Started By
Message

$125 million lawsuit filed against Weather Channel for 'horrific' crash that killed 3

Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:22 am
Posted by TechDawg2007
Bawville
Member since Nov 2007
32249 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:22 am
LINK

quote:

The mother of a man killed in a "horrific" 2017 car accident filed a $125 million wrongful death lawsuit Tuesday against the Weather Channel for its role in the crash.

On March 28, 2017, the lawsuit alleges that storm chasers Kelley Williamson and Randall Yarnall – who were contractors for the Weather Channel – drove past a stop sign while storm chasing near Spur, Texas. With a speed estimated at 70 mph, their car smashed into another car driven by Corbin Lee Jaeger, 25, a storm spotter for the National Weather Service.

All three men were killed instantly in the wreck, which happened at a remote intersection near the town of Spur, about 55 miles southeast of Lubbock.

"The Weather Channel's on-air personalities Kelley Williamson and Randall Yarnall habitually ran stop signs, traffic lights and violated other basic traffic safety laws, in attempts to obtain video footage for their show,” according to a release from the law offices of Robert A. Ball, the San Diego-based attorney representing Jaeger's mother Karen Di Piazza


quote:

“The Chevrolet Suburban driven by Yarnall was live streaming for the Weather Channel when it ran into the path of the Jeep Patriot Jaeger was driving," the release said. "The force of the collision caused the equipment-laden Suburban to catapult over a five-foot-tall fence 150 feet from the point of impact.

"Jaeger, a certified storm spotter for the National Weather Service, who had planned to return to college in Arizona to pursue a career as a meteorologist, was driving westward away from that tornado, when he was struck and killed.”

March 2017: Storm chasers die in car crash as they pursue tornado in Texas

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in Federal District Court in Lubbock, Texas.

The complaint against the Weather Channel (TWC) also said that "Yarnall and Williamson had a history of reckless driving when storm chasing and when filming TWC's television programming, which was well known among other storm chasers and TWC."

Yarnall and Williamson were storm chasers featured on the network's show Storm Wranglers.


According to the Storm Prediction Center, a tornado briefly touched down that afternoon about five miles from where the accident occurred.

A Weather Channel statement released Tuesday said that "We are saddened by the loss of Corbin Jaeger, Kelley Williamson, and Randy Yarnall. They were beloved members of the weather community and our deepest sympathies go out to the families and loved ones of all involved. We cannot comment on pending litigation."


Posted by gatorhater08
Baton Rouge
Member since Apr 2011
2455 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:23 am to
Dang, that’s terrible. They gonna settle out of court for a nice chunk.
Posted by slackster
Houston
Member since Mar 2009
84579 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:29 am to
At first I thought this would be about a forecast where it rained when it shouldn't have, so they're suing TWC.

The actual story is much more reasonable for a case.
Posted by slackster
Houston
Member since Mar 2009
84579 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:29 am to
quote:

Jaeger, a certified storm spotter


Is this a real certification?
Posted by stout
Smoking Crack with Hunter Biden
Member since Sep 2006
167019 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:29 am to
quote:

They gonna settle out of court for a nice chunk.


Not sure how TWC is responsible for the actions of independent contractors.
Posted by cas4t
Member since Jan 2010
70878 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:32 am to
If they are working on your behalf you are going to be held liable. And no plaintiff attorney is going to give a shite about your hold harmless agreement.
Posted by KosmoCramer
Member since Dec 2007
76443 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:34 am to
quote:

Not sure how TWC is responsible for the actions of independent contractors.


If they were actively engaging in contract work there could be liability.

Since they were live streaming for The Weather Channel, that seems to be the case.
Posted by tWildcat
Verona, KY
Member since Oct 2014
19283 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:34 am to
Used to love watching Kelley Williamson live streams online while storm chasing.
Posted by Jim Rockford
Member since May 2011
98056 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:35 am to
quote:

near the town of Spur


Home of Buford Ewing Davis. Everybody calls him Bud except his grandma, but she's part Cherokee.
Posted by slackster
Houston
Member since Mar 2009
84579 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:36 am to
quote:

Since they were live streaming for The Weather Channel, that seems to be the case.






There are likely hours of video of the drivers breaking traffic laws too. It will be argued TWC condoned that behavior unless they can document otherwise.
This post was edited on 3/27/19 at 11:37 am
Posted by cas4t
Member since Jan 2010
70878 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:37 am to
They are undoubtedly going to be held liable. If anything, TWC likely required that these ICs carry sizable limits of insurance.

No way they had 125M, though. Which is why TWC will pay out as well.

Posted by stout
Smoking Crack with Hunter Biden
Member since Sep 2006
167019 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:37 am to
quote:

Since they were live streaming for The Weather Channel, that seems to be the case.




I overlooked the live streaming part.

These guys usually sell footage to a ton of different sources just like paparazzi do with photos.

I could see the liability if they had an exclusive contract with TWC but other than that I still don't think TWC is liable.


ETA: Just saw The Weather Channel decal on the truck. TWC will pay on this no doubt.
This post was edited on 3/27/19 at 11:38 am
Posted by cas4t
Member since Jan 2010
70878 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:38 am to
If a company could remove all liability just by contracting out work then no one would have their own employees
Posted by cas4t
Member since Jan 2010
70878 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:40 am to
Decal or no decal, there are thousands of case law examples similar to this. This is like saying a GC can’t be sued for an error his sub makes. Those suits are filed, litigated/settled every single day. That’s not how it works.
Posted by stout
Smoking Crack with Hunter Biden
Member since Sep 2006
167019 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:40 am to
quote:

If a company could remove all liability just by contracting out work then no one would have their own employees





There's a pesky thing called IRS and employment laws that prohibit this. I have both contractors and employees. It's a fine line of what constitutes subs vs employees. Something as simple as setting a schedule for them can make them an employee so your above statement is hyperbole.
Posted by LSUBoo
Knoxville, TN
Member since Mar 2006
101914 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:41 am to
quote:

No way they had 125M, though. Which is why TWC will pay out as well.


It'll settle for less.
Posted by cas4t
Member since Jan 2010
70878 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:42 am to
The IRS has nothing to do with it. I insure and advocate these claims every single day. I’ve seen these claims go for millions.
Posted by stout
Smoking Crack with Hunter Biden
Member since Sep 2006
167019 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:45 am to
quote:

This is like saying a GC can’t be sued for an error his sub makes. Those suits are filed, litigated/settled every single day. That’s not how it works.



I think those are different situations than this, though. These guys are usually getting their own footage then selling it to the highest bidder. Again, paparazzi do the same thing everyday. That doesn't make a news outlet liable for what happened when the footage was obtained unless there was already an agreed upon contract. If there was then that would be like the GC situation you described.

That doesn't appear to be the situation in this case due to the facts presented so I was wrong but you generalizing this as being the same as a contractor actually hiring a sub is not 100% accurate.
Posted by stout
Smoking Crack with Hunter Biden
Member since Sep 2006
167019 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:46 am to
quote:

The IRS has nothing to do with it.


It has everything to do with if you can claim someone as an employee vs a 1099 sub.
Posted by cas4t
Member since Jan 2010
70878 posts
Posted on 3/27/19 at 11:53 am to
A 1099 is not going to protect you if your sub kills someone working on your behalf.
This post was edited on 3/27/19 at 11:54 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram