My first thought is either assumption of risk or contributory negligence for getting out of the car. Much more importantly though, before we take a man's freedom and or money over a youtube video, why don't we go with innocent UNTIL proven guilty, as determined by a JURY.....the jury that will see ALL the evidence ..... you know, the way our judicial system is supposed to operate
Tony Stewart just killed a 20 year old kid
- Thread starter ugagrad04
- Start date
Do you feel the family deserves a monetary settlement for this accident?
It would be very difficult to deem Tony's actions as an unforeseeable or grossly negligent behavior unless there is something on the video that makes it clear that Tony knowingly acted extremely outside of the acceptable behavior of the event and league. Even then it may not be enough to break the liability waiver.
Innocent until proven guilty (which isn't really true anymore) is for criminal court. Civil court is a popularity/who do we feel the most sorry for contest.
The Sheriff said there is no evidence to support criminal charges.
It's a sad situation for all involved.
I don't know, to be honest. I feel both parties were negligent, so in short, the family would be entitled to some settlement. But I'm more or less just stating what's going to happen, not what my personal belief is.
Yea, but the plaintiff attorney is gonna throw up pics of a dead kid in a Sunday church outfit, his autopsy, and a grieving family, and portray Tony as a monster. And the big question is gonna be "why were you riding such a high line when there was a yellow flag out, and in particular, near the downed vehicle, where it would be reasonable to assume the driver or EMS personnel would be on the track?" I'm just saying: dead kid + questionable actions + wealthy guy = money in civil court.
I don't doubt they will try, but ultimately I think thy will fail or settle for a fairly small amount.
