What. Ever. RMX http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405163,00.html A Texas car dealership has settled a lawsuit filed by the widow of a man who killed himself after dropping out of a contest in which participants tried to keep their hand on a vehicle the longest. Details of the settlement between Patterson Nissan of Longview, in east Texas, and Chalala Gutierrez, the wife of contestant Richard Thomas Vega II, are confidential, officials said. The suit, settled Thursday, focused on a 2005 contest in which the winner of the "Hands on a Hardbody" contest was awarded a Nissan truck and other prizes. Just before a scheduled rest break 48 hours into the event, Vega dropped out, crossed a street and broke into a Kmart store, where he took a gun from a case and shot himself. In her suit, Gutierrez alleged that the dealership was negligent in organizing and conducting the contest. She likened Vega and other contestants' stress and sleep deprivation to "brainwashing" and said the dealership failed to provide a safe environment for contestants who "temporarily lost their sanity." Court documents show damages sought included funeral costs, lost income of about $600,000 and court costs. Attorney Adam Allen said the dealership was happy with the result. An attorney for Gutierrez said the settlement resolved all the allegations in the lawsuit. The contest was featured in a 1990s documentary by the same name. It has not been restaged since Vega's death.
There others taking place now. Details are that a kid gets murdered in school. The parents that don't have custody of the kid are suing the school because they didn't enforce the dress code and the kid was a gay cross dresser. In another suit a kid is suing the school board because they are violating his first amendment right because they are enforcing the dress code. These cases get filed because it's less expensive to settle than to try the case. The plaintiff files a case knowing that they will settle for less than what it will cost to try the case. My med mal ijnsurance co just settled a case of mine. They made an "economic" decision to settle for the cost of litigation. My lawyer wasn't even there when the case was mediated by the insurance co. Basically they paid the plaintiff what it would have cost to defend me. If I pushed for a trial I would have been held responsible for any award over what they negotiated settlement for. It amounts to legal extortion.
Interested to hear what our FChat lawyers have to say. Could have been 'settled' for $1 and the dealer agreeing to not countersue the hell out of that woman for defamation.
When you have 5% of World population and 75% of lawyers of the same World and they all want to make a nice living,you get what you have here. Vote Democrats,they are all lawyers ,so we can have more of this BS.
There are not enough facts written here to determine what happened. Notably, it did not describe what was going on during the competition - was he being taunted or harassed? Was he intentionally starved? It's not possible given that sparse description to determine whether it was fair or not. What isn't fair though is how people jump to conclusions about the case and trial lawyers in general - why is it bad to think that trial lawyers might consider the cost of suit in negotiation? Surely, every major company that deals in pharmaceuticals or consumer products makes an actuarial or accounting decision on how many people being injured, incapacitated or killed by their product is acceptable, and forecast "losses," "expenses" or "externalities" accordingly. So, what's worse - the trial lawyer that represents a family who has lost a loved one or the company for whom it is a line item?
What do you expect when someone asks what the lawyers think - more opinions from doctors? As I said in my post, unless you've been privy to more than that article you can't determine whether anything is fair or not.
Sounds like the dealer didn't have a waiver for this guy to sign. **Ahem. We the dealer are not responsible for any and all negative actions as a result of you touching this car for an excessive period of time.**
I hope to god you are kidding... Intentionally starved? excuse me, but he could have walked away at any time and bought a cheesburger.. try again
Someone could give him food while his hands are on the truck, surely this is not that crazy of an idea.
In many conversations I've had with lawyers, some of whom are friends, I've never heard one say that a lawsuit that was filed was meritless. There is always some angle that can be argues to make the case. I was on a debate team in high school. Did pretty well, beating the Texas state champ and runner up in one tournament. We had to be prepared to argue both sides and didn't find out what side we were taking until a few minutes before each round. It taught people to be able to argue each side of the case. That is what happens in a trial you get lawyers to argue different sides of the same case. Both can't be right but both will find some thing to argue to prove their case. Just once I'd like to hear a lawyer say thats crazy why should a car dealer be responsible for a guy walking across the street, going to a different business, taking a fire arm and ammunition from a display case and committing suicide. Maybe the lawyers can explain why in one jurisdiction a family is suing the school board for allowing their cross dressing gay son to wear girls clothes and make up to school, some thing that is against the dress code. Wearing the clothes the family claims was the reason the boy was murdered by another student. Another jurisdiction the school board is getting sued for enforcing the dress code banning Confederate flags. You can't have it both ways either you have a dress code and enforce it or you don't. That's the problem people see this nonsense, you have lots of lawyers that are under employed and they file a law suit every body looses except the lawyers.
The guy could have walked away at any time during the contest. No one forced the guy to enter or remain in the contest. The only reason the dealer settled was to make the case go away. A friend of mine one a car in a contest like this when I was in High School. Stood by the car for 4 days. He was given food and potty breaks. There was an ambulance on site at all times.
My best friend is a lawyer, and he would ask if you are retarded. How do you feel about the successful suit against the mobile home manugfacturer over "cruise control" not serving as an autopilot which was not clearly spelled out in the owners manual? This "negligence" resulted in an accident because the drive went in the back to make a sandwich while going down the road expecting the vehicle to drive itself. Puhlease. How about personal acountablilty. If I have an affair, resulting in a divorce, can I sue my Y chromosome for making testosterone.
I didn't disagree with that assessment - I DO think it's crazy, if this is all that happened. I don't see liability for the tournament holder... but I wanted to be the moderate voice and say there is likely something else in the facts forcing a settlement (and my gut says they might have been teasing/taunting him or made a scene embarrassing him when he lost). If that write up really contains everything pertinent, then I'm as aghast as the rest here. Obviously I can't post details due to confidentiality, but trust me that my firm turns down dozens of cases where people come to us with bad stuff that has happened, but we think the plaintiff substantially caused it or that there is no liability for the defendant. I know doctors deal with serious situations daily, but it is still a very delicate thing to try and tell someone they don't have a cause of action for their dead relative. Well, the beauty of such conflicting issues between different jurisdictions is that if/as it gets appealed, a standard will develop. Obviously, there is an alignment than can be made depending on whether these schools are in the same state or federal district. But that doesn't eliminate the potential that different reasons could be found that bring liability to both schools... or neither. Don't forget, judges sometimes shirk from making tough rulings and will dispense of cases on procedural or technical grounds to avoid complicated decisions. See then, perhaps there are "standard practices" to ensure the health and safety of the participants... and maybe this defendant didn't follow what you indicate here as a "normal" treatment for the contestant by starving or mistreating the decedent.
That's fine, I'll PM my office number if you want me to speak directly to him. Is it fair that you ask if I am retarded and you ask me about a non-existent lawsuit that is listed as an urban legend on dozens of websites? http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp If your lawyer friend is as clever as you, I may need an interpreter.
I did ask though at the same time I didnt attack the prosecutor...just wanted to hear your and others opinions. We dont know the details but we do know that we have free will and no amount of taunting or harassing or 'starving' should make the dealer (or anyone else) liable for something like this. Unless there was a gun to his head he had the ability to walk away. The guy obviously had serious mental and/or emotional issues to kill himself....even if the 'stress' or whatever of this contest put him over the edge no one is responsible but himself. Whats next ? Outlaw any contest because someone may kill themselves over losing ?
You're going the wrong way though... that is not likely the issue that forced them to settle. You don't know exactly why he killed himself - it's not reported here. If it was just for losing the truck, and the host did nothing out of the ordinary with these competitions, why wouldn't they have taken the case to trial and trounced them? Bad PR alone?
I am definitely not someone who subscribes to the idea that people ought to be compensated for all sorts of things that they are actually at fault for... but for this one, I can kinda sorta see some liability for the dealership. Lets say that the contest was for who can go the longest without drinking water... they are all desperate to win, and someone actually gets so dehydrated and dies. Liability? I'd say there would be some... despite the fact that the person made the choice to participate, there is an assumption that when you are participating in something like this, there is a basic level of intelligence and consideration to safety that goes into the event. So I'm sure all agree that such a contest would encourage people to throw caution to the wind and, through peer pressure, act in an irresponsible manner. We know depriving someone of water - even voluntarily - would be a bad idea. Do we know depriving someone of sleep would be bad? I knew that - do most folks? I know you can hallucinate and literally go nuts from lack of sleep. I think I'd have known it would be a bad idea to have such a contest and I think having it was probably pretty irresponsible on the dealerships part. I can't say I think this is one of those crazy lawsuits, to be honest.
What about if you are sued over something trivial by a huuuuge company - you lose and pay $1k in damages, then you get hit with $1mm in legal fees for the company that won? In this case, loser pays would mean that the person you feel was screwed in this case got screwed even more. Facts show that loser pays criminal systems generally make the law less available to the average person, and heavily weighs suits in favor of large corporations. I don't think it's a good idea.
