Comments on: Welcome to West Virginia: Joe Meadows v. Go-Mart

By: ben tillman

ben tillman — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:08:21 +0000

“Joe Meadows was drunk. Very drunk. 0.296 percent blood-alcohol content drunk, 12 or 13 beers worth.”

That’s more like 25 beers.

By: John Rohan

John Rohan — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:18:42 +0000

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…

By: Beau

Beau — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:42:33 +0000

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).

By: John Rohan

John Rohan — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:40:46 +0000

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).

By: KAT

KAT — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:08:44 +0000

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.

By: KAT

KAT — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:02:50 +0000

I wonder how many people on the jury actually make it a practice to check UNDER their vehicles for persons prior to starting.