone's benefit. Split-rim truck tires being one example that I have personal experience with in the lawsuits against Budd Industries. Child strollers, and those little pre-walking contraptions they use - all far safer now - more and wider wheels for one thing - because of lawsuits and trial attorney's. The ladders you climb, the vehicles you operate, job site safety mandates - all from the same efforts.

    I don't agree with the seemingly endless lawsuits either - but it's not all bad. <g>

    PHM
    -------



    Quote Originally Posted by hurtinhvac View Post
    This is why my latest surgical procedure was such a hassle, why listening to commercials can be so irritating and the prices of everything (including previously alluded health care) are SO. #%$*&^%. EXPENSIVE. The scourge of drive-by cottage industry lawsuits is never ending in the dollars and lives they consume.
    PHM
    --------
    The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.

Page 3 of 48 FirstFirst 1234567891013 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •