[pyritechips]

Drinking driver wins $600,000 settlement

Last Updated Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:49:53

CALGARY - Gregg Crackel drank some alcohol, drove into the back of a stalled paving truck in Calgary and, ultimately, walked away with $600,000.

On Friday, Justice Donald MacLeod ruled that Crackel, 35, was entitled to damages because the truck driver and owner had been negligent.

The defendants were cited for failing to use cones, or triangles, and for not leaving the truck's four-way flashers on.

But the judge ruled Crackel was partly responsible for the accident, and refused to award him the requested sum of $828,500.

The judge also said it was unclear what Crackel's blood alcohol level had been, and suggested it had been just above the legal limit.

A sample seized at hospital showed a blood alcohol level of twice the legal limit.

Crackel was hospitalized for two months with a skull fracture and other injuries.

He now has ongoing memory and personality problems associated with brain injury.

Written by CBC News Online staff

[angelize56]

Jim: Pretty outrageous! What if he'd plowed into a group of children playing....let me guess...they shouldn't have been in the way of a drunk! Bet his "memory loss" goes away long enough to sign the check! Thanks for the post Jim! Take care. angel

[KeithKman]

rofl.

[LANMaster]

Unfortunately, it is a slam-dunk defense.

The city workers WERE negligent. The accident could have also happened to a sober person.

However, I think the driver should ALSO be charged with drunk
driving and be given the strongest sentence the law allows.

[Gibble]

^^^Agreed

[Rockn]

Are thos Canadian dollars? What's that come to in US.....around $2.95?

I see our northern brothers and sisters are catching up to the US with the frivilous lawsuits...

Crackel might have been more awake if her were smoking crack instead of drinking. He would have probably been awarded damages then as well.

[pyritechips]

Are thos Canadian dollars? What's that come to in US.....around $2.95?

LOL Rockn! Good one!

I think the driver should ALSO be charged with drunk

I agree, "if".

"If" he was legally drunk and "if" the police and prosecution proceed with the proper charges. Personally, I'd like to see more details. first the story states he "drank some alcohol". Well, "some" could means anything, from a small glass of wine with a meal all the way up to blind, roaring drunk. Then the story says "The judge also said it was unclear what Crackel's blood alcohol level had been, and suggested it had been just above the legal limit." It sounds like his blood/alcohol level could not be proven despite the fact that "A sample seized at hospital showed a blood alcohol level of twice the legal limit." Why was the sample not allowed as damning evidence? Was it taken without consent or warrent? Was it taken after the alloted time? (I know in some jurisdictions blood samples or breathalyzers must be taken within a specific time period after arrest.) Even Marlene said "they shouldn't have been in the way of a drunk". Avalid sentiment but it wasn't proven that he was a drunk.

[Mulderator]

Trust me--I've seen much worse than that--there is no absurdity that would surprise me at this point.

Although, as LAN properly pointed out, unless the drinking actually is the cause of the accident, it would not be fair to deny a drunk his damages caused by someone else's negligence.

There was a case here in San Diego I recall very well--I don't remember all of the facts, but there was a ramp that was being built on the freeway and it was blocked off with signs and barricades. Some moron on a motorcycle who was drunker than hell decided to take that ramp--went between the barricades (i.e., they were those barricades that are maybe 6 feet wide and would only block the path of an automobile, not a motorcycle). Anyway, he goes off the end of the ramp (which of course ended with a drop off to the ground) and paralyzes himself from the neck down. The case goes to trial and the guy was awarded something like 6 million dollars. The plaintiff argued that the ramp should have been made completely inaccessible (i.e., a fence completely across it preventing anyone from going any further) and that even a sober person could make the mistake of going through the barricades thinking it was just to stop cars. Well, the jury bought the argument and Plaintiff won.

That's why we attorneys are forced to settle cases--because you morons sitting on the juries don't know what the hell you're doing!

[pyritechips]

That's why we attorneys are forced to settle cases--because you morons sitting on the juries don't know what the hell you're doing!

Well, this is one moron that's never sat on a jury so there:

I have sat on a motorcycle though and done things approaching the stupidity of the moron in the story. Luckily no permanent injuries resulted; most of my injuries were to my pride!

[LANMaster]

* LAN is shopping for a motorcycle *

off road but street legal. prolly in the 250-350 cc range.

[pyritechips]

* LAN is shopping for a motorcycle *

Call the moron in Mr Mulder's story. He won't be needing his any more!

[LANMaster]

Too much bad karma on that one.

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by pyritechips:
Luckily no permanent injuries resulted

You're talking physical injuries, right?

[pyritechips]

You're talking physical injuries, right?

Correct. The other injuries aren't anything a few carefully executed lobotomies couldn't cure!

[GoneForNow]

Well I got a story that Mulder will love.

I represent a motorcycle driver who was traveling down a dual lane highway at about 2 am. A car from a neighborhood bar pulled out, didn't see my client, the motorcyclist, and T-boned him with the front of his car. My client had 2 broken legs, broken pelvis on and on. He also had a blood alcohol content of .23, PCP and cocaine in his system.
Of course the insurance company whore, I'm sorry, lawyer ( just for Mulder) argued contributory negligence but even their expert ultimately agreed that my client was T-boned, it did matter whether he was high as a kite or not, he was going to get smashed (pun intended).