8 Die in Crash on Taconic State Parkway #2

[twinkiesmom]

One individual who responded to my post said that the Hances had to be included in the suits because the car belonged to them. No one is required to file suit, and no one who files suit “must” include people regardless of the circumstances.

But your own auto insurance company can require you to add plaintiffs...I have read this too many places to doubt its veracity...I have also seen it somewhere that there is a NY specific law that the owner of the car has to be included. Haven't found that one but found the following:

http://www.wilsonelser.com/files/repository/VicLiability_CTofAppealsDecision_AlertJul08.pdf
Since 1924, New York State Law has mandated that every owner of a motor vehicle operated on the roads of the state is liable and responsible for death, personal injuries and property damage caused by the negligent operation of an automobile by a permissive driver.

http://accident-law.freeadvice.com/accident-law/auto/new-york-auto-accident-law.htm
New York State has what’s called vicarious liability, which means that an owner of the vehicle is responsible for the negligence of the individual who is operating the vehicle with the owner’s permission and consent, according to Slavit. He told us that while some states require that the driver be operating the vehicle in furtherance of the business of the owner or some other more restrictive limitation, New York is different. “In New York, as long as the driver is operating with the permission and consent of the owner, the owner is also legally responsible for any negligence. There’s actually a presumption of permissive use in New York. It’s a rebuttable presumption. What that means is that it’s presumed that the driver has permission and the burden falls to the owner to prove otherwise.”

 

[twinkiesmom]

Interesting quote from Jeanne Bastardi (On Jane Velez-Mitchell's show):


There is, after speaking to four different medical examiners, not one of them believes anybody could have drank that amount of alcohol and have traveled that far if they weren`t a very seasoned drinker.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1107/26/ijvm.01.html

 

[RSorensen]

I could very well be incorrect, but I was under the impression that NY has a No Fault insurance system and that if there is bodily injury or death, there is a minimum amount ($100 Thousand rings a bell for multiple injuries or death)that can be recovered under the insurance policy and that such recovery does not require legal action. I also think there is a requirement for arbitration if there is a dispute. And, if a person chooses to go beyond that amount, they are on their own...i.e., their insurance company does not have to provide an attorney, etc This would suggest that it is, in fact, the choice of the person filing the suit. I would love to hear what is found on this issue.

 

[nosysw]

I"m not sure because insurance always seems to change, more and more, in favor of whatever makes the insurance company the most money but...

almost 25 years ago I went on a camping trip in New York state with a bunch of people...we were young, and some still thinking they were invincible...A number of the group went into town to go to a bar...My ex-husband and I and a couple others didn't go...Long story short, one of the guys was on a motorcycle, and his best friend's wife decided to ride back to camp with him (she must have been really wasted because she'd always been afraid to ride before and her 15 month old son was at the campsite with us). Okay, I'm going long...sorry...Anyway, as you are probably guessing they didn't make it back alive. Didn't see a curve on the pitch black road (we were all NYC living at the time- not so used to rural NYS) and went straight ahead into a gully.

Turns out another friend was the owner of the bike (and wasn't on the trip)...The widower (who was on the trip) had to sue him to get a settlement even though he had nothing to do with it and they were close friends. And the owner of the bike wasn't upset about being sued- he knew it had to be done that way...

As I said, I don't know if the laws have changed but that's how it was then...

 

[RSorensen]

You are right, insurance laws do change often. They are state based for the most part.

I have done some checking and found the following from a 2011 piece about the NY law. It states that " If you are injured in an auto accident, or your car is damaged, due to someone else's negligence, you may be able to make a claim against that other person's auto insurance policy for bodily injury and property damage liability. You must establish that the other party was at fault. You have a right to sue another party involved in the auto accident for pain and suffering , only if you sustained a "serious injury" as defined in the Insurance Law. You can also go to court against a third party for property damage and, when bodily injury has been sustained, for other economic loss not covered by, or exceeding the limits of, your No-Fault coverage. Suing another party would be your own personal action, and does not involve your insurance company under the provisions of your policy. lf you decide to sue someone else, your insurer under your own policy is not required to provide or pay for a lawyer you might want or need to handle your claim against another party."

This seems to say that in NY you can file suit, but the insurance company is not involved and therefore wouldn't have the ability to require you to include anyone in the suit. Again, unless I am not reading this properly, the Bastardi's have decided to hire their own attorney (not from their insurance company or the insurance companies of those who died) and have independently decided to file suit against the Hances. No one is forcing them to do it.

 

[twinkiesmom]

You are right, insurance laws do change often. They are state based for the most part.

I have done some checking and found the following from a 2011 piece about the NY law. It states that " If you are injured in an auto accident, or your car is damaged, due to someone else's negligence, you may be able to make a claim against that other person's auto insurance policy for bodily injury and property damage liability. You must establish that the other party was at fault. You have a right to sue another party involved in the auto accident for pain and suffering , only if you sustained a "serious injury" as defined in the Insurance Law. You can also go to court against a third party for property damage and, when bodily injury has been sustained, for other economic loss not covered by, or exceeding the limits of, your No-Fault coverage. Suing another party would be your own personal action, and does not involve your insurance company under the provisions of your policy. lf you decide to sue someone else, your insurer under your own policy is not required to provide or pay for a lawyer you might want or need to handle your claim against another party."

This seems to say that in NY you can file suit, but the insurance company is not involved and therefore wouldn't have the ability to require you to include anyone in the suit. Again, unless I am not reading this properly, the Bastardi's have decided to hire their own attorney (not from their insurance company or the insurance companies of those who died) and have independently decided to file suit against the Hances. No one is forcing them to do it.

<modsnip>..It seems entirely possible that the law might not allow you to pick and choose potential defendants without damaging your case. I am reserving judgement on the suits against the car owner until a NY lawyer decides to weigh in on it.

I've even seen the vicarious liability law interpreted to mean if Diane had borrowed the car to run an errand for Diane that the car owner would not be liable...what made the Hances liable (allegedly) was the fact that she was using the car to act as their agent in delivering their children back to them.

If you live in NY, don't lend out your car, even to trusted family members!

 

[nosysw]

I don't think we should be practicing law without a license...It seems entirely possible that the law might not allow you to pick and choose potential defendants without damaging your case. I am reserving judgement on the suits against the car owner until a NY lawyer decides to weigh in on it.

I've even seen the vicarious liability law interpreted to mean if Diane had borrowed the car to run an errand for Diane that the car owner would not be liable...what made the Hances liable (allegedly) was the fact that she was using the car to act as their agent in delivering their children back to them.

If you live in NY, don't lend out your car, even to trusted family members!

Above BBM:

I think that's probably a practical idea in all states...basically, it's similar to doing business with family...It usually goes okay but when there's a problem, watch out!

 

[Fairy1]

<modsnip>..It seems entirely possible that the law might not allow you to pick and choose potential defendants without damaging your case. I am reserving judgement on the suits against the car owner until a NY lawyer decides to weigh in on it.

I've even seen the vicarious liability law interpreted to mean if Diane had borrowed the car to run an errand for Diane that the car owner would not be liable...what made the Hances liable (allegedly) was the fact that she was using the car to act as their agent in delivering their children back to them.

If you live in NY, don't lend out your car, even to trusted family members!

I would also venture to say, don't leave your children in the care of someone who is KNOWN to suffer from alcohol, drug or mental issues. No matter whose car is being used in their transportation.

 

[Fairy1]

What is to gain from trying to canonize her? What is to be gained by LYING and disputing toxicology reports, some of which THEY ORDERED themselves!!! He needs to shut his mouth and stop suing people.

I believe it's a bit of an overstatement to say Daniel is attempting to "canonize" Diane. But I don't believe anyone else should be able to dictate the feelings or reaction he SHOULD have to losing his wife and daughter.

I don't believe Daniel has intentionally "lied" and I can understand his being in denial and desiring to protect his wife.

Whether or not something happened between them before she left the campsite that day, I sincerely doubt Daniel - or anyone else- would have or could have imagined what happened would happen.

IMO, anyone who believes otherwise is just looking for a scapegoat.

 

[RSorensen]

<modsnip>...It seems entirely possible that the law might not allow you to pick and choose potential defendants without damaging your case. I am reserving judgment on the suits against the car owner until a NY lawyer decides to weigh in on it.

<modsnip>. I simply am saying that it appears that the NY law - which is similar to that of several other states - limits lawsuits in a number of ways through its "no fault" system. What will and what will not damage your case is entirely subjective. The issue is not the law per se, it is the issue of the Bastardis choosing to sue the Hances when they did not have to. The NY law provided the Bastardi estates with at least $50K for each fatality - nowhere near enough to compensate for their unspeakable grief, but clearly enough to replace the automobile and to pay funeral costs. Suing the estate of Diane for pain and suffering strikes me as a reasonable thing for them to do given the circumstances and I would do the same. However, what they are seeking to do with the Hances is to blame them; it is for revenge or it is for greed- one or the other - and the law does not require that they do it. It is their own choice and their own attorney; no insurance company and no law is forcing them to do it.

 

[twinkiesmom]

I believe it's a bit of an overstatement to say Daniel is attempting to "canonize" Diane. But I don't believe anyone else should be able to dictate the feelings or reaction he SHOULD have to losing his wife and daughter.

I don't believe Daniel has intentionally "lied" and I can understand his being in denial and desiring to protect his wife.

Whether or not something happened between them before she left the campsite that day, I sincerely doubt Daniel - or anyone else- would have or could have imagined what happened would happen.

IMO, anyone who believes otherwise is just looking for a scapegoat.

Not buying it. It's awfully self serving to deny the existence of a vodka bottle that traveled back and forth to a campsite in an open car.

 

[RSorensen]

Whether I am an attorney or not is irrelevant. I actually have been trying to discuss an issue and present my views. I originally stated that I understood the lawsuits that were filed by the Bastardis and the Hances, but that I was disappointed in the suit filed against the Hances by the Bastardis. We then had some people present what were very plausible explanations for why it was done the way it was. I was more than willing to look at that, so I did a bit of research and found that the NY no fault law makes a real difference and it led me to conclude that my original feeling was justified. I never insisted anyone else agree with me. The nature of an intelligent, adult conversation is that it often results in differences in opinion. But, if there is respect for those opinions, everyone gains. But if some of the responses are merely childish efforts to put someone down, no one gains. I am still interested in discussing the legal issue involved in this (and whether I am an attorney or not, I have a right to do that) - whatever the outcome - if anyone is interested. I am not, however, interested in playing "gotcha" games.

 

[Fairy1]

Not buying it. It's awfully self serving to deny the existence of a vodka bottle that traveled back and forth to a campsite in an open car.

Unless one sincerely didn't know.

<modsnip>

you don't know what legal advice was given to the plaintiffs in this case.

BBM

True, including Daniel. It's quite possible - probable, even - that he has acted and spoken as directed by his own legal counsel. Not a stretch to believe, considering the dynamics of his own marriage and what has transpired in his personal life since the accident. He doesn't strike me as being capable of anticipating what needed to be done to protect himself legally.

 

[twinkiesmom]

Unless one sincerely didn't know.

He never said she drank alone by the campfire.

BBM

True, including Daniel. It's quite possible - probable, even - that he has acted and spoken as directed by his own legal counsel. Not a stretch to believe, considering the dynamics of his own marriage and what has transpired in his personal life since the accident. He doesn't strike me as being capable of anticipating what needed to be done to protect himself legally.

Even my kids know not to lie to the police!

 

[Fairy1]

He never said she drank alone by the campfire.

Isn't it possible he didn't know when or how much she drank? Particularly if SHE was the only one who packed up the vodka for travels to and fro?

Even my kids know not to lie to the police!

No doubt, your kids are not being advised by attorneys following a deadly accident in which innocent people were killed as a result of the irresponsible actions of another.

 

[twinkiesmom]

Isn't it possible he didn't know when or how much she drank? Particularly if SHE was the only one who packed up the vodka for travels to and fro?



No doubt, your kids are not being advised by attorneys following a deadly accident in which innocent people were killed as a result of the irresponsible actions of another.

Please. If it was the vodka bottle from her office desk drawer, that would be one thing...but it was THEIR bottle of vodka that they drank at the campsite and hauled back and forth.

Re: your second point. If you are an innocent bystander and not a party to a crime, you have nothing to hide and no reason to lie to the police.

 

[Fairy1]

Please. If it was the vodka bottle from her office desk drawer, that would be one thing...but it was THEIR bottle of vodka that they drank at the campsite and hauled back and forth.

BBM

We don't know if that was the case. What is the point of assuming?

Even if that was the case, why would Daniel believe Diane would be drinking liberal amounts of it on the way home?

Re: your second point. If you are an innocent bystander and not a party to a crime, you have nothing to hide and no reason to lie to the police.

Unless you have attorneys advising you to do otherwise.

 

[twinkiesmom]

BBM

We don't know if that was the case. What is the point of assuming?

That's not true.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,538485,00.html

 

[Only4Justice]

Thanks, TwinkiesMom - for the link. By following the link, I found this story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534897,00.html

It appears there was another wrong-way crash that day on the Taconic Parkway. Interesting.

 

[nomoresorrow]

Thanks, TwinkiesMom - for the link. By following the link, I found this story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534897,00.html

It appears there was another wrong-way crash that day on the Taconic Parkway. Interesting.

And that driver was also intoxicated.
At Link: http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/traffic/ny_traffic_authority/090727_boy_in_critical_condition_in_crash_on_taconic