Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
41 user(s) are online (20 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 41

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 3 »


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#82
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2909
Offline
Quote:

Voyeur wrote:
But at least we can all agree that one ambulance-chasing law firm, presumably working on a no-win-no-fee will waste hundreds of hours on a case doomed to be tossed out at the first hearing, no?

I hate to see mommy and daddy fighting like this...


Well, with the exception of Frank_M, I think we all agree that this is a disgusting cash grab that should not have been brought.

I don't know though if it's the kind of thing that will have to go to a jury, where they will definitely toss it, or if the judge can knock it out straightaway. Certainly the suit against the bar owner should be mincemeat, but perhaps they have a shot against whoever was supposed to maintain the guardrail. Still, the whole thing makes me sick.

Posted on: 2015/10/16 22:40
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#81
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2014/9/19 1:29
Last Login :
3/12 17:59
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 191
Offline
But at least we can all agree that one ambulance-chasing law firm, presumably working on a no-win-no-fee will waste hundreds of hours on a case doomed to be tossed out at the first hearing, no?

I hate to see mommy and daddy fighting like this...

Posted on: 2015/10/16 22:18
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#80
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2909
Offline
So when you read: "Most states do not allow first party dram shop cases," what goes through your mind? Do any neurons process information? Or does the statement go right through the vacancy you have up there?

Oh, and FYI, the Alabama law you posted only refers to third party actions. Alabama does not allow someone who was drunk to sue the bar which served him. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Posted on: 2015/10/16 21:12
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#79
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1907
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Sigh, well I tried. This is why I generally don't respond to you. You are too dull to comprehend what I'm saying.

For anyone else with a sharper intellect, the TL;DR is there's a broad concept called "dram shop" laws which allow a bar to be sued for serving an obviously intoxicated person. But there are two types of these cases. The majority of states which have dram shop laws ONLY allow "third party" actions. This means an innocent victim such as victims of drunk driving may sue the bar. Most of the states in Pebble's link only allow for third party actions.

That's not the case here, and that doesn't implicate personal responsibility. Because a victim is not responsible for getting hit by a drunk driver.

The second type of case is called a "first party" action. This means the drunk himself, or his family, can sue the bar. It's the cash grab at issue here. Most states do not allow for such a lawsuit to be brought, as my link explained. It is only a few states which do, such as "progressive" NJ.

You don't reply because you aren't smart enough to...

1939: Lawsuit file where bar was held responsible for getting someone drunk. FACT.

Alabama law quoted stating: bar is held responsible. FACT.

You want to keep blaming liberals? Be my guest. Everyone knows you're a clown. Seriously, sit in a bar and ask anyone that's been on this site. That is, of course, if you have any friends...


I'd never associate with someone as dull as you in my personal life. An ignorant know it all, the absolute worst combination, lol.

And there's not much need to blame "progressives" generally, because as I said, most states do not allow these type of lawsuits. Here's another link btw, intended for a more intelligent audience:

"Most states do not allow first party dram shop cases."

http://legaldictionary.net/dram-shop-act/

And this is really a sidetrack anyway. The central issue here is blame on the family that brought such a shameless cash grab. Sure I blame the "progressives" in NJ for being one of the few states in the country to allow such a lawsuit, but the primary blame lays with the family.


This is all very funny since you didn't even know these laws existed. You simply assumed they didn't. You didn't read the statutes which clearly say that you can open a lawsuit against someone for this very thing going back nearly 100 years in the most conservative states in America. You don't even know the difference between first person and third person in the legal sense. Yet, I'm an idiot... Ok!

Up next, you might try to learn the definition of irony.

Posted on: 2015/10/16 20:50
Dos A Cero
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#78
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2909
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Sigh, well I tried. This is why I generally don't respond to you. You are too dull to comprehend what I'm saying.

For anyone else with a sharper intellect, the TL;DR is there's a broad concept called "dram shop" laws which allow a bar to be sued for serving an obviously intoxicated person. But there are two types of these cases. The majority of states which have dram shop laws ONLY allow "third party" actions. This means an innocent victim such as victims of drunk driving may sue the bar. Most of the states in Pebble's link only allow for third party actions.

That's not the case here, and that doesn't implicate personal responsibility. Because a victim is not responsible for getting hit by a drunk driver.

The second type of case is called a "first party" action. This means the drunk himself, or his family, can sue the bar. It's the cash grab at issue here. Most states do not allow for such a lawsuit to be brought, as my link explained. It is only a few states which do, such as "progressive" NJ.

You don't reply because you aren't smart enough to...

1939: Lawsuit file where bar was held responsible for getting someone drunk. FACT.

Alabama law quoted stating: bar is held responsible. FACT.

You want to keep blaming liberals? Be my guest. Everyone knows you're a clown. Seriously, sit in a bar and ask anyone that's been on this site. That is, of course, if you have any friends...


I'd never associate with someone as dull as you in my personal life. An ignorant know it all, the absolute worst combination, lol.

And there's not much need to blame "progressives" generally, because as I said, most states do not allow these type of lawsuits. Here's another link btw, intended for a more intelligent audience:

"Most states do not allow first party dram shop cases."

http://legaldictionary.net/dram-shop-act/

And this is really a sidetrack anyway. The central issue here is blame on the family that brought such a shameless cash grab. Sure I blame the "progressives" in NJ for being one of the few states in the country to allow such a lawsuit, but the primary blame lays with the family.

Posted on: 2015/10/16 20:35
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#77
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1907
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Sigh, well I tried. This is why I generally don't respond to you. You are too dull to comprehend what I'm saying.

For anyone else with a sharper intellect, the TL;DR is there's a broad concept called "dram shop" laws which allow a bar to be sued for serving an obviously intoxicated person. But there are two types of these cases. The majority of states which have dram shop laws ONLY allow "third party" actions. This means an innocent victim such as victims of drunk driving may sue the bar. Most of the states in Pebble's link only allow for third party actions.

That's not the case here, and that doesn't implicate personal responsibility. Because a victim is not responsible for getting hit by a drunk driver.

The second type of case is called a "first party" action. This means the drunk himself, or his family, can sue the bar. It's the cash grab at issue here. Most states do not allow for such a lawsuit to be brought, as my link explained. It is only a few states which do, such as "progressive" NJ.

You don't reply because you aren't smart enough to...

1939: Lawsuit file where bar was held responsible for getting someone drunk. FACT.

Alabama law quoted stating: bar is held responsible. FACT.

You want to keep blaming liberals? Be my guest. Everyone knows you're a clown. Seriously, sit in a bar and ask anyone that's been on this site. That is, of course, if you have any friends...

Posted on: 2015/10/16 20:19
Dos A Cero
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#76
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2909
Offline
Sigh, well I tried. This is why I generally don't respond to you. You are too dull to comprehend what I'm saying.

For anyone else with a sharper intellect, the TL;DR is there's a broad concept called "dram shop" laws which allow a bar to be sued for serving an obviously intoxicated person. But there are two types of these cases. The majority of states which have dram shop laws ONLY allow "third party" actions. This means an innocent victim such as victims of drunk driving may sue the bar. Most of the states in Pebble's link only allow for third party actions.

That's not the case here, and that doesn't implicate personal responsibility. Because a victim is not responsible for getting hit by a drunk driver.

The second type of case is called a "first party" action. This means the drunk himself, or his family, can sue the bar. It's the cash grab at issue here. Most states do NOT allow for such a lawsuit to be brought, as my link explained. It is only a few states which do, such as "progressive" NJ.

Posted on: 2015/10/16 20:11
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#75
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1907
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Pebble, this was a nice try. A step up from the typical utter lack of reading comprehension, and you actually forced me to do some research to back up what I consider to be common sense.

Here is what you said: "These laws are on the books everywhere."

Where I said "I bet there are plenty of conservative states which would not allow this type of lawsuit."

Obviously only one of us can be right. But first, as is typical, you didn't comprehend what I was saying. Laws are not written by God, they are written by Legislatures. The Legislatures in most states are generally either conservative or liberal. Since this type of law (allowing a drunk person to sue the bar that gave him alcohol) is rooted in a lack of personal responsibility, I said I bet most conservative states (with conservative Legislatures) would never pass such a law.

Pointing to the NFL case is irrelevant, as it occurred in NJ, a state dominated by Democrats which pass laws in accordance with "progressive" policy. I don't care what political affiliation the Pychs are because it is irrelevant to what I am saying.

Now, I found this legal encyclopedia which explained these type of laws are called dramshop acts. But there is a distinction between a dramshop act that allows an innocent victim of drunk driving to sue the bar vs. allowing the actual drunk driver (or his family) to sue. The latter is what I have a HUGE problem with.

I will quote the relevant passage:

What is a "Dram Shop" case?

So, a dram shop case is a lawsuit against a bar, restaurant, liquor store, or any other type of business that sells alcoholic drinks. The establishment's liability in these kinds of cases is based on the fact that someone was served too much alcohol.

There are two types of dram shop cases, what are called “first party” dram shop cases and what are called “third party” dram shop cases. With the caveat that most states don't allow “first party” dram shop cases, let’s look at these two types of cases in a little more detail.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedi ... hol-related-accident.html

So there is your answer. Most states do not allow the type of shameless, money grubbing lawsuit brought here. It is against the law. Apparently more allow innocent victims to sue, but that is not what we are talking about here. Obviously an innocent victim bears no personal responsibility for a drunk driving accident.

Since most states are conservative (middle America), my statement correctly bet that they would not allow this type of lawsuit. Of the few that do (such as NJ and Vermont), I would bet that most, if not all, are "progressive" enclaves. If you find a list of those states please post, but your original list included the irrelevant third party actions.

Now if you were born yesterday, you might think the link between the few states which allow such lawsuits and the political ideology of their Legislatures is some kind of crazy coincidence, but most of us should know better.

In your typical fashion of being wrong and not admitting it...

I posted this link in my quote: http://www.ncsl.org/research/financia ... ility-state-statutes.aspx
"Thirty states have statutory provisions that allow licensed establishments such as restaurants, bars, and liquor stores to be held liable for selling or serving alcohol to individuals who cause injuries or death as a result of their intoxication."

I specifically quoted Alabama. It doesn't get much more conservative. Should I have quoted Alaska as well? How about that noted liberal state Utah?

Sorry, but you've proven nothing other than the fact that you can't even comprehend a law or the laws on books when links to those very laws. Since you seem to be crap at clicking on links (I even bolded those conservative states that are all about personal responsibility):
Quote:
Twenty-two of the 30 states statutorily limit the liability to cases where the establishment sold or served alcohol to an obviously intoxicated individual or a person under the legal drinking age.

The 22 states are Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Statutes in Louisiana exempt licensed establishments from liability except in the cases where they serve a person under the legal drinking age. Nevada and South Dakota exempt licensed establishments from liability.


Dram shop laws came into being before 1939. Do you think people were liberal back then? Use the gray matter in your head. You can claim all you want this is some sort of liberal agenda when in fact these laws existed when

Keep hammering away in the face of evidence. Ala-freaking-bama has the law and its quoted for you. Yet you keep saying this is some liberal plot....

Posted on: 2015/10/16 19:45
Dos A Cero
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#74
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2909
Offline
Pebble, this was a nice try. A step up from the typical utter lack of reading comprehension, and you actually forced me to do some research to back up what I consider to be common sense.

Here is what you said: "These laws are on the books everywhere."

Where I said "I bet there are plenty of conservative states which would not allow this type of lawsuit."

Obviously only one of us can be right. But first, as is typical, you didn't comprehend what I was saying. Laws are not written by God, they are written by Legislatures. The Legislatures in most states are generally either conservative or liberal. Since this type of law (allowing a drunk person to sue the bar that gave him alcohol) is rooted in a lack of personal responsibility, I said I bet most conservative states (with conservative Legislatures) would never pass such a law.

Pointing to the NFL case is irrelevant, as it occurred in NJ, a state dominated by Democrats which pass laws in accordance with "progressive" policy. I don't care what political affiliation the Pychs are because it is irrelevant to what I am saying.

Now, I found this legal encyclopedia which explained these type of laws are called dramshop acts. But there is a distinction between a dramshop act that allows an innocent victim of drunk driving to sue the bar vs. allowing the actual drunk driver (or his family) to sue. The latter is what I have a HUGE problem with.

I will quote the relevant passage:

What is a "Dram Shop" case?

So, a dram shop case is a lawsuit against a bar, restaurant, liquor store, or any other type of business that sells alcoholic drinks. The establishment's liability in these kinds of cases is based on the fact that someone was served too much alcohol.

There are two types of dram shop cases, what are called “first party” dram shop cases and what are called “third party” dram shop cases. With the caveat that most states don't allow “first party” dram shop cases, let’s look at these two types of cases in a little more detail.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedi ... hol-related-accident.html

So there is your answer. Most states do not allow the type of shameless, money grubbing lawsuit brought here. It is against the law. Apparently more allow innocent victims to sue, but that is not what we are talking about here. Obviously an innocent victim bears no personal responsibility for a drunk driving accident.

Since most states are conservative (middle America), my statement correctly bet that they would not allow this type of lawsuit. Of the few that do (such as NJ and Vermont), I would bet that most, if not all, are "progressive" enclaves. If you find a list of those states please post, but your original list included the irrelevant third party actions.

Now if you were born yesterday, you might think the link between the few states which allow such lawsuits and the political ideology of their Legislatures is some kind of crazy coincidence, but most of us should know better.

Posted on: 2015/10/16 19:14
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#73
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1907
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
I love the fact that numero 8 finds a way to work "progressive" into this as if it is the fault of liberals.

These laws are on the books everywhere. They have been on the books for decades. The fact is, if I get drunk at a bar and hit another car on the way home then the bar absolutely can be held liable. The problem is in proving whether or not the bar knowingly served someone that was clearly intoxicated. This does not absolve me, absolutely, in blame but it adds a second party to those that are liable. The same laws apply if you have someone over your house, they get hammered and then leave.

The parents, in their grief and likely in their belief that their son has never done anything wrong, is going after the bar. I know many, many other people (including my own parents) that wouldn't.

I don't think the parents should be suing. However, every bar runs this tightrope daily.


I suggest you go back and reread my original comments. I'm saying, assuming these laws exist, they should be repealed. Along with blaming the family for this cash grab.

If you read, you'll see I also said if this drunk driver hit someone else, then I would be ok (but not thrilled) if those victims could sue the bar. But my HUGE problem is when the drunk guy himself (or his family) can sue the bar for his own conduct. Absolutely this law should be repealed.

And yes, it is my opinion that these laws are consistent with a "progressive" ideology. If they've supposedly been on the books for decades, so what? NJ has been dominated by liberals for decades. Same with Vermont, who User cited. I'm not saying every "progressive" fits in with every tenant of their ideology, but personal responsibility is generally part of a conservative mindset, while "progressives" hate the concept and like to blame others.

I bet there are plenty of conservative states which would not allow this type of lawsuit. So yes, I can point to political ideologies behind the laws.

And everything about allowing a drunk driver (or his family) suing the bar that gave him too much alcohol is as far from personal responsibility as you get.

None of these laws have anything to do with liberals, as much as you want to blame them. There were similar cases involving Giants Stadium and NFL fans aren't exactly known for their liberal leanings...

I'm quite surprised that you are unaware of these laws. Simple Google searches brings back court cases dating to the early 70's. Or how about when the super-liberal year of 1939.

You are really demonstrating you know what you're talking about when you write this: I bet there are plenty of conservative states which would not allow this type of lawsuit. So yes, I can point to political ideologies behind the laws.

Here's your list of states. Let's read from one of those noted "liberal" and "super progressive" states that believes in personal liability: Alabama
Ala. Code §6-5-71
(a) Every wife, child, parent, or other person who shall be injured in person, property, or means of support by any intoxicated person or in consequence of the intoxication of any person shall have a right of action against any person who shall, by selling, giving, or otherwise disposing of to another, contrary to the provisions of law, any liquors or beverages, cause the intoxication of such person for all damages actually sustained, as well as exemplary damages.

(b) Upon the death of any party, the action or right of action will survive to or against his executor or administrator.

(c) The party injured, or his legal representative, may commence a joint or separate action against the person intoxicated or the person who furnished the liquor, and all such claims shall be by civil action in any court having jurisdiction thereof.

Your definition of conservatives and liberals in relation to "person responsibility" is rather funny. When your cons are caught soliciting sex in airport restrooms do they take responsibility? When your conservatives shut down the GWB for political retribution did they stand up and take responsibility?

You knew absolutely fuck all about this law and decided to make it political.

Are the Pychs liberals? Maybe, maybe not. Most likely, they are just looking to bank out some cash and want someone to blame because they refuse to believe their son did something wrong. That sounds a lot like every parent regardless of political persuasion.

Posted on: 2015/10/16 18:53
Dos A Cero
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#72
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2909
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
I love the fact that numero 8 finds a way to work "progressive" into this as if it is the fault of liberals.

These laws are on the books everywhere. They have been on the books for decades. The fact is, if I get drunk at a bar and hit another car on the way home then the bar absolutely can be held liable. The problem is in proving whether or not the bar knowingly served someone that was clearly intoxicated. This does not absolve me, absolutely, in blame but it adds a second party to those that are liable. The same laws apply if you have someone over your house, they get hammered and then leave.

The parents, in their grief and likely in their belief that their son has never done anything wrong, is going after the bar. I know many, many other people (including my own parents) that wouldn't.

I don't think the parents should be suing. However, every bar runs this tightrope daily.


I suggest you go back and reread my original comments. I'm saying, assuming these laws exist, they should be repealed. Along with blaming the family for this cash grab.

If you read, you'll see I also said if this drunk driver hit someone else, then I would be ok (but not thrilled) if those victims could sue the bar. But my HUGE problem is when the drunk guy himself (or his family) can sue the bar for his own conduct. Absolutely this law should be repealed.

And yes, it is my opinion that these laws are consistent with a "progressive" ideology. If they've supposedly been on the books for decades, so what? NJ has been dominated by liberals for decades. Same with Vermont, who User cited. I'm not saying every "progressive" fits in with every tenant of their ideology, but personal responsibility is generally part of a conservative mindset, while "progressives" hate the concept and like to blame others.

I bet there are plenty of conservative states which would not allow this type of lawsuit. So yes, I can point to political ideologies behind the laws.

And everything about allowing a drunk driver (or his family) suing the bar that gave him too much alcohol is as far from personal responsibility as you get.


Posted on: 2015/10/16 17:29
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#71
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/1/11 18:21
Last Login :
12/26 15:30
From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4968
Offline
I was in Vermont over the summer at a B&B and I was told that I had to get rid of all my booze I purchased at the Trader Joe's there.. They also have some law which wont allow you to bring booze from outside because they are responsible for how much alcohol you consume.

My host there told before the law was put in place some guy drank two bottles of whisky that he purchased on his own at a liquor store.. but he was able to hold the B&B responsible for his injuries after he had a bad freak out on the slopes..

Posted on: 2015/10/16 17:13
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#70
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1907
Offline
I love the fact that numero 8 finds a way to work "progressive" into this as if it is the fault of liberals.

These laws are on the books everywhere. They have been on the books for decades. The fact is, if I get drunk at a bar and hit another car on the way home then the bar absolutely can be held liable. The problem is in proving whether or not the bar knowingly served someone that was clearly intoxicated. This does not absolve me, absolutely, in blame but it adds a second party to those that are liable. The same laws apply if you have someone over your house, they get hammered and then leave.

The parents, in their grief and likely in their belief that their son has never done anything wrong, is going after the bar. I know many, many other people (including my own parents) that wouldn't.

I don't think the parents should be suing. However, every bar runs this tightrope daily.

Posted on: 2015/10/16 17:02
Dos A Cero
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#69
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1776
Offline
"Never let a tragedy go to waste"

- Pych family

Posted on: 2015/10/16 16:50
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#68
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2909
Offline
Funny thing is I made my comments before reading the comments on the bottom of the NJ.com article.

It is nice to see that self righteous twits like Frank_M are in the clear minority. Since you don't seem to understand, respect is a two way street. When this kid first died, you didn't see me saying anything disrespectful towards him or his family.

But now more facts are out. We see his death was due to his own fault. He chose to get dangerously intoxicated and drive. We also see his family making a blatant cash grab. Truly respectable people would not lower themselves to this level. And try actually reading the article. We know enough facts about this lawsuit to make a judgment on it, along with those who brought it.

As the top rated NJ.com comment says: Didn't they teach their kid not to drink and drive? Maybe they should sue themselves.

Posted on: 2015/10/16 16:38
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#67
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/4/2 11:56
Last Login :
2018/10/5 14:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 735
Offline
Voyeur: You can think about it however you wish, you can even rationalize your attitude based on the projection of a hypothetical scenario.

Brewster: You seem to be asking me to explain something I didn’t write or imply. In fact, I don’t have an opinion about the lawsuit because I don’t know enough about the details of the suit, the conduct of the deceased or the bar staff, or the plaintiffs’ motive. On the other hand, I have plenty of facts at my disposal to understand that I should express myself respectfully in a public discussion about a young person’s untimely death, where every comment can potentially be read by the loved ones Mr. Pych left behind.

JCMan8: I hope things get better for you.

Posted on: 2015/10/16 16:30
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#66
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2014/9/19 1:29
Last Login :
3/12 17:59
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 191
Offline
Quote:

Frank_M wrote:

Indeed. Think about what happened.

Think about it from the perspective of a disoriented young man experiencing the terror of drowning. Think about it from the perspective of his family and friends who loved him. Think about it from any perspective where what actually happened, and how people feel about what actually happened, is all that matters.


Is it OK if I think about it from the perspective of the five friends on the road that night that are quietly going about their day today because this drunk put his car in drive rather than in reverse?

Is it OK to think about it from the perspective of their families who look forward to seeing them at Thanksgiving because this dangerous moron went into the river rather than onto the turnpike?

No, I guess you're right. I'll think about it from his perspective: how in his last moments the disorientated young man must have taken solace in the fact that his fatal error had provided his family with specious grounds for an egregious lawsuit against the bar, the parking lot and the City.

Posted on: 2015/10/16 15:57
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#65
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2909
Offline
Quote:

Frank_M wrote:

Remember the thread you started after the Tianjin port disaster? The only concern you expressed was over Chinese government censorship of the media—old, old news—not the scores of firefighters and other emergency workers who would have certainly perished in the second explosion.


Oh, and this is off topic, but clearly you aren't much of a big picture guy. Yes, I was far more concerned about the Chinese media censorship because that's what allows those sorts of things to happen to begin with. I agree it's a tragedy that the firefighters died, but they are already dead and we can't bring them back.

But honest media coverage and honest government depictions of the scale of the explosion would forment public outrage. People would be outraged as to how the situation was even permitted to happen (no doubt because the factory owners were bribing safety inspectors in exchange for allowing them to illegally store massive quantities of dangerous, flammable chemicals). Moreover, this outrage may manifest itself into new laws or oversight in an effort to stop this corruption and prevent these needless deaths.

Instead, Chinese TV stations played soap operas most of the next morning, and the news didn't really discuss the event. And their government deleted Chinese social media posts discussing the event. This sweeping under the rug is precisely what keeps the status quo intact, and WILL result in a similar event occurring in the future.

Judging from your comment, in your "progressive" fantasy land, you would have been happier if I expressed concern about the dead firefighters. Because they are dead and that makes us feel bad so we have to let our feelings out! Such sentiments are the province of weak minded, emotionally driven reactionaries. It's fine if you choose to be that way (there's no shortage of such people), but please don't try to push your kumbaya nonsense on me.

Posted on: 2015/10/16 15:12
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#64
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
8/27 2:43
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5600
Offline
Quote:

Frank_M wrote
Think about it from the perspective of a disoriented young man experiencing the terror of drowning. Think about it from the perspective of his family and friends who loved him. Think about it from any perspective where what actually happened, and how people feel about what actually happened, is all that matters.


It was certainly a regrettable tragedy for the family. But is all that matters that it be someone else's fault? Who told you that the world is a padded room where you could not do yourself harm? This belief is epidemic. There was the family that sued a tubing company for not posting lifeguards all along miles of the Delaware, and won. There was the family that stumbled on a trail in a park, and sued because they thought the trail should have been paved!

Should bartenders be asking people to blow into a breathalyzer before every round? What if they aren't driving? What if they fall down or get hit by a car walking home? What if they say they aren't driving but lie?

Posted on: 2015/10/16 14:55
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#63
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2909
Offline
Quote:

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Think about what happened. It's NYE, this guy gets completely plastered...


Indeed. Think about what happened.

Think about it from the perspective of a disoriented young man experiencing the terror of drowning. Think about it from the perspective of his family and friends who loved him. Think about it from any perspective where what actually happened, and how people feel about what actually happened, is all that matters.

Remember the thread you started after the Tianjin port disaster? The only concern you expressed was over Chinese government censorship of the media—old, old news—not the scores of firefighters and other emergency workers who would have certainly perished in the second explosion.

You want to talk about personal responsibility? Try to handle the subjects of pain, death, and loss as a mature, responsible adult.


Oh, there's no doubt this was a tragedy. I especially feel bad for the family. But the earlier part of this thread was for that. And I strongly disagree that tugging your heartstrings is "all that matters."

This thread was updated with the news that his family is looking for a payout from the bar due to their son's own actions. We are no longer talking about pain, death and loss. It's turned into a cash grab by a grieving family who is blaming others for the actions of their son.

While I assume they are legally allowed to do so, I have a strong problem with such "progressive" laws that allow this. Like I said, if he hit someone while drunk, he and his family couldn't blame the bar then.

Your foolish sentiment of "how people feel about what actually happened, is all that matters," is a nice encapsulation of what is wrong with society today. Feelz over Realz. Because this was a tragedy and his family feels very sad about it, this means the bar should have to pay them millions (or they are entitled to bring such an audacious claim).

Imagine telling people, sorry, this bar had to close because one guy couldn't handle his liquor, was in an extremely crowded bar (so the owners can't keep tabs on everyone), unilaterally decided to drive drunk, and got himself killed. His family is very upset about it so that's all that matters.

Posted on: 2015/10/16 14:54
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#62
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/12/18 2:57
Last Login :
2017/9/14 20:15
From Crystal Point
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 710
Offline
I think it will be hard for them to prove that Mark was so drunk that the bar staff should have noticed. Lots of people drive into things when completely sober. Unless there is video of this guy falling over, puking, etc, I don't see how they are liable.

Posted on: 2015/10/16 14:35
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#61
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/4/2 11:56
Last Login :
2018/10/5 14:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 735
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Think about what happened. It's NYE, this guy gets completely plastered...


Indeed. Think about what happened.

Think about it from the perspective of a disoriented young man experiencing the terror of drowning. Think about it from the perspective of his family and friends who loved him. Think about it from any perspective where what actually happened, and how people feel about what actually happened, is all that matters.

Remember the thread you started after the Tianjin port disaster? The only concern you expressed was over Chinese government censorship of the media—old, old news—not the scores of firefighters and other emergency workers who would have certainly perished in the second explosion.

You want to talk about personal responsibility? Try to handle the subjects of pain, death, and loss as a mature, responsible adult.

Posted on: 2015/10/16 14:22
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#60
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2909
Offline
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Yeah, so it's the bar owner's fault this guy decided to drive while piss drunk, endangering the lives of everyone on the road? And himself obviously.


I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY nor do I pretend to play one on TV but aren't there laws on the books forbidding the serving of alcohol to anyone severely intoxicated?It may be very unlikely to prove in court, but I thought this is a liability all bar owners take on and have to be very careful about.

Quote:
The lawsuit accuses employees of the Powerhouse Lounge on Marin Boulevard of continuing to serve Pych alcohol even though they should have realized he was intoxicated. And they "carelessly and negligently" allowed him to leave the lounge while drunk and he died after losing control of his car, the lawsuit alleges.


I wonder if ride sharing services like Uber could severely reduce DUIs in the future...


I'm sure there are such "progressive" laws on the books but that doesn't make them right. Think about what happened. It's NYE, this guy gets completely plastered, decides to drive piss drunk, and could have killed people on the road.

If he was discovered by the police, he'd be arrested. He couldn't blame the bar owner then. But because he happened to suffer the consequences of his own actions, now his family can get a big payout? Seems completely wrong to me, despite whatever the "progressive" laws say. Especially when dealing with the crowding associated with NYE.

Posted on: 2015/10/15 22:06
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#59
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
2020/12/1 21:51
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 958
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Yeah, so it's the bar owner's fault this guy decided to drive while piss drunk, endangering the lives of everyone on the road? And himself obviously.


I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY nor do I pretend to play one on TV but aren't there laws on the books forbidding the serving of alcohol to anyone severely intoxicated?It may be very unlikely to prove in court, but I thought this is a liability all bar owners take on and have to be very careful about.

Quote:
The lawsuit accuses employees of the Powerhouse Lounge on Marin Boulevard of continuing to serve Pych alcohol even though they should have realized he was intoxicated. And they "carelessly and negligently" allowed him to leave the lounge while drunk and he died after losing control of his car, the lawsuit alleges.


I wonder if ride sharing services like Uber could severely reduce DUIs in the future...

Posted on: 2015/10/15 19:57
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#58
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2909
Offline
Yeah, so it's the bar owner's fault this guy decided to drive while piss drunk, endangering the lives of everyone on the road? And himself obviously.

I get that this is one of the "progressive" values in our culture, where no one has personal responsibility and it's always someone else's fault. But still, I have a big problem with this. I could kind of see if he hit someone else and he was poor and otherwise the victim would be out of luck. Fine, then let the victim sue the bar owner.

But no one forced this guy to drink. No one forced him to drive drunk. Despite this, this guy's family is allowed to sue the bar for the actions of their son? I think the bar should countersue the family for having the balls to bring such a lawsuit.

Posted on: 2015/10/15 18:54
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#57
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/1/11 18:21
Last Login :
12/26 15:30
From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4968
Offline
Michaelangelo Conte | The Jersey Journal

The family of a man who died when his car plunged into the icy waters off the coast of Jersey City after a night of New Year's Eve partying has filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

The suit filed by the family of Mark Pych, 22, names the Downtown bar where he drank that night, the owner of the parking lot where his car went to the Morris Canal early on Jan. 1, 2014 and Jersey City and two of its agencies as defendants.

Pych, of Jersey City, drove his Nissan Altima over a deteriorating bulkhead at a ferry landing at the south end of Marin Boulevard and into the water at 3:30 a.m.

The lawsuit accuses employees of the Powerhouse Lounge on Marin Boulevard of continuing to serve Pych alcohol even though they should have realized he was intoxicated. And they "carelessly and negligently" allowed him to leave the lounge while drunk and he died after losing control of his car, the lawsuit alleges.

As a result, Pych was "severely and critically injured, sustained severe bodily injury so as to cause him to suffer great pain of mind and body, and, significant conscious pain and suffering up until he died as a result of drowning," the complaint says.

More

Posted on: 2015/10/15 18:44
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#56
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/12/14 20:08
Last Login :
2017/5/11 16:32
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 51
Offline
Any updates on this? It's been well over a month but still unable to find any info on a toxicology report.

Posted on: 2014/2/7 17:01
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#55
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/10/11 3:28
Last Login :
2017/1/5 1:56
From Leashless Glory.
Group:
Banned
Posts: 2889
Offline
Quote:

bill wrote:
One can also speculate if he was speeding, all a barrier would have done is prevent his car from entering the marina, yet he would have most likely flown through the windshield resulting in the same conclusion =(


Agreed but not sure a barrier would've prevented the car from going into the water. It's possible that he drove through there knowing that he would go through the benches and railings.

Posted on: 2014/1/8 18:43
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#54
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/4/2 11:56
Last Login :
2018/10/5 14:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 735
Offline
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:

Well if he drove through a bench and an orange barricade then he was either wildly out of control or did it on purpose. All evidence is that he did not roll slowly into the river. Whether drowning or horrific crash, it was going to happen either way. Glad no one else was injured.


If, if, if...

We’re all aware that something went wrong that night, but because things can indeed go wrong, especially where human beings and automobiles are concerned, we plan ahead by mitigating obvious navigation hazards with important safety precautions. An unprotected seawall at the very end of one of the busiest roads in downtown Jersey City—at a MARSEC designated area no less—is one such hazard that should absolutely have been addressed with something more substantial than a lightweight crowd control barrier.

You’re free to believe that it doesn’t matter whether an automobile barrier was present, but here in reality, a missing barrier between a parking lot and a large marina is never regarded as an acceptable condition as far as prevailing standards and practices are concerned.

Posted on: 2014/1/8 18:25
Top


Re: Rutgers graduate, 22, dies after car plunges into water off Jersey City
#53
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/12/18 2:57
Last Login :
2017/9/14 20:15
From Crystal Point
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 710
Offline
One can also speculate if he was speeding, all a barrier would have done is prevent his car from entering the marina, yet he would have most likely flown through the windshield resulting in the same conclusion =(

Posted on: 2014/1/8 17:17
Top




(1) 2 3 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017