if you are drunk and step out infront of a car and get killed at night.....

Why would a lawyer get your family $ from the person who hit you? Locally, a guy got killed walking (stumbling) across a 4 lane city street at night..... now i see in the paper that his family is getting paid $100k (less small lawyer fee).

I don't understand why?

as it turns out the guy who did hit him is a Pennsylvania Representative and drove off (he too was probably drunk)

...seems like a drunk walking in traffic would be the drunk's fault.?

The idiot lawyer just happens to live up the street from me.... he has his goofy ambulance chasing commercials on TV now.

 

Regardless of how stupid you are, you can sue and win...its really really sad

 

I may have a chance afterall

 

LAWYERS!
(Disclaimer: I have a couple of friends who are lawyers and I have nothing against them personally BUT collectively and as a group, I have a hard time bending down that low to lift up the rock, then push the snake out of the way so I can see where they work.)

The way I understand it is that your family deserves to be paid for having their loved one AND your earning power taken away from them.

 

there's probably more circumstances as well.
did he die instantly or was there a chance he could have been saved?
if he didn't die instantly and the rep drove off and not for the purpose of getting him help that would be bad.
was the rep driving unreasonably? too fast for the time of night/road/weather, those might be bad.
was the rep drunk as well?
was it reasonable to think that someone might be crossing that street at that time?
did the victim have his car parked in clear view with hazards on or anything?
I doubt it cost the congressman anything as it was probably covered by insurance, and probably in both the insurance and the rep's interests to settle out of court fast.

 

I thought in most places, insurance is void if you are driving drunk.

 

I think this depends on a lot of other details as well. It's not enough to say a drunk guy was hit by a car. For instance, whether the driver had his lights on, how fast he was going, what he did after the impact, whether he was intoxicated, etc., probably all factor into the determination of responsibility.

It's like when you have aftermarket parts on your car and take it in for a warranty claim. The dealer will want to determine whether the aftermarket parts played a role in the problem. Here, you'd have to determine whether the drunk guy's actions led to the accident, or if it was the other driver's fault.

That's how it would work theoretically, of course. In the real world, things are decided in far less rational and far less reasonable manners, according to some odd criteria, so who knows what really happened. My only point is, the fact that the guy who got hit was drunk doesn't necessarily preclude him from being a legitimate victim. Now, if the guy really just jumped in front of a moving car without provocation, then ok, he's a moron.

 

Actually, when you are behind the wheel of a car, you are responsible for anything that comes your way. It is no different if you hit the car in front of you because you weren't paying attention. It is still the same if it was a sober person walking across the street and still manage to get by a car. It is your responsibility as well to avoid such accident. Two weeks ago, I think a 21 year girl was hit by a car. She has been crossing this street everyday for 10 years. The driver that hit her wasn't drunk or anything. The driver claims not to have seen her. No, she wasn't on a cell phone either. Guess what, she was charged regardless and sued by the 21 year old's parents for negligence behind the wheel. She had to pay $500,000 in the lawsuit.

 

The Rep who hit the drunk guy did not stop and was presumably with a female other than his wife, and possibly had some drinks......so he sucks as a human....but.... it was late evening when the drunk pedestrian got hit....he was hit right in front of the "projects" where he lived, and apparently was trying to cross the road, which has a speed limit of 35mph, but no one usually ever drives that slow. he died instantly after being thrown a fair distance......

Not to sound too much like a dick, but it sounds like as a drunk pedestrian stumbles into the path of moving vehicles, he has lost his right to sue.???

 

IF the driver had been driving reasonably and paying attention, it would have been unfortunate if the tragedy were compounded by this payout. however, the fact that the driver left the scene of a fatal accident means that he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That should mean jail- this wasn't some frightened kid, this is an elected member of a body that writes the law, from the details you've provided. In addition, how did the driver not know that the victim wasn't alive, in which case he would not only have left the scene, he potentially could have called for help, aided them with pressure on wounds- who knows...
Just as the (dead) pedestrian loses moral and legal high ground if he stepped into traffic without looking because he was intoxicated, the driver lost the moral and legal high ground he didn't stop, evaluate the victim, and call for help. And a PA rep should be held to a higher moral standard than a dead someone from a project.
So no, perhaps (IMO) the victims family shouldn't get money, but the rep should go to jail. Just my opinion.