Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 64
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    168

    Default Go Away Money

    It is very popular here to use the term "go away money." My understanding of its application is when an insurance company/defendant is in the right, they do not owe anything to the plaintiff, yet they pay him anyway to avoid litigation and defense costs. Is that correct?

    Well, here is a case where a bicyclist recently rode through a set of cones and into a construction ditch in a designated bike lane. He became paraplegic. Now, I feel certain you all see him as 100% at fault, yet the three defendants paid him at total of $20 million dollars. So I ask, do insurance companies pay $20M in "go away money?"

    https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...508176591.html

    Why didn't they just tell him to "go away" instead of paying him that kind of money to "go away?" I mean, you all see him 100% at fault, right?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,409

    Default Re: Go Away Money

    Quote Quoting Chuck77
    View Post
    I mean, you all see him 100% at fault, right?
    I don't see him as wholly at fault just based on the information in that article. That article lacks a lot of details I would want to know in assessing whether he had a valid claim or not. The fact that the defendants agreed to such a large settlement tells me that they thought there was at least a somewhat decent shot that he would win at least that much if the case went to trial. The defendants would have far more information about potential liability than was revealed in that article.

    Moreover, it is my observation that general news outlets like local TV stations tend to do a fairly poor job covering legal issues (and a variety of other technical subject too) because the reporters writing the story do not often have much expertise in the subject. So I'd not be inclined to rely much on what those reports contain on anything remotely complex.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,728

    Default Re: Go Away Money

    Quote Quoting Chuck77
    View Post
    It is very popular here to use the term "go away money." My understanding of its application is when an insurance company/defendant is in the right, they do not owe anything to the plaintiff, yet they pay him anyway to avoid litigation and defense costs. Is that correct?

    Well, here is a case where a bicyclist recently rode through a set of cones and into a construction ditch in a designated bike lane. He became paraplegic. Now, I feel certain you all see him as 100% at fault, yet the three defendants paid him at total of $20 million dollars. So I ask, do insurance companies pay $20M in "go away money?"

    https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...508176591.html

    Why didn't they just tell him to "go away" instead of paying him that kind of money to "go away?" I mean, you all see him 100% at fault, right?
    i don’t necessarily see him at fault either. There is too much information missing to be able to make such a statement.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    168

    Default Re: Go Away Money

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    i don’t necessarily see him at fault either. There is too much information missing to be able to make such a statement.
    What kind of information is missing? In my case you all said I was 100% at fault when there was not even a single cone set out to warn me of a road hazard and lane closure. Here the guy runs through the cones and into a ditch and you don't see him at fault? You are inconsistent, both of you!

    IMO, you do not see him at fault because the fat woman has already sung and you'd be clearly wrong in saying the cyclist was at fault. $20M is not "go away money" which proves there is more to an accident like this than simply being inattentive.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    223

    Default Re: Go Away Money

    Here are the case Documents, no images, you have to pay for copies I guess. You see how many legal were papers filed, very complex case

    There were 3 Defendants, a collective total of 21+ mil is not "go away" money.


    https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces...hResults.xhtml

    Proposed settlement:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1te_...K-6cVWhJZ/view

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    168

    Default Re: Go Away Money

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    I don't see him as wholly at fault just based on the information in that article.
    Why not? You said I was mostly at fault.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,409

    Default Re: Go Away Money

    Quote Quoting Chuck77
    View Post
    Why not? You said I was mostly at fault.
    Because I don't have any of the evidence either side would provide in the case. I don't know what the area looked like to the cyclist, I don't know if the cyclist actually saw the danger and went ahead anyway, didn't see the danger but should have, or whether the danger would not have been apparent to any reasonable person approaching the construction area. I don't know how fast he was traveling or what distractions he may have had. I don't know what the construction crews knew of the danger, I don't know what efforts were made by the construction crews to alert others to the danger. You get the idea, I think. There's a lot I'd want to know before deciding on liability.

    In your case, I was limited to just what information you provided, of course, but at least it was information provided directly by the guy who was involved. That was a whole lot more than what that article had.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    168

    Default Re: Go Away Money

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Because I don't have any of the evidence either side would provide in the case. I don't know what the area looked like to the cyclist, I don't know if the cyclist actually saw the danger and went ahead anyway, didn't see the danger but should have, or whether the danger would not have been apparent to any reasonable person approaching the construction area. I don't know how fast he was traveling or what distractions he may have had. I don't know what the construction crews knew of the danger, I don't know what efforts were made by the construction crews to alert others to the danger. You get the idea, I think. There's a lot I'd want to know before deciding on liability.

    In your case, I was limited to just what information you provided, of course, but at least it was information provided directly by the guy who was involved. That was a whole lot more than what that article had.
    Hmmm. You did not know any of those things about my accident but you still said I was mostly at fault. You are being inconsistent.

    As I told jk, you are also hesitant to call him at fault/liable because in doing so, you would be admitting you are wrong.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,409

    Default Re: Go Away Money

    Quote Quoting Chuck77
    View Post
    Hmmm. You did not know any of those things about my accident but you still said I was mostly at fault. You are being inconsistent.
    Do you have a link to that prior thread? I can't seem to find it using the search. As I recall your situation and the one in the article (at least what we know of it) weren't exactly the same, and different facts can result in different outcomes.

    Quote Quoting Chuck77
    View Post
    As I told jk, you are also hesitant to call him at fault/liable because in doing so, you would be admitting you are wrong.
    No, I'm being hesistant to say he was at fault, or that the contractors were at fault, because as I said, I know very little out the accident described in that article. The author provided almost no information about what happened. You at least, if I recall correctly, provided more information, and as I said that information was coming from someone actually involved.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    168

    Default Re: Go Away Money

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Do you have a link to that prior thread? I can't seem to find it using the search. As I recall your situation and the one in the article (at least what we know of it) weren't exactly the same, and different facts can result in different outcomes.
    I am not going to conjure up my old thread but I will discus it a bit, it still being an active case.

    Of course the two accidents are not identical. What two accidents are? However, they are strikingly similar. Similarities: Professional road workers were in the bike lane doing work. They blocked/closed the bike lane. In my case they did not put up any advanced warning devices like cones, signs, flagman, flares, a taper, etc. Just a dimly lit arrow board above the truck instructing bikes to merge into the #2 lane with 70mph traffic to go around the work truck. The edge of the flatbed truck protruded into the #2 lane making the necessary swerve harder to make. In this recent case in San Diego the road workers blocked the bike lane AND the #2 lane with what I assume were cones that formed a taper/merger. The cyclist disregarded the cones by driving through them into the designated work area and rode into an open ditch. I believe other riders were also injured.

    So you tell me, knowing what you and jk know, how can you BOTH say that I was mostly at fault and would have a hard time getting compensated while saying this guy was likely not at fault? Explain for yourself, not jk.

    No, I'm being hesistant to say he was at fault, or that the contractors were at fault, because as I said, I know very little out the accident described in that article. The author provided almost no information about what happened. You at least, if I recall correctly, provided more information, and as I said that information was coming from someone actually involved.
    Read the court documents linked in the article. They explain the legal process the plaintiff used to argue the case. Two legal terms were used that I doubt anyone here has ever heard of. So it is not as simple as "if you run into something from behind it is highly likely your fault." Of course I am not quoting you, I am quoting the general responses I got from the EL Clique who are mysteriously silent now.

    This case should be a lesson and a wake up call to the frontline hacks that post here, but I'm not holding my breath.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Money Laundering: Can You Be Charged With Money Laundering for Helping a Friend Transfer Money
    By lawfacts in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-19-2016, 09:11 PM
  2. Sales Agreements: Car Seller Took My Money and Did Not Sign the Title - How to Get My Money Back
    By JunManila in forum Cars and Dealerships
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-04-2013, 04:30 PM
  3. Non-Performance and Breach: Retrieving Money Builder Spent on Merchandise That He Returned, Keeping Money
    By Pinheadann in forum Construction, Repair and Renovation
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-27-2011, 02:10 PM
  4. Security Deposits: Tenant Owes More Than Security Deposit, Can I Keep Money Other Money Owed
    By tcuwilliams in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-21-2011, 04:33 AM
  5. Debt Collectors: My Ex Owes Me Money and Has Refused to Pay, and I Have a Plan to Get the Money
    By some person in forum Debts and Collections
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-01-2010, 08:44 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources