The 31 mph reading for an instant can be blamed on several factors including the slight lateral force the car puts on the bus. The interesting thing is that when the bus is traveling at 28, there is no increase in engine speed which makes it hard to say that the bus was traveling faster than the 28 mph the box registered consistently prior to the accident.

Secondly, the bus was under control. The only person driving too fast for the conditions appears to be the driver of the van. In essence, the theory seems to be “we believe the bus driver and the city should be punished for controlling their vehicle in a reasonable manner.”

Lastly, your “offer another solution” appears to me to be trying to make the point that because one negligent driver / city / bus company was at fault for an accident, all drivers / bus companies / cities should be held accountable for any accident. There is no perfect system, but people are more receptive to ideas that penalize the guilty than penalize the innocent because the guilty may have gotten away with something.

Only a trial lawyer “for injured people” would think the bus driver was at fault. After all that is where the money is.

Notice that there’s some delay in the speed registered in the video: it says “28 mph” at the time of the accident and then “31 mph” immediately after. But anyone who confidently asserts the drive was without fault needs to explain that “31 mph” reading, and then also explain why they think even 30 mph would be appropriate in those circumstanes (sic).

Do you think that it is possible that the impact of the collision may have caused a faulty reading?

Are you arguing that anyone driving on a road should have to factor into their driving that a car from the other side of the road is going to cross over and skid right in front of their vehicle? How, prey tell, does one do that? I would say that driving at 28 mph is already factoring in the weather condition into his driving. The only person that was at fault was the driver of the car that lost control of his vehicle. I am only surprised that you didn’t argue that the highway department was also at fault because there was no barrier separating the two sides of the road.

First, the bus appeared to be driving over 30mph at the time of the accident. Notice that there’s some delay in the speed registered in the video: it says “28 mph” at the time of the accident and then “31 mph” immediately after, which is obviously not correct. Was the bus driver speeding? Was it “pedal misapplication,” with the driver hitting the gas instead of the brakes? I don’t know. But anyone who confidently asserts the drive was without fault needs to explain that “31 mph” reading, and then also explain why they think even 30 mph would be appropriate in those circumstanes.

Second, assuming this is an example of the city paying to avoid joint and several liability or of the municipality not fighting hard enough, anyone who argues against this system needs to recognize the consequences of alternative systems. In Pennsylvania, for example, municipal liability is capped, which is why a high school student who lost her leg when a blatantly negligent school bus driver ran over her can’t collect more than $500k. I think that’s unfair; maybe you think otherwise, but denying that injustices will happen with municipal liability caps and removing joint and several is just dishonest.

He cites the following:

The bus is totally under control. When it makes the turn, there is no evidence of sliding, over revving o f the engine, etc to indicate the bus was traveling too fast for the conditions.

According to his table of information, a small bus would take 100 feet to stop under the best of conditions. In two seconds, at 28 mph, the bus traveled a little over 40 feet. There is no way the bus could have stopped in time.

Combine that with there is no place for the bus to go – it cannot avoid to the left or the right, the bus was not doing anything wrong or out of the ordinary.

Contrast that with the van. It is the only vehicle that you see that is out of control, spinning wheels, etc. The rest of the line of cars are all clearly under control. As it goes into its slide, it passes other cars in the lane. This is an indication that it was traveling too fast for the conditions.

He then said in his opinion, the bus and the bus driver did nothing wrong that contributed to this accident. He then said that because the city has the deep pockets and the plaintiff is “sympathetic,” he believed that city settled for that reason – not for the facts being against them.

You can take his opinion for what it is worth, but I thought it was interesting to note here.

The average person does not know our legal system works this way, or they would be in favor of reasonable tort reform.

This case is everything that is wrong with the our legal system, I see it every day 🙁

@DEM — Yes, exactly. But, what’s the solution? I don’t know that a “no-fault” system is it, since it still relies on insurance to pay all the claims.

What, exactly, is the breach of duty here? The bus driver is driving 28 mph in a 30 mph zone. Is that unreasonable? If so, then what speed is “reasonable” here? 25? 20? Even less?

Then, presuming a breach of duty, where is the causation? If the bus driver had been driving a “reasonable” speed, say 20 mph, would the collision have been avoided? “If a defendant’s negligence does nothing more than furnish a condition by which injury is made possible, that negligence is not the proximate cause of injury.” Thompson v. County of Cook, 154 Ill.2d 374 (1993).

The answer is simple: deep pockets. The fault lies with the driver of the oncoming vehicle, if it lies anywhere. But odds are he/she has a liability limit well below $1 million, so our civil “justice” system tells the only deep pocket left: you are the real target, we don’t care about actual tortfeasor’s liability. Now spend tons of money to defend yourself and roll the dice in front of a jury whose heartstrings will be tugged at length by the victim’s lawyers.

Yes, it is a rational decision to settle in the face of that emotional diceroll. The issue is that the jury system and our tort law have become welath redistribution schemes that are designed to bring about that very result, regardless of fault.