- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: VIDEO: Tony Stewart hits opposing driver; driver has died according to reports
Posted on 8/14/14 at 6:34 am to lsu223
Posted on 8/14/14 at 6:34 am to lsu223
That doesn't really explain anything. Here are some explanations from Cornell Law.
Contributory negligence
A common law tort rule, abolished in most jurisdictions. Under contributory negligence, a plaintiff was totally barred from recovery if they were in any way negligent in causing the accident, even if the negligence of the defendant was much more serious. Most states have abolished contributory negligence in favor of a comparative negligence approach.
Comparative negligence
A tort rule for allocating damages when both parties are at least somewhat at fault. In a situation where both the plaintiff and the defendant were negligent, the jury allocates fault, usually as a percentage (for example, a jury might find that the plaintiff was 30% at fault and the defendant was 70% at fault). Then each pays their share of the other's damages (in the above example, the plaintiff pays 30% of defendant's damages, and defendant pays 70% of plaintiff's damages).
Contributory negligence
A common law tort rule, abolished in most jurisdictions. Under contributory negligence, a plaintiff was totally barred from recovery if they were in any way negligent in causing the accident, even if the negligence of the defendant was much more serious. Most states have abolished contributory negligence in favor of a comparative negligence approach.
Comparative negligence
A tort rule for allocating damages when both parties are at least somewhat at fault. In a situation where both the plaintiff and the defendant were negligent, the jury allocates fault, usually as a percentage (for example, a jury might find that the plaintiff was 30% at fault and the defendant was 70% at fault). Then each pays their share of the other's damages (in the above example, the plaintiff pays 30% of defendant's damages, and defendant pays 70% of plaintiff's damages).
1
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:26 am to monsterballads
quote:
Paul Kinney — who was also competing when Stewart’s car struck driver Kevin Ward Jr. on a dirt track in Canandaigua Saturday — said he clearly saw Ward on the track and managed to dodge him himself.
“I seen Kevin clear as day. Nobody else ran into him, either,” he told NBC News, noting he was close enough to see Ward’s face after the 20-year-old stepped out of his car, angrily gesturing at Stewart.
This can't be correct.
I was told on TD that there was no way Tony could have seen him. So there was no way the drivers who drove past him BEFORE Tony and still avoided killing him could.
No way.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:39 am to YStar
The vehement defense of that POS Stewart is indeed confusing.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:41 am to YStar
Show me a link dip shite where someone said there was No Way Ts could see him. Thanks
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:46 am to jorconalx
quote:
Show me a link dip shite where someone said there was No Way Ts could see him. Thanks
Without getting all bitchy and pissy, what is the basic defense of Tony Stewart besides "well you just don't know"?
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:47 am to Rickety Cricket
quote:
Rickety Cricket
Oh, you're back in the thread now?
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:50 am to LNCHBOX
Sorry, am I not fit to mention the name of The Most Revered Tony?
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:52 am to Rickety Cricket
Well, last time when I asked you questions about your totally non biased opinion, you disappeared for 3 days.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:54 am to LNCHBOX
This story doesn't interest me all that much. At least not until Stewart is thrown into the can.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:55 am to Chad504boy
quote:
Without getting all bitchy and pissy, what is the basic defense of Tony Stewart besides "well you just don't know"?
Does there need to be any other defense? It can't be proven he saw him, hit him on purpose, or tried to scare him and accidentally hit him. Can't be proven otherwise either. Personally, I think he tried to scare/embarrass him thinking the kid would jump out of the way. Ward just never flinched playing chicken on foot against someone in a freaking race car. No one can convince me Stewart meant to hit or kill him, no matter how big of an a-hole he is. If it can be proven he was trying to scare him I think he should never race another day in his life on any level. On the fence about jail time. I just can't get past the idea that this kid walked across a racetrack directly into one of these cars.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:56 am to Rickety Cricket
quote:
This story doesn't interest me all that much.
Yet here you are posting
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:57 am to Mr. Wayne
quote:
I just can't get past the idea that this kid walked across a racetrack directly into one of these cars.
This is the only fact of this incident, and it's all the defense Stewart needs. Ward was an idiot in that moment and did idiotic things that got him killed.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 9:00 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Ward was an idiot in that moment and did idiotic things that got him killed.
with the help of stewart.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 9:01 am to Mr. Wayne
quote:
Does there need to be any other defense?
well to get all mad at someone who thinks there was malicious intent, yes you need to have sound judgement to back up a differing opinion. Its okay if you think that there wasn't intent, i'm not getting mad at that opinion. Just my basic 2 cents, looking at the video just looks very obvious to me.
quote:
I think he tried to scare/embarrass him thinking the kid would jump out of the way.
quote:You opinion is presenting a lot of hypocrisy.
No one can convince me Stewart meant to hit or kill him
Posted on 8/14/14 at 9:03 am to piggidyphish
quote:
with the help of stewart.
If I go jump in front of a car on the interstate, that driver isn't getting charged with anything.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 9:04 am to Chad504boy
quote:
yes you need to have sound judgement to back up a differing opinion.
Actually, the burden of proof is on people that think there was malicious intent. There is nothing definitive in the video to support your claims, so how about you walk us through why you think your view is the correct one?
quote:
You opinion is presenting a lot of hypocrisy.
It doesn't actually.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 9:06 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
It doesn't actually.
there is abasolute neglicence and intent if tony "tried to embarrass and 'almost' hit him" making and assumption the kid would move back a foot or two.
quote:
Actually, the burden of proof is on people that think there was malicious intent.
like the car revving up and aiming straight for him?
Posted on 8/14/14 at 9:09 am to Chad504boy
quote:
there is abasolute neglicence and intent if tony "tried to embarrass and 'almost' hit him" making and assumption the kid would move back a foot or two.
Who said anything about an assumption that Ward would back up? Yall sure do assume a lot of things to make yalls argument that there was malicious intent.
quote:
like the car revving up and aiming straight for him?
Aiming right at him?
Which video are you watching? You can't see that angle in the one listed in the OP. Posted on 8/14/14 at 9:10 am to Chad504boy
From what I have gathered, there are two sides to this debate. One side thinks he's guilty and want him to be charged with murder/manslaughter/negligent homicide, etc. because they think he either tried to scare him but screwed up or just plain ole ran him over. The other side doesn't think there is enough evidence to make that determination.
Is that a fair statement?
Is that a fair statement?
This post was edited on 8/14/14 at 9:16 am
Posted on 8/14/14 at 9:11 am to boom roasted
NY is one of the pure comparative fault states meaning that Ward's own negligence in any degree would not bar a recovery provided Stewart is also found negligent as well. It just means that Ward's recovery (actually that of his estate) would be reduced by the percentage of his own negligence. This is most favorable for the plaintiff. LINK. The bottom of the link has good examples of applying each doctrine to a case concerning calculation of damages.
So hypothetically if Ward's damages were $10M and he was deemed to be 90% at fault with Stewart being deemed to be 10% at fault then Ward's recovery would be reduced to $1M. It is fairly significant that this occurred in a pure comparative fault state because if it had occurred in a modified comparative fault state (33 states fall into this category) Ward would be barred from any recovery if his negligence was deemed to be 50% or more in some states or 51% or more in others. In a contributory negligence state any degree of fault on the part of Ward would bar him from recovering any damages.
So hypothetically if Ward's damages were $10M and he was deemed to be 90% at fault with Stewart being deemed to be 10% at fault then Ward's recovery would be reduced to $1M. It is fairly significant that this occurred in a pure comparative fault state because if it had occurred in a modified comparative fault state (33 states fall into this category) Ward would be barred from any recovery if his negligence was deemed to be 50% or more in some states or 51% or more in others. In a contributory negligence state any degree of fault on the part of Ward would bar him from recovering any damages.
Page 161 of 165
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News