If you think that it does matter, to what degree should the law require non-relatedness? How about cousins, 2nd cousins, 5th cousins twice removed?

I think the sore point here is not that the 2 were related. It is the fact that the jury was not given all of the facts. They weren’t told the whole story. How can you make a correct decision knowing half of the facts?

The Driver broke company policy by bringing family along with him. This should protect the company just as a warning label on a frying pan protects the manufacturer.

The father was negligent in more than one way. He broke his companies rules and his training guidelines which he was required to know to become a driver in the first place (not to mention negligent in the care of his daughter).

This guy should be in prison for child endangerment and destroying his daughter’s life by disregarding responsibilities, laws and rules. Instead, he is living it up in a mansion with no worries about money ever again.

Jerry Vandesic wrote:

If you think that it does matter, to what degree should the law require non-relatedness? How about cousins, 2nd cousins, 5th cousins twice removed?

How is that relevant? Except in unusual circumstances, you are not the legal guardian or spouse of your cousin. When you are dealing with immediate family members, it’s nearly impossible to cleanly divide wealth between one and another.

30% of 24 mill makes for some revenue to the state!

I can certainly understand it. The driver had insurance to cover accidents that he was involved in, whether he caused them or not. The fact that his carelessness caused another person injury was what was covered by the insurance policy, and it didn’t matter that the person he harmed was his wife.

If you think that it does matter, to what degree should the law require non-relatedness? How about cousins, 2nd cousins, 5th cousins twice removed?

ps. I was not selected as a juror so I don’t know what ultimately happened. It would have been interesting to see the conclusion of the case.

Eric T. wrote: Yes. I assume the girl had a different guardian for the purposes of the lawsuit. (Certainly in NY that would be required)

I notice you ignored several other questions – but in any case, it doesn’t matter if he had another guardian for the purposes of the lawsuit. The lawsuit eventually ends, and he is (one of) her legal guardians, and stands to make millions off of this.

The father doesn’t stand to gain bupkus. It’s the kid’s money. I would assume that, if CA is similar to NY, the money of a minor is protected. Courts are always worried about this very issue and bend over backwards to protect the kid from relatives who might have an eye on the money.

Sorry, but I’ve seen this happen. Even when the system works, it’s still like trying to only pour water into one side of a bathtub. If this girl needs constant care, her parents are the ones most likely to provide it. They can buy her a huge multimillion dollar estate, with a swimming pool and several cars, all in her name. They will just happen to live there. Even if she’s too injured to enjoy these things, they certainly will. And if the girl dies, who do you think is the next of kin?

Meanwhile, unless this is covered by insurance, it’s certain that the company will have to make layoffs to cover the huge loss. And even if it is covered, premiums will have to be raised. In other words, some people are going to lose their jobs while the guy who ran over the girl is set for life.

The bottom line is, the father is, by far, the most guilty party here, and in a just system, he would be the one to pay damages.

Yes. I assume the girl had a different guardian for the purposes of the lawsuit. (Certainly in NY that would be required)

Most importantly – when awarding damages, shouldn’t the jury at least know that the person who caused the accident is the legal guardian of the victim, and so would stand to become a multi-millionaire from his own grossly negligent conduct???

The father doesn’t stand to gain bupkus. It’s the kid’s money. I would assume that, if CA is similar to NY, the money of a minor is protected. Courts are always worried about this very issue and bend over backwards to protect the kid from relatives who might have an eye on the money.

Eric T. said: “The fact that the injured was related isn’t legally significant.”

Someone versed in law please tell me how the fact that the driver was the father of the victim is not legally significant??

1. Doesn’t it mean that the driver was even more negligent than if it was a stranger? After all, he moved the vehicle after forgetting that a passenger was missing.

2. Isn’t there a direct conflict of interest when this driver, an employee of the company, is sued by his own daughter? Essentially you have, if nothing else, the strong possibility (if not absolute certainty) that the two will collude together to maximize damages against the deepest pocket in this case.

3. Most importantly – when awarding damages, shouldn’t the jury at least know that the person who caused the accident is the legal guardian of the victim, and so would stand to become a multi-millionaire from his own grossly negligent conduct??? Many states have laws that prevent criminals from cashing in on their crimes – couldn’t that law be applied in this case as well?

4. Finally, what if – hypothetically – the father intentionally tried to kill the daughter that day? Should he still be rewarded for this?

The expansion of an employer’s vicarious liability to include acts that (a) clearly do not benefit the employer and (b) have been forbidden by the employer is simply a way of finding a deep pocket.

If an employer fails to “choose employees wisely,” the remedy is a direct (active negligence) claim for negligent hiring, not the imposition of vicarious liability without fault. The “choose wisely” rhetoric is just an attempt to make it seem that the employer is being held liable for some negligent act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frolic_and_detour

Corps don’t benefit when an employee, while doing the acts of his employer (truck driving), acts negligently and hurts someone. That is the downside of the master-servant equation.

So long as the truck driver has not taken a “frolic and detour” off his route (i.e. going several blocks out of his way to buy groceries and hits someone while off route) the company will be responsible.

Assuming the driver has not gone off-route, he hasn’t taken the frolic and detour.

Put another way, if he had improperly picked up a hitchhiker, but was still on route and had an accident, then same result, company would be vicariously liable. Thus, choose your employees wisely.

The fact that the injured was related isn’t legally significant.