| Author | Message | ||
     Ftd |
I wonder what the $$$ amount was?? The lady I work with who did the blood alcohol analysis had a deposition (civil case) recently and mentioned that the two sides were a tad testy. http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20070727/BREAKINGNEWS/70727026 Frank | ||
| Concor |
Interesting they also went after chrysler in the lawsuit. Billys a big boy he made his own decisions that night. I wonder if chrysler could then sue billy to get back whatever they were sued for? | ||
| Paint_shaker |
I can't see how Chrysler is in any way responsible for this accident. Had Chrysler not given him the truck, it is highly likely that he would still have been driving, and been drunk. I believe the responsibilty lies ultimately with Billy Lane!!! (Message edited by Paint shaker on July 28, 2007) | ||
| Not_purple_s2 |
The suit alleged Lane, who police say had a blood-alcohol level of .192 the night of the accident, and DaimlerChrysler, which the family said used Lane's fame to advertise its vehicles despite prior driving citations on Lane's record, were liable for auto negligence. They were claiming that Chrysler is liable because they gave a vehicle to a dangerous driver. Would this have held up in court? who knows But apparently the lawyers at Chrysler thought it too risky to go to court, so they settled. X+Y=Z if Z is greater than the cost to settle then you settle. | ||
| Tom_b |
Go after the big money, sue everyone even remotely liable. It increases the chances of getting a better settlement. Don't agree with this philosophy, but seems to be the american way. would love to know how much was paid and how much lane actually will pay. | ||
| Wile_ecoyote |
I hope it was a bunch. NOT that it will make up for the loss of a loved one. May set a precidence to companies out there to pick better spokespeople. | ||
| Beachbuell |
They (Chrysler) allowed Mr. Lane to operate the vehicle while in possesion of a suspended license (for DUI). Thats like handing an axe murder the ax AGAIN. | ||
| Brad_buell |
I agree that Chrysler is also to blame for letting Lane drive one of their vehicles on a suspended license. Will a dealership allow someone to test drive a vehicle without a license? | ||
| Wile_ecoyote |
After reading the article, I guess he still faces criminal charges. Wonder what he'll get with a plea. You know there will be some kind of deal. I also didnt know he didnt have a valid license. | ||
| Toona |
When I won an Explorer from Ford/Coca-Cola back in '95, I had to sign a contract that eliminated them from any liability, should I do "something wrong" while in the Explorer. Chrysler lawyers aren't dumb, I'm guessing the same kind of language was in BL's contract. | ||
| Ftd |
My experience in these types of criminal cases point to a sentence of 7 years in the pokie. We'll see fairly soon. (Message edited by ftd on July 29, 2007) | ||
| Tom_b |
"chrysler lawyers aren't dumb" I agree with that. I don't think chrysler should bear fault IMHO anymore than the producers of the alcohol he was drinking, or the oil company that sold the fuel for the truck, or his insurance company that insured him to drive, the state of FL for allowing him to drive. The truck, booze, bad driving record whether the state knew he was still driving didn't kill the moped rider. Lane did period.The respnsibility is his He is legally an adult he decided, and only he should be accountable. Just like a gun, it won't kill anyone on its own, throw in an idiot and someone dies. | ||
| Jlnance |
I can't see how Chrysler is in any way responsible for this accident. It isn't clear from the article, but it is at least implied that Chrysler owned the vehicle. I think this varies from state to state, but in some states (including mine,) it is the owner, not the driver, who is liable for damages caused by the vehicle. | ||
| Diablobrian |
Yeah, Chrysler may not be responsible but the lawyers for the family were looking for deeper pockets than Billy Lane has. It's sad that this has become common practice. It's even sadder that no one is surprised any more when a celebrity gets to buy a different kind of justice than what we as non-millionaires get. If I had been driving that truck there would have been exactly zero consideration given by the state prosecutors for bargaining it down to manslaughter. It would be murder. There would be a public trial where they would make an example out of me as a drunk (twice the legal limit remember) driver. They'd at the minimum, lock me up and throw away the key. Ah well, it's celebrity justice...He'll get a community service sentence that will consist of signing autographs or going to some high school and talking to the automotive class about building choppers for a couple of days. Life is hard when you're rich and famous. | ||
| Tommy_black_shark |
According to the text of the suit brought by the victims mother: 1) Chrysler owned the truck that was given to Lane for his promotional use. It had signage that was used to promote Chrysler and Lane's TV show. I.E Chrysler was making money from the vehicle and it was a "business vehicle." 2) Chrysler allegedly knew or should have known that Lane had a history of reckless and/or drunk driving and did not give due diligence to determining if he was a suitable driver for one of their business vehicles. 3) Chrysler allegedly knew or should have known that Lane had his Florida drivers license revoked for refusing a BAC test in North Carolina a few months prior to his wreck that killed the motorcyclist. The suit alleged negligence on Chrysler's part in not taking the vehicle away from Lane. Chrysler really didn't want this wrongful death suit to go in front of a jury. As far as Lane getting "celebrity justice" I don't think so. The vehicular manslaughter charge makes that tough for the prosecutor even if they were somehow inclined. The max for that charge in Florida is 15 years, my guess is that he will get less than the maximum. | ||
| Djkaplan |
A friend of mine did 8 years in the Arizona state pen for vehicular manslaughter involving a DUI. It's horrific where some of use take our lives... I hope Lane feels the same remorse and guilt my friend does for the rest of his life. | ||
| Ryker77 |
Giving somebody access to your car makes you liable. Be it your drunk brother who took your keys. Or GMC who gave the keys to a person with a invalid license. -- I wonder IF - An illegal Insurgent who is using a false ID/License is in a wreck can we SUE the person who sold them the car? Same legal arguement. Seller shouldn't have sold car to somebody not legally allowed to operate it. | ||
| Tommy_black_shark |
I wonder IF - An illegal Insurgent who is using a false ID/License is in a wreck can we SUE the person who sold them the car? Same legal arguement. Seller shouldn't have sold car to somebody not legally allowed to operate it. Assuming the question is not rhetorical: If you allow someone to drive your car you have a great deal of civil liability for what they do with the car. This applies whether it is your drunk, illegal alien, brother in law, or the sober preacher on his way to church. Not the same situation if you sell the car. I'm not aware of any requirement on the part of a vehicle seller to check the residency status of anyone buying their car. I know it is not a requirement in Georgia. Chrysler would have had a lot less trouble if they had simply given the $30K truck to Lane. They still owned it, it was a business vehicle and you know the rest. For my own part, if I am ever done in by a cage I hope it is by someone drunk driving a large, well insured company's vehicle. | ||
| Ryker77 |
In this modern sue everybody world. Selling a car to a person not legally allowed to drive "could" be a reason to sue. Just like selling just one more beer to bar patron - who then drives drunk and kills somebody.. _ don't agree with it but those law suits have produced good settlements. IMO - Chyrsler would have still be sued and would have still settled for the same amount. Becuase a good lawyer would put a real nast spin on giving a car to a person without a valid license. |
