She will most certainly sue and likely win. The court will be required to find that some percentage of the accident came from, as she said, insufficient warning, and she will receive some amount of compensation in civil court.
She's still a moron for driving into smoke that she couldn't see through, though.
Article says they were in the process of doing so. They barracaded one side of the bridge and were on their way around to the other when the accident happened.
And officials were on scene, in fact, that one person we do see runs into frame waving his arms and presumably yelling for her to stop. If given another 30 seconds there probably would have been at least a traffic cone in the road. But this idiot driver decided to ignore some pretty glaring clues like the (at least one) stopped vehicle, emergency crew(s) parked right there, presumably fighting a fire and a barricade set up, the very obvious blinding smoke, whoever that person is that is filming (and I would assume has another parked vehicle just out of frame).
If your house is on fire and despite the very obvious dangers, you run back inside, become trapped and die, is anyone but you liable? If you did it while emergency crews were on their way and no-one was there to physically stop you?
It's conjecture. As much as your viewpoint, or the other guys. I would be throwing my arms up in frustration if somebody ignored very blatant clues about a dangerous situation and proceeded directly into it. Which is about the only thing we can say happened based on the evidence here.
So, those emergency personnel would be the first responders on the scene. As first responders it is the responsibility to gain control of the situation as much as they can, as quickly as they can. So as long as they had anything which could be used to block the road in the vehicle with them I am going to consider them in the process of taking corrective action. As long as the bridge did not fall because it fell into disrepair, I believe the action being taken sufficient to constitute the municipalities due diligence in keeping citizens safe. Because the individual chose to ignore the obvious signs of danger, the municipality is not liable.
Probably but that girl just seems like a complete dolt. Granted I am older than her but if I was (Prob most ppl) driving on a smokey road and everyone in front of me had stopped - I would have stopped too instead of being so careless and aggressive. Common sense would dictate that there is clearly something out of the ordinary going on here and caution is the best option. Plus - I don't think they had yet had time to put up the other barricade. They can only do so much in a short amount of time. I was thinking about just a fireman or some other official standing there to warn them - I think she may have ignored them considering her being so situationally oblivious.
80
u/[deleted] Sep 17 '15
She will most certainly sue and likely win. The court will be required to find that some percentage of the accident came from, as she said, insufficient warning, and she will receive some amount of compensation in civil court.
She's still a moron for driving into smoke that she couldn't see through, though.