- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Allegedly, Madison Brooks had sex the day before incident that caused that caused injuries
Posted on 3/12/24 at 2:52 pm to Scuttle But
Posted on 3/12/24 at 2:52 pm to Scuttle But
Unfortunately, the dad more or less had to sue the ride-share driver.
Posters that are members of the Louisiana Bar can better speak to the specifics of third-party practice in Louisiana, but the dad's attorney was just getting ahead of what the defense attorneys would do: claim that the ride-share driver caused/contributed to her death and should be assigned a portion of the liability at trial. This could potentially decrease any judgment obtained if the jury panel apportions a percentage of liability to the ride-share driver, or worst-case scenario, decides that its all the ride-share driver's fault.
By preempting the defense, dad's lawyer can attempt to settle with the ride share's defense counsel/commercial insurance carrier, who would be glad to get a potential catastrophic claim off the books. Upon settling, they can figure out how to dismiss the ride share driver/company in a way that is least beneficial to the other defendants.
Posters that are members of the Louisiana Bar can better speak to the specifics of third-party practice in Louisiana, but the dad's attorney was just getting ahead of what the defense attorneys would do: claim that the ride-share driver caused/contributed to her death and should be assigned a portion of the liability at trial. This could potentially decrease any judgment obtained if the jury panel apportions a percentage of liability to the ride-share driver, or worst-case scenario, decides that its all the ride-share driver's fault.
By preempting the defense, dad's lawyer can attempt to settle with the ride share's defense counsel/commercial insurance carrier, who would be glad to get a potential catastrophic claim off the books. Upon settling, they can figure out how to dismiss the ride share driver/company in a way that is least beneficial to the other defendants.
This post was edited on 3/12/24 at 2:53 pm
2
Posted on 3/12/24 at 2:53 pm to SHPMustang
quote:
Unfortunately, the dad more or less had to sue the ride-share driver.
why is it unfortunate?
Posted on 3/12/24 at 3:01 pm to SHPMustang
quote:
Posters that are members of the Louisiana Bar can better speak to the specifics of third-party practice in Louisiana, but the dad's attorney was just getting ahead of what the defense attorneys would do: claim that the ride-share driver caused/contributed to her death and should be assigned a portion of the liability at trial. This could potentially decrease any judgment obtained if the jury panel apportions a percentage of liability to the ride-share driver, or worst-case scenario, decides that its all the ride-share driver's fault.
By preempting the defense, dad's lawyer can attempt to settle with the ride share's defense counsel/commercial insurance carrier, who would be glad to get a potential catastrophic claim off the books. Upon settling, they can figure out how to dismiss the ride share driver/company in a way that is least beneficial to the other defendants.
Louisiana is a pure-comparative fault state in civil actions. So whether or not the ride-share driver and, vicariously, his "employer" were parties to the lawsuit or not, the jury could be instructed to assign a percentage of fault to any entity/person they find to be at fault...regardless of if they were a party.
Plaintiff's attorney don't really want an "empty chair" a defendant can point to. But more than that, they want a viable source who can actually pay any judgment they might get at trial. 4 young adults probably don't have much in the way of money or assets to satisfy any judgment. The insurer of the ride-share company does (if fault can be proven).
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News