Joe Meadows was drunk. Very drunk. 0.296 percent blood-alcohol content drunk, 12 or 13 beers worth. Fortunately, he didn’t drive in that state. Unfortunately, he chose to sleep it off by resting under a parked 18-wheel truck. More unfortunately, the driver, Doug Rader, who didn’t check to see whether there might be drunks lying under his truck at 1:40 a.m., ran over Meadows. Rader had EMT training, and was able to save Meadows’s life, but Meadows lost a leg, and sued both the truck company and the store that owned the parking lot. A Kanawha County jury decided that Meadows was only a third responsible for his injury, which means he “only” gets two thirds of the three million dollars they awarded. (Since Meadows had only asked for $2.3 million, one detects nullification to get around the fact that he was found partially responsible.) Plaintiffs’ attorneys Jesse Forbes, Bill Forbes and Roger Decanio state they are “pleased” with the verdict. (Vic Sprouse, “West Virginia isn’t a judicial hellhole? Tell that to Go-Mart”, West Virginia Record, Oct. 10; Andrew Clevenger, “Hernshaw man awarded $2 million in loss-of-leg case”, Charleston Gazette, Oct. 4; Cheryl Caswell, “Jury awards $3 million to man who had leg torn off by tractor-trailer”, Charleston Daily Mail, Oct. 4).
Welcome to West Virginia: Joe Meadows v. Go-Mart
Joe Meadows was drunk. Very drunk. 0.296 percent blood-alcohol content drunk, 12 or 13 beers worth. Fortunately, he didn’t drive in that state. Unfortunately, he chose to sleep it off by resting under a parked 18-wheel truck. More unfortunately, the driver, Doug Rader, who didn’t check to see whether there might be drunks lying under […]
6 Comments
I wonder how many people on the jury actually make it a practice to check UNDER their vehicles for persons prior to starting.
Just ead a little more, and one of the news stories says the jury heard evidence that there was a dispute as to whether the plaintiff was under the truck or standing behind it. If there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that the plaintiff was standing behind the truck, the award makes more sense–but even then I don’t see the basis for the store liability.
Notice one of the articles explains how the jury broke down the responsibility:
33.34% on the parking lot owners, 33.34% on the trucking company, and 33.32% on the drunk – meaning that, in their eyes, he was actually less responsible for the incident than anyone else! I also discuss this on my blog here (fifth paragraph).
Here is the disputed testimony:
“Meadows said the truck knocked him down as it pulled out and the rear tires ran over his leg, tearing it off. Tabit told the jury that due to Meadows’ inebriated state, it was more likely that he was already lying underneath the vehicle when it began to move.”
The store was negligent by allowing a truck to park in the front when they knew it was dangerous. In other words they had a duty to keep trucks in the back and they breached their duty (cost of keep trucks in the back small compared to the risk of damage).
So it was “dangerous” to keep a truck parked in the front – in other words, the store should have known that drunks routinely fall asleep under trucks, and they should have anticipated that.
Meanwhile, another store parks their trucks in the back. There’s a fire, an assault, a building collapse, or any number of things, and the store is now negligent for dangerously parking their vehicles in a confined area…
“Joe Meadows was drunk. Very drunk. 0.296 percent blood-alcohol content drunk, 12 or 13 beers worth.”
That’s more like 25 beers.