Quote:
Originally Posted by mgburg
#1.) Have a DA, from another county, investigate and prosecute the public entity that should have been correcting the "light situation" to begin with...then, as a judge from that accident's district, recuse oneself and assign the case to another judge from a different district...
#2.) Take driver one and fine him for speeding and causing an accident - penalties to take into account the severities of the damages/injuries;
#3.) Take driver two and fine him for OUI and causing an accident - likewise, penalties to take into account the severities of the damages/injuries...
Do I win a "sheepskin?" 
 |
No! You failed miserably.
1. It is very difficult to successfully sue a municipality and collect a judgment. Therefore, suit must be filed by both drivers against General Electric (the maker of the light bulbs in the signal) which has lots of money.
2. The car involved was patently dangerous since it was capable of exceeding the speed limit. Suit must be brought against the manufacturer of the car, the maker of the tires and any facility where maintenance was performed.
3. Coors-Molson obviously knew that their product could be consumed by someone who might drive. The beer can did not have a warning not to drive in storms printed on it. Don't forget to include the beer distributor as a defendant.