Go Away Money

[Taxing Matters]

Do you wonder why the EL Clique is silent on this thread?

If you are including me in that, I've not been silent. I told you what thought: there wasn't enough information in the article for me to say to what degree the bike rider was at fault, which is precisely the question you asked at the start of the thread:

I mean, you all see him 100% at fault, right?

Instead, I said that:

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.

They are not willing to embarrass themselves by saying the highest litigators and insurance representatives are wrong and they are right. So they hide.

So as you can see, I indeed accounted for the possibility that the defendants got it right. They know the evidence in the case far better than I do. I have no idea whether the defendant's lawyers or the insurance company reps were the best, or "highest" as you put it. My guess is that you really don't know that either. But I'll assume until I know otherwise that they are at least reasonably competent.

[budwad]

. I told you what thought: there wasn't enough information in the article for me to say to what degree the bike rider was at fault, which is precisely the question you asked at the start of the thread

Chuck's question was sarcastic. He feels that all the members here think that if you get into an accident, that you must have been at fault (to some degree).

Forget about the news article. Did you read the settlement agreement?

So as you can see, I indeed accounted for the possibility that the defendants got it right. They know the evidence in the case far better than I do. I have no idea whether the defendant's lawyers or the insurance company reps were the best, or "highest" as you put it. My guess is that you really don't know that either. But I'll assume until I know otherwise that they are at least reasonably compete.

That's a pretty good assumption considering that THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO has sovereign immunity and is protected by the California Torts Claims Act. It's also a good bet since San Diego is also responsible for the negligence of their independent contractors to wit, the other two defendants.

Now I don't know every evidentiary aspect of this case any more that you do. But logic tells me that a City does not settle a case for negligence, nor do the insurance companies for 20 or 21 million dollars unless there is overwhelming evidence of negligence on the part of the three defendants. What more do you need to know about fault? There is nothing in the settlement agreement about contributory negligence.

Would your agree or disagree?

[Chuck77]

Chuck's question was sarcastic. He feels that all the members here think that if you get into an accident, that you must have been at fault (to some degree).

Forget about the news article. Did you read the settlement agreement?



That's a pretty good assumption considering that THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO has sovereign immunity and is protected by the California Torts Claims Act. It's also a good bet since San Diego is also responsible for the negligence of their independent contractors to wit, the other two defendants.

Now I don't know every evidentiary aspect of this case any more that you do. But logic tells me that a City does not settle a case for negligence, nor do the insurance companies for 20 or 21 million dollars unless there is overwhelming evidence of negligence on the part of the three defendants. What more do you need to know about fault? There is nothing in the settlement agreement about contributory negligence.

Would your agree or disagree?

This is a typical excuse from both of them, in that they claim to need more information. Did they read the 'settlement agreement'? I highly doubt it because they don't want any more information. Did they dig into the internet for more information? Probably not. Did Tax or Carl respond to what those two doctrines were that Tax asked for? Heck NO! That is when Tax made himself scarce here, even though they may have contained "more information." Did they ask for more information from me when they said I was at fault for my bike accident, which was almost identical to this one? NO! Actually, I gave them a lot more information and it didn't matter. They basically said that if you hit a construction truck, or anything from behind like this cyclist did, you are at fault. They also said the City had some type of "immunity' and that they are not responsible for their negligent city workers. Which is also bull because the City is now paying. Even though in my case there were no negligent city workers.

The excuses given here from the both of them are bull. The absence of the EL Clique on this thread is also very telling. They rarely need 'more information' from the bulk of OP's here. They give their opinion regardless of knowing all the facts. But when a case has already been settled, like this one, and it doesn't fit their paradigm, they suddenly need 'more information.' As though I'm now asking for the ratios of contributory negligence. But I'm not! And as for the folks who settled this case, you can bet they had their best attorneys on it because of the dollar amount involved. I highly doubt they'd have a guy like AJ on it who doesn't know squat about how these cases are argued or how they turn out at trial.

So yes, the EL Clique got schooled on this one but they won't learn anything from it. Why? Because they "needed more information."

The author provided almost no information about what happened.

Really? It stated that the cyclist came upon a roadwork crew who set out cones to merge the designated bike lane and #2 lane into the #1 lane. The cyclist, or group of cyclists, disregarded the cones by riding through them and into the work area. Then the plaintiff proceeded to ride into a open trench, flew into a pile of rocks and dirt and became paraplegic. What more information do you need? Oh, here it is:

You want to know the cyclist's speed. It was flat ground so I'd say between 15 - 17mph. So what.

You want to know if the cyclist saw the cones and road crew. How could they not?

Was it apparent to a reasonable person? What two lane taper is not apparent to a reasonable person? In my case there was NO taper, no cones and it didn't matter to you, Carl or the EL Clique.

Did the construction crew know of the danger? How could they not, they set it up.

Did the construction crew alert others of the danger? Yes, by setting up a taper with cones.

So, the 'more information' you are asking for is a bunch of flimsy, obvious, irrelevant questions.

[jk]

The settlement specifically states no party has accepted or been found at fault. Legally, only a court can assign fault so at least technically, there is no fault in the issue at hand.

In the general sense, the defendants have still not accepted fault. Settlements serve many purposes but since it is all about the money, the defendants have determined it is less risk to pay the settlement than go to court. It doesn’t mean they believe they are at fault but that there is a reasonable risk they may be determined to be at fault or that the costs to maintain the suit justify the payment now . With a settlement, the defendants have some control over the amount of money. With a court judgment, if they disagree with the ruling or subsequent money judgment, they would have to appeal, and of course there would have to be a basis for an appeal.

Issues such as this could drag on for years and the attorneys fees alone, especially given there are multiple defendants each with their own representation, could be in the millions of dollars. Between the cost to maintain the suit and the possible eventual outcome, sometimes it is more cost effective to settle.

You are incorrect about the city having absolute sovereign immunity. The tort claims act doesn’t prevent all actions against the city. It limits what actions are available and it applies rules to making claims. If the city was immune, it would be as simple as asserting that defense to allow being excused from the suit. Obviously that didn’t happen.

If you read the amount each defendant is putting into the pot, you will see that San Diego is paying only $1.5 million. In today’s world, that is go away money.

Also notice that the city had filed a cross complaint against each of the other defendants as well. The complexities of the suit increase and due to that, so do the projected costs. The city seems to be getting off quite inexpensively overall.

[Mark47n]

This is a typical excuse from both of them, in that they claim to need more information. Did they read the 'settlement agreement'? I highly doubt it because they don't want any more information. Did they dig into the internet for more information? Probably not. Did Tax or Carl respond to what those two doctrines were that Tax asked for? Heck NO! That is when Tax made himself scarce here, even though they may have contained "more information." Did they ask for more information from me when they said I was at fault for my bike accident, which was almost identical to this one? NO! Actually, I gave them a lot more information and it didn't matter. They basically said that if you hit a construction truck, or anything from behind like this cyclist did, you are at fault. They also said the City had some type of "immunity' and that they are not responsible for their negligent city workers. Which is also bull because the City is now paying. Even though in my case there were no negligent city workers.

The excuses given here from the both of them are bull. The absence of the EL Clique on this thread is also very telling. They rarely need 'more information' from the bulk of OP's here. They give their opinion regardless of knowing all the facts. But when a case has already been settled, like this one, and it doesn't fit their paradigm, they suddenly need 'more information.' As though I'm now asking for the ratios of contributory negligence. But I'm not! And as for the folks who settled this case, you can bet they had their best attorneys on it because of the dollar amount involved. I highly doubt they'd have a guy like AJ on it who doesn't know squat about how these cases are argued or how they turn out at trial.

So yes, the EL Clique got schooled on this one but they won't learn anything from it. Why? Because they "needed more information."

To whom are you speaking? You do love writing in the expository style don't you.

You don't read so well. There were responses to what said. TM responded as stated that there was clearly more to the story than was being reported as did Budwad. The primary reason that you aren't seeing a response from others is because you are a great flaming pillock. You just pound manically away on your keyboard pouring your frustrations into whatever drivel you're blathering about. You're virtually incoherent and your convoluted opinions are insupportable, especially when you're presented with evidence to the contrary and you double down.

My recommendation is that you take a fist full of Valium and you chill out. you need a nap, Chuckles.

[jk]

.
"



Really? It stated that the cyclist came upon a roadwork crew who set out cones to merge the designated bike lane and #2 lane into the #1 lane. The cyclist, or group of cyclists, disregarded the cones by riding through them and into the work area. Then the plaintiff proceeded to ride into a open trench, flew into a pile of rocks and dirt and became paraplegic. What more information do you need? Oh, here it is:

You want to know the cyclist's speed. It was flat ground so I'd say between 15 - 17mph. So what.

You want to know if the cyclist saw the cones and road crew. How could they not?

Was it apparent to a reasonable person? What two lane taper is not apparent to a reasonable person? In my case there was NO taper, no cones and it didn't matter to you or Carl or the EL Clique.

Did the construction crew know of the danger? How could they not, they set it up.

Did the construction crew alert others of the danger? Yes, by setting up a taper with cones.

So, the 'more information' you are asking for is a bunch of flimsy, obvious, irrelevant questions.

those are not answers or facts. They are guesses or supposition you believe to be true with absolutely no proof they are true.

Even if you could accurately answer the questions you posed, it would still not be adequate to make a determination.

As usual, you present a bunch of irrelevant bs statements purporting them to be facts and expecting others to provide judgment based on your bs.


Btw: in reviewing your profile, I do not see any thread involving your accident. Have you removed it?

[Chuck77]

To whom are you speaking? You do love writing in the expository style don't you.

You don't read so well. There were responses to what said. TM responded as stated that there was clearly more to the story than was being reported as did Budwad. The primary reason that you aren't seeing a response from others is because you are a great flaming pillock. You just pound manically away on your keyboard pouring your frustrations into whatever drivel you're blathering about. You're virtually incoherent and your convoluted opinions are insupportable, especially when you're presented with evidence to the contrary and you double down.

My recommendation is that you take a fist full of Valium and you chill out. you need a nap, Chuckles.

Is this a summons to the EL Clique to join in on the personal attack, rather than comment of why you see eye to eye with the attorneys who decided this case? Oh ya, you need more information too, huh?

BTW - I have a very good idea what the road crew failed to do that made them negligent. Care to speculate or offer your immense knowledge about negligence in this case? Any of you?

[budwad]

In today’s world, that is go away money.

Bullshit! Going away money is for nuisance law suits where the cost to litigate exceeds the exposure of the party.

Paying 1.5 million on the part of the City is not going away money.

[Chuck77]

Bullshit! Going away money is for nuisance law suits where the cost to litigate exceeds the exposure of the party.

Paying 1.5 million on the part of the City is not going away money.

The definition of "go away money" to jk (and most others here) is any settlement that he/they do not agree with.

That is the point of this thread, in case anyone is wondering. Also that they often give terrible advice on personal injury and traffic cases...just like they would if that paraplegic came here first.

[jk]

Bullshit! Going away money is for nuisance law suits where the cost to litigate exceeds the exposure of the party.

Paying 1.5 million on the part of the City is not going away money.

you don’t believe the costs of defense can be in the millions?