Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Apr 26, 2011
Why does anyone need indemnity & why would Ms. Ward's relatives sue? It was a tragic accident. The driver was not at fault. Can Ms. Ward's relatives not understand that she perhaps made an error of judgment or timing which caused or contributed to her fatal accident?
Why try to get a monetary reward?
Why wouldn't they sue? That's the name of the game. [Portion deleted.] No, the family can not understand it was a tragic accident and money will not bring back Ms. Ward. Sad, but true.
I understood that his rig was too big to be on that road legally. The trucker made an error of judgement by using that road. I don't see how he can claim that someone else set up a dangerous situation for him when he wasn't supposed to be there in the first place!
if the truck could not be there legally he would have been found at fault in the accident or at a minimum it would have been a contributing factor. It isn't illegal and it wasn't a contributing factor.
Do any of you recall the O. J. Simpson trial? A criminal court found him "not guilty," but a civil court found him liable for about $30 million (as I recall) in damages for his role in the wrongful death of Ron Goldman.
THAT'S why you sue.
Just because the highway patrol found insufficient evidence (no witnesses, etc.) to fault the truck driver doesn't mean a civil jury won't find the trucker (especially one with his driving record) has some liability.
Sorry POGO, OJ was jury nulification pure and simple. Unlike this case, it's not like the police didn't think he did it. It's possible a civil jury could find this driver liable, but it is only due to a lower standard for the finding of "guilt." My bet is this case settles on the court house steps. The woman's family will get their pound of flesh because the insurance company doesn't want to take the risk or expend the money to defend what is a truly defensible case. It all comes down to numbers and probablities of outcomes for the insurance company.
The Almanac didn't pick up on this thread, but the Mercury News did. On December 23, 2010:
"TRUCK IN FATAL CRASH WAS TOO HEAVY FOR AREA
Gabriel Manzur Vera was driving a big rig that was 700 pounds too heavy for unincorporated San Mateo County roads when he struck and killed a bicyclist near Portola Valley last month, a California Highway Patrol spokesman has confirmed.
Investigators checked out Vera's 26-wheel truck at the scene of the Nov. 4 collision that killed Los Altos Hills resident Lauren Ward. They concluded that the big rig had no mechanical defects, but that it was too heavy for unincorporated county...."
That is all I can pull from the archives without paying, but it confirms my memory that the trucker should not have been on that road at all.
I don't disagree with you about the reasons for the acquittal.
My point is that the burden of proof is LOWER in a civil case... which is why you sue.
The newspapers say Ms. Ward turned into the truck. But no cyclist I have talked to can explain why somebody riding alongside a large truck would turn into the truck. The statements by the CHP are non-sense. Hopefully a court case will give this accident proper scrutiny; the CHP wasn't very motivated to spend time trying to understand what happened.
There is a theory that the rider turned into the side of the truck because a driver came up behind her on her left side, intent on merging left to head into Ladera.
If there was such a vehicle and if it was being driven aggressively, it could have been enough to scare the rider and cause her to lose balance or initiate evasive action. Consider your response upon hearing the acceleration and perhaps seeing in your bike mirror a large SUV coming up on what might seem like a near-collision course.
No witnesses have come forward. If this is what happened, I don't see how the CHP can ever penetrate it unless a witness comes forward.
Ya, the CHP was so unmotivated they went out a second time to do further investigation. Give me a break.
The CHP doesn't have to do any more investigating. The plaintiff will present their investigative findings and the defendant theirs (the CHP report, probably).
It will be up the lawyers and a jury to decide who's at fault.
however, POGO, what the the trucking company and driver are requesting is that county residents pay for the findings of the jury.
It's too early to make a decision on the CHP findings until the results of the second investigation are back.
nice catch of the Mercury News article, Robbie. -- I hadn't seen that one.
I also seem to remember that the CHP became motivated to do the second investigation after hearing that the family's investigators came to a different conclusion.
The county will not voluntarily accept assignment of liability, of course, and the trucking company will have to sue them. I assume the trucking company has insurance and it is the insurance company that is pursuing this.
Either way, the courts will sort it all out.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.
Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?
- Atherton: Lindenwood
- Atherton: Lloyden Park
- Atherton: other
- Atherton: West Atherton
- Atherton: West of Alameda
- Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
- Menlo Park: Belle Haven
- Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
- Menlo Park: Downtown
- Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
- Menlo Park: Felton Gables
- Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
- Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks
- Menlo Park: other
- Menlo Park: Park Forest
- Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
- Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
- Menlo Park: Stanford Hills
- Menlo Park: Stanford Weekend Acres
- Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
- Menlo Park: The Willows
- Menlo Park: University Heights
- Portola Valley: Brookside Park
- Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
- Portola Valley: Ladera
- Portola Valley: Los Trancos Woods/Vista Verde
- Portola Valley: other
- Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch
- Portola Valley: Westridge
- Portola Valley: Woodside Highlands
- Woodside: Emerald Hills
- Woodside: Family Farm/Hidden Valley
- Woodside: Kings Mountain/Skyline
- Woodside: Mountain Home Road
- Woodside: other
- Woodside: Skywood/Skylonda
- Woodside: Woodside Glens
- Woodside: Woodside Heights
- Woodside: Woodside Hills
- Belle Haven Elementary
- Corte Madera School
- Encinal School
- Hillview Middle School
- James Flood Magnet School
- La Entrada School
- Las Lomitas School
- Laurel School
- Menlo-Atherton High School
- Oak Knoll School
- Ormondale School
- Willow Oaks Elementary
- Woodside High School
- Woodside School
- another community
Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.
Teavana Palo Alto closes
By Elena Kadvany | 7 comments | 4,173 views
What Freshmen Should be Thinking About College
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 17 comments | 3,356 views
Waiting on the Edge of Death
By Chandrama Anderson | 8 comments | 1,953 views
Welcome Back Sugar Addict
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 1,764 views
Menlo Park Playing Nicely
By Paul Bendix | 1 comment | 381 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Menlo Park
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
Palo Alto Online
Mountain View Voice
© 2015 The Almanac
All rights reserved.