Lawyer of DUI victim: "Any person who was aware she was drinking is an accomplice."

[pnwmom]

"She didn't just wake up one morning with a drug problem and capable of drinking that much alcohol."

They're looking around for family members to sue because a woman smoked some marijuana and drove drunk.

So it's a brother's fault that a sister drove drunk rather than wait for him to pick her up?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,537422,00.html

SNIP

Lawyers representing the Bastardi family said they plan to sue the relatives of wrong-way driver Diane Schuler — calling it "inconceivable" that they were unaware she was drunk when she crashed a minivan full of kids on July 26 into Guy and Michael Bastardi.

The two men — along with family friend Daniel Longo — died after Schuler's minivan collided with their SUV on the Taconic State Parkway.

Schuler's brother, Warren Hance, told police that his sister called him at about 1 p.m. — about 30 minutes before the fiery crash — telling him she felt dizzy.

Police said Hance told her to pull over and that he was going to pick her up. Instead, Schuler, 36, ignored his order and drove the wrong way for 1.7 miles along the Taconic.

SNIP

[SleeplessInAlabama]

1. So, I really don't mean to marginalize their loss BUT.....

Isn't it kind of fitting that the Bastardi lawyer wants to find someone completely unrelated to the actual incident to blame for the incident?

[pnwmom]

3. It's clearly about deep pockets. And maybe setting a precedent for themselves. n/t

[blueamy66]

22. Definitely.

This lawsuit is ridiculous and a waste of taxpayers' money. The judge should throw the case out of court, if it gets that far.

[LisaL]

23. Well sorry three people who had nothing to do with this woman

are dead. I doubt the lawsuit against her relatives are gonna fly, but she presumably had car insurance, which presumably should be paying for something, no?
WTF is insurance for if not?

[pnwmom]

40. Of course her estate and/or insurance should pay damages.

But not her relatives, who couldn't control her actions.

[LisaL]

56. Her assests presumaly were shared with her husband.

She is dead. Who exactly are the lawyers supposed to sue?

[pnwmom]

59. The lawyers should sue her ESTATE. Then probate court decides how to separate

her assets from her husband's.

[liberalhistorian]

86. Well, the husband lost his wife and daughter, with their young

son also in the hospital, and the brother lost his three daughters. I think this suit is cruel, nasty, mean-spirited and WRONG.

[Johonny]

26. exactly ever listen to Glenn Beck

it's your fault that he was a drunk loser for most of his life. If only you told him to stop drinking and find god. They think the hippy 60 life style is to blame for their faults. For some people personal responsibility is for everyone but themselves.

[Expedite Trucker]

29. A travesty thats what I'd call it!

[CreekDog]

71. If they proceed to sue relatives, then their name is fitting too

Bastardi?

[BlooInBloo]

2. Somehow I don't think that's gonna fly.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

4. What did the lawyers want the family members to do?

[pnwmom]

5. If this is to become the standard, then most families are in trouble. n/t

[4lbs]

8. They are probably going to argue that the family should have known previously about her heavy

drinking problem, held some sort of intervention, and at least put her in one of those 28-day facilities.

[pnwmom]

10. You can't legally force an adult into treatment, even with an intervention.

Even if they could have gotten her cooperation, those facilities are extremely expensive.

[4lbs]

11. It will be interesting to see how M.A.D.D. addresses this lawsuit and the crash itself. (n/t)

.

[Wizard777]

92. It only takes two members of the immediate family to sign commitment papers.

Then the person is committed and has go through a sanity hearing before being released.

[Egalitariat]

12. Be rich?

[sofa king]

75. Not polish off all the booze and dope before leaving the campsite?

Just a guess, there, and it has to be a guess because the lawyer's comments are so inflammatory and incoherent (the first sign of a shitty lawyer, by the way).

But seriously, the driver in question had to have been partying all morning to be that wasted by 1pm. Partying, with others, with an obvious plan to drive a carload of kids hours back home after getting fucked up. There is definitely something wrong with that, though I can't say if it is something over which one can sue another.

[NashVegas]

95. What We Expect Bartenders To Do

And then some, apparently.

[reflection]

6. Sound, fury

nothing

[pnwmom]

7. Wrong. The family will have huge legal bills to face.

They can't NOT defend themselves.

[reflection]

9. You're right.

I was referring to the content of the argument, not the real-life consequences. But yeah, you're absolutely right. I hope they are able to get good legal help without bankrupting themselves.

[Hepburn]

17. Insurance....

...they appear to be alleging negligence against the family for not stopping her ~~ which IMO is a bullshit theory ~~ and homeowners/auto appear to have a duty to defend.

JMHO

[LisaL]

21. Presumably her insurance should be paying for it,

despite the fact that she is dead, no?
Accident sure looks to be her fault, after all.

[Hepburn]

82. If a policy was in effect on the vehicle at the time of the event....

...her death is irrelevant.

IMO, however, the ins defense attys most likely would defend under a "reservation of right" because her conduct appears to be a lot more than negligent ~~ ins usually does not cover intentional conduct. If her drinking and driving were to be found to be intentional, they might be off the hook. IMO, what she did is grossly negligent, but without actual intent.

JMHO

[NashVegas]

96. They Could Try Counter-Suing (Harrassment, Emotional Distress)

[Me.]

13. The Family Of The Victims Has A Right To Be Outraged

and I suspect the talk of lawsuits has a lot to do with that. She was both high and drunk, driving aggressively into oncoming traffic. And when she called her brother to tell him she wasn't feeling well. he told her to pull over and he'd come and get her. One family lost a father and a son as well as a good friend. Now, whether this goes further, we'll see. But up until yesterday, there was compassion for all involved until the news broke that she was both drunk and high. I imagine that feelings and the outrage are still raw.

[pnwmom]

14. The brother of the woman lost his three daughters in the accident.

Imagine how he feels being threatened with a lawsuit, too.

[Me.]

15. I Agree

But my point is that shock and anger may be in play here more than anything else. The story has featured here for over a week and there was a great deal of sympathy all around until yesterday when the report came in about her blood tests.

[pnwmom]

19. The attorneys are supposed to be professionals, not acting out of shock and anger.n/t

[Me.]

25. If Only

It will ultimately be the family's call and time may bring clarity to the situation but as I said the report has only been out for only a little over 24 hours and the shock factor is still in effect. The entire city seemed to gasp when the report came out and even now as I write this they're promoing the story on the news.

[pnwmom]

39. These attorneys must be ambulance chasers. n/t

[NashVegas]

99. It's More Than Shock and Anger. It's Rationalization

Which, in itself, the family may be using as a defense against feeling the pain of grief.

[LisaL]

27. The family lost three people just driving, having nothing to do

with this woman, or whatever problems she was having. I am sure they want some sort of justice. I understand them perfectly well.

[pnwmom]

44. They want justice, but their own solution is UNJUST.

They're trying to blame people who aren't responsible for the tragedy, like the brother who lost his own three children in the accident.

[liberalhistorian]

87. Not to mention that the husband lost his wife and young

daughter, too. It's not as if her family isn't suffering horribly, either. And the Bastardi guy's gonna have to not only prove that she had a drinking problem, not an easy task legally, frankly, but also that the family knew about it, also not easy. And then there's the factor that, even if she DID have a problem and they DID know about it, which may very well not be the case, you still cannot legally force adults into treatment, you can't FORCE them to do anything. It's not like they're teenagers. The only thing they might have to go on is if the husband knew she'd been drinking when she left the campground with the kids and he let her go anyway. Problem is, they're gonna have a helluva time proving that, with the campground owner and others present at the time saying they saw no signs of her drinking.

[NashVegas]

97. No One Would Disagree. But Do They Have the Right To Inflict Distress Upon Those Who Had No Control?

Over the incident?

[Confusious]

16. Hmmmm

This is pocket digging, pure and simple. I'm responsible for my brothers, my father, my sister, the guy who walked pass me in a bar that was drunk?

Must be a republican lawyer.

[qanda]

18. If these family members knew and still let them drive their children around

No monetary value is going to punish them any more than they've already been punished.

[LisaL]

20. This is the family of the people she collided with.

Who didn't know this woman or her family from Adam. Are they supposed to be somehow comforted by what you are suggesting?

[pnwmom]

43. That isn't the point. They have suffered an awful loss, but no one, not even

close family members, can force an adult into treatment. And treatment is extremely expensive and often ineffective -- especially if the abuser herself isn't totally committed.

Maybe the solution is to add a tax to alcohol manufacturers, that would cover the cost of setting up a fund for the victims of drunk driving.

[LisaL]

52. Do you or do you not agree that if the woman did not die, she'd

be sued? She did die, but what about any assets she had? I presume the assets didn't disappear into thin air.
I sincerely doubt the family plans to sue her brother, by the way, despite what you tried to imply.

[pnwmom]

62. The lawyers didn't say they plan to sue the woman's estate,

or even the husband of the woman. They said they plan to sue her relative(s) -- note the plural --that is, anyone who knew she was drinking, thus becoming an "accomplice."

The only lawsuit that should be made is against the woman's estate. The relatives -- even her husband -- couldn't legally control this adult's actions, and therefore can't legally be held responsible for them.

A friend of mine went to court several times trying to get legal control of her schizophrenic, drug addicted mother. Each time, the mother was able to convince a judge that she was legally competent to run her own life, no matter how much trouble she'd gotten into.

You obviously have no experience in how difficult these situations can be.

[qanda]

74. Oh, I don't mind if the other family sues. That's their right.

I can't say what I would do if I were in the same situation. My point is that it really doesn't matter what you do to the family now, there's no punishment greater than what they've already received. If the family knew that the woman was an alcoholic and drug abuser, she should have been the last person driving five kids anywhere.

[liberalhistorian]

88. No, but they need to recognize that the woman's family

suffered horrible losses as well, and that their pain and grief isn't minimized by the circumstances. The families of "non-innocent" people who suffer such losses suffer just as much as the "innocent" victims. This makes them look really nasty and mean-spirited.

And I'm still not sure I entirely believe the report and what's being said. It just doesn't make any sense and there are too many "facts" that just don't fit. I've heard of conditions whereby sugar in the blood is turned into alcohol, including with cases of diabetics, which is what she was.

[H2O Man]

24. In search of

deep pockets.

[DRoseDARs]

28. "Bastardi" family? Really? What an unfortunate last name...

Tragic that all these people died as a result of one person's drunken stupidity, but these "Bastardi" people are a bunch of bastards for inflicting further pain and suffering on undeserving parties. Are they going to throw in suing wherever she bought her alcohol, or the manufacturer of it? How about suing the state for not ensuring 100% that drunks can't drive the wrong way on a highway too?

[LisaL]

30. The family lost three people, and you are complaining about

their last name?
WTF does their last name have to do with anything?

[DRoseDARs]

31. Evidently, even AFTER you edited your own post, you still didnt manage to read past the subject line

Abort, Retry, Fail?_

[LisaL]

32. Actually I edited the post because I believed it was too mean

towards you. Now I see I should have left it the way it was.

[DRoseDARs]

33. "..but these 'Bastardi' people are a bunch of bastards for inflicting further pain and suffering.."

Irony: Some people get it, some people ARE it.

[LisaL]

35. You are something else.

They've lost three people whose only fault was to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time. And that is what you have to say?

[DRoseDARs]

42. Cripes, the reading comprehension is low with this one.

You must've been a joy to be around when doing in-class group readings.

Advice: Start over, read more carefully, and consider the words. I'm sympathetic to the involved parties in their loss ("Tragic that all these people died as a result of one person's drunken stupidity"), but I am not sympathetic to suing uninvolved parties who had zero control (!) over a drunk (!) not listening (!) when told to stay put (!) until someone could get to her to help her and her family get home safely ("inflicting further pain and suffering on undeserving parties"). You're making this way harder than it ought to be.

[LisaL]

46. Where is your reading comprehension?

If the woman didn't die, would it be appropriate to sue her? Yes or no? Well she is dead, but
presumably she had insurance and assets. Since when is it inappropriate to get compensation for the three dead people?

[pnwmom]

49. NO ONE HERE is saying that her insurance and assets shouldn't be available

to compensate the injured parties.

But the point of the OP is that the attorneys are talking about going after relatives -- after anyone who should have known that she had a drinking problem. And that's a whole different thing.

[DRoseDARs]

50. Others more knowledgeable than I are taking your argument apart and you still don't listen.

I don't think anything I say will sway you, so I think I'll pass on buying your bull.

[CreekDog]

72. So it's fair to sue her brother?

you're crazy.

i'm happy to be the third person to point this out to you.

[LisaL]

78. And you can't comprehend what it is you are reading.

I specifically pointed out that I think suing the brother is very far fetched. So WTF are you talking about?

[CreekDog]

79. The attorney said they will go after her relatives

i guess you don't think a brother is a relative.

that's mine and other's :wtf: by the way.

but my main issue prior to that was your justifying her relatives being sued for her actions, rather than just her estate.

[LisaL]

80. I am not justifying anything.

I think you are reading way too much into that article. I would be very surprised if they actually ened up suing the brother.
:eyes:

[pnwmom]

65. That explains, but does not justify, their attacking people whose only connection

is that they were related to the woman -- but as powerless to stop the addict as we are.

[LisaL]

81. In case you missed this, I don't think any of the relatives

are admitting they knew the woman was a drinker, or drinking on that day.

[DRoseDARs]

83. Actually, they've done exactly that: Claiming she had no known history of alcoholism

Or even a history of ever even getting drunk. Also, the husband's lawyer is claiming to have a witness claiming Diane was not drinking or smoking pot the day of the crash though the lawyer is being light on details for legal reasons.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/08/06/2009-08-06_taconic_tragedy_driver_diane_schulers_husband.html

[LisaL]

94. Isn't that what I said?

They aren't admitting she was a drinker.
Hello.

[liberalhistorian]

89. You seem to keep conveniently forgetting that the woman's

family suffered horrible losses as well, as bad as this family's losses. Their grief and pain is as legitimate as the other family's and, legally speaking, this Bastardi guy's gonna have a helluva task on his hand proving any of this. And it's just plain cruel and mean-spirited to go after a family who's suffered the same losses and who may not even have known anything.

And there's still to much here that just doesn't make sense, doesn't fit. I'm not sure I entirely believe the report.

[Maine-ah]

36. well, if the people who sold her the alcohol, sold it to her knowing that

she was drunk, they could legally be held responsible. I don't know in other states, but here it's illegal to serve/sell alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person.

Again, I say "could" because I have no clue what the laws are in the state where the accident took place.

[DRoseDARs]

37. Amazing, a reasoned response to my admittedly harsh post. Thank you. n/t

[pnwmom]

47. I think I read that there was a broken bottle in the car. She might have just

bought a bottle and consumed all or most of it. She might not have had a single drink before she bought the bottle.

[Maine-ah]

69. she was twice the legal limit, right?

that's not a drink, or a bottle. Well, depends on what the bottle was.

[LisaL]

102. It was vodka.

[JVS]

103. Seriously.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. If they could prove they knew she was drunk, they'd have case.

Personally, I think it was murder/suicide.

Sure, twice the legal limit is drunk. Embarass yourself at the X-mas party drunk, not drive on the wrong side of the freeway for ten miles drunk.

[omega minimo]

38. God help Congress if that ever applies to the Crimes of the Bush/Cheney Administration

[pnwmom]

64. That's for sure. n/t

[ColesCountyDem]

41. My mother was an alcoholic, so I recognize a load of legal manure when I see it. n/t

[pnwmom]

45. Most of us have had to deal with an alcoholic in the family.

Anyone who has knows that you can't force an unwilling adult into treatment.

[LisaL]

48. Yea well if that unwilling adult one day drives the wrong way on a highway

you might end up with a problem.
Presumably she had assets, and just because she is dead, why exactly is it inappropriate to go after these assets?

[pnwmom]

51. Who said anywhere that it is inappropriate to go after HER assets?

What I and others object to is trying to hold her relatives responsible, as the attorneys say -- "anyone" who knew she had a drinking problem is an "accomplice."

[DRoseDARs]

53. Oh, there's a name for the fallacy she's using. Strawman, I think?

God I wish I could find my notes from my debate class.

[LisaL]

54. I sincerely doubt the lawyer plans to sue her brother, if that

is what you are trying to imply.

[pnwmom]

57. Read the OP. That is exactly what the reporter implies. n/t

[LisaL]

60. I don't see anything suggesting they plan to sue the brother.

I think suing the brother would be a very far-fetched idea.

[DRoseDARs]

61. ORLY? "Lawyers representing the Bastardi family said they plan to sue the relatives"

I'm gonna take a WILD guess and say you posted that before seeing I posted the above line a few minutes ago, a direct quote from the article?



So, the brother isn't a relative or family member by what stretch of the imagination?

[pnwmom]

63. Then we agree. Suing the brother IS a far-fetched idea,

but lawyers have had far fetched ideas before.

[DRoseDARs]

66. And I have to imagine that this one wouldn't sit well with a judge or jury if presented in court.

As has been said over and over, go for the insurance ... don't go after the family. One is appropriate, the other is vindictive and petty.

[apocalypsehow]

98. Then you can't read. n/t.

[DRoseDARs]

58. ORLY? "Lawyers representing the Bastardi family said they plan to sue the relatives"

So are they lying, which a judge and jury would frown upon, or are they belligerently posturing, which a judge and jury would frown upon?

[CreekDog]

73. they are threatening her other relatives assets

are you purposely being this hard headed?

if you want to prove that you didn't read the article or that you don't comprehend English that's really not necessary because you've got everybody here convinced.

[LisaL]

107. Why don't we wait and see what lawsuits are actually filed?

[NashVegas]

105. Why Are You Being Deliberately Obtuse?

From every published record we have, the surviving family of the crash victims are suing the surviving relatives of the crash driver, and not the driver's estate.

What part of that don't you get?

What part of people commenting on news stories' content as it is published do you have a problem with?

[ColesCountyDem]

55. Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My Mom got sober the day SHE decided to get sober, and not one minute before. Had I known that that was how it HAD TO BE, I could have saved myself many years of tears, anger and anguish.

[liberalhistorian]

90. Amen. My stepdad was an alcoholic for most of my

growing up years (he changed and got treatment when I was an adult, finally), and his father was one as well. You are absolutely correct, and anyone who hasn't dealt with that has no business being so rigidly judgmental and doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

[gleaner]

104. True....

and sometimes you cannot keep them from driving. My uncle was an alcoholic and after he argued with his wife he always tried to drive away. My father would try to stop him, but it was no go unless my father used physical force, which he often did. Once he had to whack my uncle on the head with a twoxfour and knock him out.

The next day my uncle thought he had a really bad hangover and remembered nothing else. You can try your best, but you can't always control the actions of someone who is drunk unless you render them unconscious. How many people are willing to do that? Especially when they could get arrested for assault themselves?

[Politicalboi]

67. Well maybe the dead woman's family can sue

Big alcohol for being an accomplice. If it weren't for them they would all be alive. I wait for that day to come. I hope it comes soon. I pity the poor alcoholic who is trying to give the shit up and see commercials on TV for it. Oh but Joe Camel on a billboard in downtown L.A is so dangerous but 3 cute frogs taught your 3 year old to say
Bud Wise Er. How cute.

[LisaL]

68. Want it or not alcohol is a legal product.

Ever heard of drinking responsibly?

[Hippo_Tron]

84. And Marilyn Manson is to blame for Columbine...

:eyes:

Alcoholism is a disease, end of story.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

70. Update - Diane Schuler's husband wants her body exhumed and independent autopsy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6232113

[liberalhistorian]

91. I would definitely agree with that, and I'm glad he's doing that.

Because I'm not sure I really believe the report. There's too much that doesn't fit and doesn't make sense. She was a diabetic, for one thing, and there have been known conditions which will turn sugar in the blood into a form of alcohol.

That may not be the case, it may very well be all true. But I think there are too many legitimate, lingering questions that need to be answered and an independent autopsy is the way to do it.

[musette_sf]

100. agreed

the timeline of when she was supposed to have consumed all this booze doesn't add up.

the ppl who saw her leave the campsite said she appeared normal/sober.

ppl at a McDonald's she stopped at, an hour before the crash, report that she appeared normal/sober.

i don't see, unless she was absolutely nuts, that she would have slammed the equivalent of 10 shots of vodka after she got back in the car at McD's.

like you say, it may all be true, but it just doesn't add up.

[WeDidIt]

76. My sympathy level for the Bastardi family just took a nose dive

Seeking deeper pockets through somebody with no responsibility in the accident simply to profit from tragedy makes the Bastardis lowlife scum, IMO.

[Liberal_in_LA]

101. agreed

[Stevenmarc]

77. In Lawyer speak accomplice = additional pockets to dig into

[NecklyTyler]

85. Next those lawyers will want to go after gun manufactures because criminals misuse their products

Oh wait, they already have

[DainBramaged]

93. What are you doing in this thread?

And what kind of a stupid crack was that? You gun huggers think EVERYTHING involves YOUR rights. You should think about where you really belong rather than where you think you belong.


:eyes:

[LisaL]

106. By the way the father is now being investigated by CPS.

"CBS 2 has learned that Daniel Schuler, whose wife was at the wheel of the minivan that caused the deadly accident, is himself now being investigated by Suffolk County Child Protective Services.

Officials tell CBS 2 they're "looking into" Schuler and his children as it relates to the day of the accident. They say they want to learn how much Schuler knew about his wife's drinking and marijuana use the day of the crash that killed eight people, including his wife, Diane, and daughter, Erin."

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/daniel.schuler.taconic.2.1119668.html