Quote:
Originally Posted by boplaw
Interesting. I'm sure there was a big fight over who would bring the suit on his behalf since the only beneficiaries are the split parents. That always makes for a curious sideshow.
However, the bottom line is this had to be brought on his behalf. His life care plan will be in the millions. Some people will say it's on him for not wearing a seatbelt.
Maybe, but who knows whether a seatbelt would have saved him from being a kumquat? That car was mashed.
|
I would be a metric shit ton of cash on the defense parading every single person who though the injured kid looked at them wrong onto the stand. I bet they try to prove that this kid was a bad egg, and accordingly tarnish his rep for two reasons:
1. if they jury doesn't like him, they will be less inclined to side with him and
2. If they can prove he was a bad egg, and had a habit of encouraging Nick to act in a reckless manner, in addition to act recklessly of his own volition, then the whole notion of the "breach of duty of care" is effectively undermined. How can there be an implied duty of care when the injured person did not owe themself as much?