3 lawsuits filed in fatal collision

ccfirefighterchick (anonymous) says...

The teenager made an abrupt lane change, and they are blaiming the truck driver??? Greedy people! I am sorry for the loss of the three lives, but it was not the truck driver's fault. He didn't make the lane change. He isn't the one that caused the wreck. Stopping is not an immediate thing when you are going the posted speed limit on the interstate, even for a car (let alone a cement truck).

May 13, 2009 at 12:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Speedy (anonymous) says...

You have got to be f'ing kidding me!!! This is on par with the lady who spilled coffee in her lap and sued McDonalds years ago.

This crash was horrific, but there is only one thing to blame- an inexperienced driver on the interstate. New drivers should not drive on the interstate for a while.

I hate to even think it, but race and frivolous lawsuits do have a correlation. The family needs to move on and not waste anyone's money tying this crap up in court.

May 13, 2009 at 1:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SomeTruthPlease (anonymous) says...

I am appalled...the ridiculous judgment on the mother's part in allowing her recently-licensed daughter to attempt to navigate the interstate, and this wreck is now everyone's fault but her own??? The DOT??? This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. It's very sad, but this lawsuit is frivolous, at best. The people most at fault are already dead.

May 13, 2009 at 3:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SomeTruthPlease (anonymous) says...

Pardon moi-Not a "recently licensed" driver-she had received her beginner's permit that day, after turning 15 the weekend before. There is NO case here. Ridiculous.

May 13, 2009 at 3:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LI58 (anonymous) says...

How about let's spend our energy, money and time prohibiting 15 and 16 year olds from driving in the first place!!!!

May 13, 2009 at 3:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

reality_woman (anonymous) says...

What a pathetic family. Clearly the 15 year old caused the accident and now evveryone else is to blame? Some people will use any means to capitalize on making a dollar. Nothing more than greedy pieces of crap here. Hopefully the courts will sort this out and I'd love to be on the jury for this one.

May 13, 2009 at 5:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Lois_Lane (anonymous) says...

I agree with everybody. Lawyers are insanely greedy. Hey I think I'll go out and cause a wreck and then sue whoever gets involved so I can have some money in my unemployed pocket.....

May 13, 2009 at 6:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hartley8184 (anonymous) says...

What did we expect? Saw this one coming a long way off. The really pathetic thing about it is that the company will just settle, because that's what "insurance is for." Then you and I will absorb the cost in our premiums. I wonder how much their dead daughter will fetch for them.

Oh the outrage ey? Ever notice how the "victims" always are satisfied with the money... they never really need to see anyone get "punished" in cases like this.

May 13, 2009 at 6:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

pirate42 (anonymous) says...

another case for WHY we pay so much for everthing Dam ambulance chasing lawyers the girl screwed up killed her own loved ones and somehow it someones elses fault..... hope Judge is smart enought to throw it out...

May 13, 2009 at 6:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mb300sl (anonymous) says...

Greedy lawyers wasting the court's time and our money...Hell would freeze over before a jury I was sitting on would give them a dime!

May 13, 2009 at 6:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

greyman (anonymous) says...

It said the cement truck driver was traveling at an excesive speed and overloaded with cement. So I would think he is somewhat at fault. It's not just 15 and 16 year olds. People here can't drive. Everyone here runs red lights non stop. Some guy driving on the wappoo cut bridge the other day came over in my lane without even looking. Then he got pissed at me like I did something wrong. Every time I go somewhere I see people driving crazy. They like to whip in and out of lanes barely missing cars without a care in the world. When they do almost cause an accident they don't even notice. Probably b/c they are too busy talking on there cel phones.

May 13, 2009 at 6:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wonderdog (anonymous) says...

"Overloaded" and "excessive speed" are standard allegations in every summons and complaint against a trucking company that I have ever seen, no matter what the circumstances are. Hopefully, the insurance carrier will hire a good attorney and fight it to the end; unfortunately, it is often cheaper to pay some money and make it go away than to pay for the cost of a trial.

I am sure the plaintiff attorneys are already planning how to spend their cut (since it is ALL about the money). I hope they get nothing.

May 13, 2009 at 7:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

JohnS (anonymous) says...

Greedy family members. The truck driver was the victim here. The lawyer figures he can get an all black jury in Orangeburg which is the home of the truck driver.

May 13, 2009 at 7:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

theronce (anonymous) says...

greyman, I remember this story when it hit the paper last year. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I do not remember that the driver was cited for exceeding the speed limit, driving too fast for conditions, or driving an overloaded vehicle or any other citation. Merely having an ignorant 16 year old say those are the facts do not make them facts. Based on her public track record, I would be reluctant to take anything that she says at face value.

May 13, 2009 at 7:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

1963 (anonymous) says...

"a faulty truck design"
So lawyers know how to design a truck better than truck engineers? How do they know it is faulty?

May 13, 2009 at 7:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BootstrapRed (anonymous) says...

This is the type of crap clogging up our courts. These frivolous lawsuits should not even be allowed to be considered. You cannot hold someone else accountable for your own negligence. IF this makes its way to a jury, I hope I am seated on it!

May 13, 2009 at 7:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Southern_Cousin (anonymous) says...

I hope these comments will encourage the remaining family to drop their lawsuit. I am sure they are hurting, and this was no doubt a terribly sad event. People make mistakes every day and it is too sad when family members die together as a result.

But...no one thinks this was the truck drivers fault. No one.

And neither will any jury. I hope the insurance company will stand up to this frivolous lawsuit and refuse to pay.

May 13, 2009 at 8:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mungojerrie (anonymous) says...

Greyman, there are crappy drivers everywhere.

Just because the family is saying the truck was exceeding the speed limit and it was overloaded doesn't make it true. It really looks like they're trying to sue anyone and everyone they can to make a few bucks off this.

A 15 year old who just got a beginner's permit has no place on the interstate. Driving on the interstate requires far more experience than a 15 year old can possibly possess.

May 13, 2009 at 8:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

prosperous_hb (anonymous) says...

I'm willing to be that the family was pushed by Motley-Rice to file the lawsuit.

May 13, 2009 at 8:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MRSCVS (anonymous) says...

This is the most ludicris case I have ever heard of.
Yes people were killed, if memory serves me right it carely stated that this horrible accident was just that an accident.
Due to the mother's inmature decision which resulted in their deaths.
A 15 year old should have never been behind the wheel on I- 26 immediately after getting her permit.
It is just to much for them and way to fast as well.
No one should drive on SC interstate 26 even the drivers that have skills should be aware it is dangerous on the interstate.
JMO

May 13, 2009 at 8:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ln1959 (anonymous) says...

Posted by Speedy on May 13, 2009 at 1:16 a.m. (Suggest removal

I hate to even think it, but race and frivolous lawsuits do have a correlation. The family needs to move on and not waste anyone's money tying this crap up in court.
--------------------------------------------------------
So are you saying that there are no frivolous lawsuits by white people? I guess being a Racist makes you ignorant also.

Posted by JohnS on May 13, 2009 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Greedy family members. The truck driver was the victim here. The lawyer figures he can get an all black jury in Orangeburg which is the home of the truck driver.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Please tell me when have your ever seen an all black jury. You're lucky to get 3 black people on a jury.

This is not about race. If you look at the courts you would see that whites sue much more often then any other race. So please keep your ignorance under cover.

You may have more black people in courts, but it's not because their suing people.

----------------------------------------------------------
Anyone of you, if a lawyer came to you and says I can make them pay for the lost of your family member would do exactly as this family is doing. All of you "do the right thing people" that are posting are full of BS. You don't fool anyone but yourself.

May 13, 2009 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

joshmerd (anonymous) says...

"Poorly designed roadway"
Where they wrecked is a long, straight 3 lane (on their side) stretch of roadway. I don't know how much better that could get...? I'm sorry for the family's loss, but greed won't bring them back.

May 13, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BootstrapRed (anonymous) says...

"Anyone of you, if a lawyer came to you and says I can make them pay for the lost of your family member would do exactly as this family is doing. All of you "do the right thing people" that are posting are full of BS. You don't fool anyone but yourself."

Actually you should give (the majority of) us more credit than that. The "right thing" would be to just honor the memories of your family. Greed has no merit or integrity.

May 13, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Name_Withheld (anonymous) says...

All of you who are witnesses to this accident should step forward and identify yourselves to the authorities. All of the experts on truck regulation and accident reconstruction should do likewise. The assignment of Civil responsibility for the costs of this accident will be determined according to the Rule of Law as set by the legislature. The burden of proof the Plaintiffs have is set very high and the costs to the Plaintiffs to bring such a suit may exceed $200,000. The lawyers do not bring these type suits without reasonable cause and they would be punished if the suit has no basis. All of the self-appointed Judges here on this forum should become aware of the requirement to first hear the evidence before passing judgment. That is a cournerstone of our freedom. You might think you deserve that consideration from your fellows the next time you are judged by a forum (even a forum of newspaper readers).

May 13, 2009 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ln1959 (anonymous) says...

That's would be the right thing, but to be in here calling the families all kind of names, and most would do the same thing is pure evil.

I am man enough to admit when I may have stepped on someone's foot, so my apology to you BootstrapRed.

May 13, 2009 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oldglory (anonymous) says...

Most civil cases 'party' in everyone involved to make sure all bases are covered. Also, there is more insurance money. Many parties are freed from liability in the case prior to trial and/or settlement. This being a civil case the punishment attached is merely monetary.

Anyone know the results of the traffic case?? Who was found at fault? Was the truck driver found contributorily negligent?

May 13, 2009 at 8:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

armymom (anonymous) says...

prosperous_hb:

Do you know that Motley-Rice is involved, or are you just guessing? I'm curious.

I hope this gets thrown out. These were wrongful deaths, but the wrong was done by the driver and her mother. It's sad for sure, but they are making the wrong even wronger by blaming everyone else.

May 13, 2009 at 8:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kris86 (anonymous) says...

I feel bad for the lives that were lost, but this is absurd!!!!!!!!!
It was clearly the teen's fault for the accident, you can't blame it on the driver of the truck! And a lawsuit against the Department of Transportation for a poorly designed roadway?! If that passes, then we all have the right to file a lawsuit again the DOT because we ALL drive on that same roadway!
This is just stupid....

May 13, 2009 at 8:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jammanofdi (anonymous) says...

First off, I don't think they were black - I think they are of Indian decent if I remember the article correctly. Secondly, the cement poured from the truck when it flipped onto the car, so unless that cement was recoverd and weighed at the scene, how do they know that the truck was overweight? Like I said yesterday, anyone could sue anyone for anything. I could sue Bootstrap because I didn't like his comment - if I could find a lawyer to take the case. The question is, will it hold up in court. I hope the answer is "no". If I was any of the three defendants, I would countersue the estate of the victim's for a whole host of charges, wasting my time and defamation included...

May 13, 2009 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tc1 (anonymous) says...

Early this year my wife on the way home from work and coming through North Charleston was turning a corner. Being a sharp turn she was barely moving and saw a woman stumbling BACKWARD towards her with a beer in her hand. The woman fell into the SIDE of the car and the beer bottle dropped and broke. There is more, and a witness driving behind my wife, but to keep it short the NC police handcuffed the woman and took her to jail for being drunk. Needless to say no charges for my wife.

About six weeks later we get a letter from a lawyer wanting to know our insurance company because his client was SEVERLY injured. Don't know the disposition if any yet but insurance will probably give them something to go away because that is the cheapest and the highly principled and believing in justice lawyer knows it. Another contribution to everyones premium increases.

May 13, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ThinkAboutThis (anonymous) says...

Crazy- hey, but hey left one person out of the suit- the school/driving school instructor- was there one & why are they not being blamed also?????

May 13, 2009 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

GermanyXO (anonymous) says...

tc1: I talked to my lawyer about your situation. You don't have to give him anything unless there's either a court order or a police report stating you were at fault for causing his client's injuries. If no injuries were reported at the scene then who knows if his client got herself hurt somewhere else and simply wants free cash?

I easily forget how "Change We Can Believe In" equates to "Get Paid to Sit On Your Ass" in the U.S.A. This lawyer's client must not have qualified.

May 13, 2009 at 9:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

metallic (anonymous) says...

"Name_Withheld" posted:

>>The lawyers do not bring these type suits without reasonable cause and they would be punished if the suit has no basis.<<

Spoken like a lawyer -- let me guess, you work for the slimy firm filing this FRIVOLOUS suit?

(Does anyone know what firm is involved -- and the names of the specific lawyers? I want to make sure I NEVER do business with such scum.)

Lawyers DO bring frivolous suits ALL the time because they know that they are ALMOST NEVER punished for bringing suits with no merit.

It's an "unwritten code" lawyers (and judges, who are lawyers) respect. "You don't call my suit frivolous and I'll look the other way if you decide to 'milk the system' and file a frivolous suit too."

If ever there was a case that was frivolous, this is it.

(I'm surprised they haven't tried to sue the manufacturer of the car they were driving too. They could claim the car was "not designed to withstand a collision with a cement truck"!)

May 13, 2009 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

GermanyXO (anonymous) says...

Regarding the accident, witness statements declared the young driver FAILED to properly merge with ongoing traffic. Her job was to yield to traffic already established on the highway. Younger, inexperienced drivers aren't the only ones who FAIL to yield to established, ongoing traffic.

In a court of law, it's likely to be proven that the extreme braking executed by the truck driver to avoid collision led to a catastrophic, unsafe operating condition, which led to the truck emptying its contents onto the smaller vehicle that was not traveling at sufficient speed to avoid contact with the cement truck. The inexperienced driver's failure to accelerate to the speed of ongoing traffic resulted in this tragedy. Perhaps our children in school should pass a Physics course before getting their driver's licenses? F = ma.

While I'm not an expert when it comes to traffic accidents, I believe I've seen enough "Failure to Yield" accidents on cop shows to recognize who was likely at fault. Three cheers to the truck driver being cleared of all charges.

May 13, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Luna (anonymous) says...

harold - please do not bring race into this.

This is a sad case because of the lives that were lost.

There seems to be an abundance of "fault" involved. Teen driver, excessive speed, driving too fast for conditions, overloaded truck.....I am not going to speculate on who was at fault, I am not a traffic expert or a lawyer.

tc - you case is an screaming example of the need for TORT REFORM. Yep....a pinko commie liberal actually said TORT REFORM.

We should save the courts time for real cases.

May 13, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tc1 (anonymous) says...

GermanyXO,

In spite of this news article we choose to not be concerned. The highly ethical lawyer only wanted to know my insurance co name. Interesting when we reported it even the claims person, used to all kinds of stories, basicaly said would you repeat that as I could not have heard you correctly!

Anyway my purpose in bringing it up was as another example of why we all pay more for not just insurance, clogged courts, welfare, etc. Meanwhile those truly wronged or in need wait in line or get lost in the feeding frenzy.

May 13, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

GermanyXO (anonymous) says...

SCDOT lawyers must have the brake rotors and brake pads inspected from the truck in the accident. There had to have been a noticeable grove pressed into the rotors which will serve to indicate just how hard the truck driver applied his brakes while attempting to avoid contact with the smaller vehicle. At the very least, SCDOT must attempt to replicate the accident scene and perform a braking test that demonstrates the truck driver performed an aggressive, panic attempt to decelerate his vehicle.

May 13, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigSargeofSC (anonymous) says...

Imagine that?! The 15 y/o was at fault for the crash and they are sueing? Total b/s.

May 13, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tc1 (anonymous) says...

Can't have tort reform. All the lawyers contribute to the "pcl's"! :)

May 13, 2009 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Luna (anonymous) says...

tc - how true! When you have lawyers breeding like rabbits they eventually take over the farm.

May 13, 2009 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...

In1959 posted : "Anyone of you, if a lawyer came to you and says I can make them pay for the lost of your family member would do exactly as this family is doing. All of you "do the right thing people" that are posting are full of BS. You don't fool anyone but yourself."

Kudos to you for being blunt and honest. I'm not saying this case necessarily has merit, I don't know the actual facts.I agree with the others that an inexperienced driver had no business on I26 at that time. But, for those of you to pretend you know what you'd do in this circumstance is ludicrous. What if you had no intent to sue and a lawyer approached you and you said "Not interested!" Then he/she went on to explain that other lives had been senselessly lost due to a faulty truck design and the driver could have stopped if he hadn't ignored the load limits and overloaded his truck. I'm NOT saying this is the case. I'm just playing devil's advocate and showing how things could be explained to a grieving family to initiate a suit. " You could save others lives"... BTW What's wrong with using Motley-Rice ? Should they have hired Bill Green ? lol

May 13, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sassee (anonymous) says...

Sue the idiot mother for allowing a NEW driver to drive on the interstate during heavy traffic! Having owned and driven big trucks, these things can't stop on a dime! I've had to run into the ditches and medians several times due to other people not watching what they are doing! I wasn't speeding and my trucks were in perfect mechanical condition.

By the way, I also do not remember the cement trucks' speed being a factor in the crash. I don't recall any reports showing the truck was deemed unsafe. I've never noticed anything wrong with that stretch of road either. Money is not going to bring the dead back to life. Frivilous lawsuits just scar their memory!

May 13, 2009 at 10:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

johnsisland1 (anonymous) says...

Lots of opinions here and very few facts. I have to agree with In1959 - you all diminish the value of your opinion/argument when you interject race (but something I've grown used to in SC). Let us not forget all the improvements in product safety, work environments, etc. that these lawsuits bring.

You may have found yourself making these comments long ago - "I can't believe coal miners are suing because they are getting sick, Didn't they KNOW they were inhaling coal dust every day?"

Or - "I can't believe people didn't realize those Suzuki Samauris would flip - just look at them!"

Or - "I can't believe someone would blame a crib manufacturer for their baby's death - I mean it's sad - but why do they need to get rich off of it?"

Just some thoughts

JI

May 13, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ThinkAboutThis (anonymous) says...

Rush hour traffic I 26 is it possible to speed escessively if traffic is bumper to bumper- what is rush hour traffic like in that location at that time- stop and go, if so how would any truck be able to pick up any speed, especially an overloaded one?

Failure to yield says it all--> when a car pulls out in front of moving traffic a crash will more than likely occur and sadly enough this one was fatal!

May 13, 2009 at 10:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

JC (anonymous) says...

Frivolous lawsuit. It she didn't cut in front of the dump truck, there wouldn't have been an accident. The driver and concrete company should file a suit against them! You can't drive like that and expect a huge dump truck to stop on a dime.

May 13, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ThinkAboutThis (anonymous) says...

And you have to wonder IF the abrupt lane change had been in front of a truck full of chickens or eggs vs. concrete would the same injuries/fate had occurred? What part did the concrete play vs. the vehicle make & type/crash impact?

May 13, 2009 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

johnsisland1 (anonymous) says...

So what happens if, during the lawsuit, the plaintiff proves, in court, that not only was the concrete truck overloaded - but that manufacturer of the truck, the owner of the truck, and the driver of the truck ALL knew it was extremely dangerous to operate. Does it really matter who was driving the car or whether or not it was an illegal lane change? What if construction company rolled the dice to get more concrete from point A to point B - and put all of our lives in danger?

May 13, 2009 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tc1 (anonymous) says...

I, as The truck driver would move for immeadiate dismissal because a jury of my peers could not be assembled. Any juror the plaintif would approve of is probably to stupid and dishonest to be my peer.

IF this suit has merit and is laughed out of the court it will be because of the backlash of the almost daily reports accross the nation of ludicrous, absurd theft and unbridled excess of the vultures on the producers.

If a lawyer came to me and said that even though it appears that my wife and daughters died because of their own bad decision it was not true what would I do? I would be immeadiately receptive. Not over money but to believe in the ones I loved. It also appeals to todays societys accepted excuse "It's not my fault because..."

For the good that has been brought about by some valid law suits there has also been a HUGE cost to society directly and indirectly by the others. Can't say it was or was not worth it. Can say the lawyers always get paid, paid well, and paid first.

May 13, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ThinkAboutThis (anonymous) says...

Still not a good idea to roll the dice and not yield to oncoming traffic or pull out in front of any type of moving vehicle.

May 13, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

metallic (anonymous) says...

"johnsisland1" posted:

>>So what happens if, during the lawsuit, the plaintiff proves, in court, that not only was the concrete truck overloaded - but that manufacturer of the truck, the owner of the truck, and the driver of the truck ALL knew it was extremely dangerous to operate. Does it really matter who was driving the car or whether or not it was an illegal lane change? What if construction company rolled the dice to get more concrete from point A to point B - and put all of our lives in danger?<<

What you suggest is NOT the case.

State investigators would have been more than happy to bring criminal charges against the truck driver/owner in this accident if they could find fault.

The only fault in this accident was with the inexperienced driver at the wheel of the car that cut in front of a truck that had the right-of-way.

If the truck was brand new, in perfect working condition, completely empty, and driven by Mario Andretti, it STILL would have probably been a fatal accident.

We cannot change the laws of physics.

A small car moving at a slow speed, cutting directly in front of a big truck moving at a higher speed, is going to cause an accident.

It's tragic to see a young girl and mother die (and another young girl left seriously injured), but the tragedy doesn't change the FACTS in this case.

The lawyers are "milking the system." They know there is no case, but are hoping it will "look bad" for the companies being sued to "fight" this in open court and the companies will settle.

It is this sort of activity -- which happens on a smaller scale every day in thousands of cases -- which gives lawyers a bad name.

May 13, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

moephishwater (anonymous) says...

If you know exactly where this accident occured and the background of the situation, you may be a little more inclined to side with the plaintiffs. This accident occured right before the rest area of I26. Prior to this accident, there was NO sign or indication that the lane was about to suddenly merge into a rest area. If you were a new driver who just left the DMV, you would have merged into this lane automatically and started cruising down the interstate. Suddenly, when the lane decides to become the rest area, you are forced to try to get over quickly. I always found this dangerous, because I saw many out of state drivers not familiar with the area making this mistake on a daily basis. Now, after the accident, there is small yellow sign that warns that the lane ends, but it certainly isn't placed far away enough to give anyone a fair warning.

May 13, 2009 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ThinkAboutThis (anonymous) says...

Keep in mind, many will sue just for the settlement out of court options- in hopes of receiving something- sad, but true!

May 13, 2009 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jblakeslee (anonymous) says...

Thinkaboutthis: To answer your question about the school/Driving instructor....they were in their own POV (as the law allows) and not in a Driver Ed. car. All driver Ed cars are equipped with a foot brake on the Passenger side, and the instructors are liscened by the state. IF she had been in a Driver Ed car she would probably be alive, because no instructor would take her from the DMV where she just obtained her permit, onto the interstate! VERY poor choice on Mom's part.

May 13, 2009 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ThinkAboutThis (anonymous) says...

"Suddenly, when the lane decides to become the rest area, you are forced to try to get over quickly."

Or stop and yield ....or go to the rest area... why would you get over quickly without looking at the existing traffic conditions? Just because a lane ends does not mean move over, especially into oncoming traffic!

May 13, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

johnsisland1 (anonymous) says...

If all the facts of every accident were evident from the police reports or information collected at the scene - their would never be a need for civil litigation for accidents.

Hey folks - you are basing most of your facts on the P&C story. Who wants to hold this article up as fact?

May 13, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ThinkAboutThis (anonymous) says...

I understand she was in POV, just wondering IF she did indeed have lessons and if so, why the family did not try to include them in the lawsuit to try & prove she was not properly instucted/taught or will that be phase 2 of another lawsuit!

May 13, 2009 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ThinkAboutThis (anonymous) says...

Has the concrete truck driver been charged with vehicular manslaughter or other charges?

May 13, 2009 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

metallic (anonymous) says...

"moephishwater" posted:

>>If you know exactly where this accident occured and the background of the situation, you may be a little more inclined to side with the plaintiffs. This accident occured right before the rest area of I26. Prior to this accident, there was NO sign or indication that the lane was about to suddenly merge into a rest area. If you were a new driver who just left the DMV, you would have merged into this lane automatically and started cruising down the interstate. Suddenly, when the lane decides to become the rest area, you are forced to try to get over quickly. I always found this dangerous, because I saw many out of state drivers not familiar with the area making this mistake on a daily basis. Now, after the accident, there is small yellow sign that warns that the lane ends, but it certainly isn't placed far away enough to give anyone a fair warning.<<

Nonsense.

How many accidents occurred at that ramp prior to this incident?

On-ramps usually end, but on-ramps that end as exit lanes for another location are extremely common in our interstate system. Any experienced driver knows this.

This entrance lane is exceedingly safe because it is extremely long and does NOT end -- as you claim in your comments.

If one cannot enter traffic safely in the length of the lane, one simply exits into the rest area, then reenters on the other side of the rest area -- or at least that is what an EXPERIENCED driver would do.

The girl tried to enter traffic when it was not clear to enter. She caused the accident. There is no problem with the design of the on-ramp.

May 13, 2009 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...

moephishwater - I remember people bringing that up when this first hit the news. People had said that that area was known for accidents because of that. I just can't stand when the "I'd never sue no matter what" crowd starts bashing a family. We need to remember the "walk a mile in someone elses shoes thing". Those are shoes I pray I never have to walk in.

May 13, 2009 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

metallic (anonymous) says...

"ThinkAboutThis" posted:

>>Has the concrete truck driver been charged with vehicular manslaughter or other charges?<<

No.

May 13, 2009 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tc1 (anonymous) says...

"Does it really matter who was driving the car or whether or not it was an illegal lane change? What if construction company rolled the dice to get more concrete from point A to point B - and put all of our lives in danger?"

In this case IMO the plaintif Also rolled the dice, but sadly, Lost. If your scenario is correct I certainly do not condone it. Assuming it is how can you prove that in the same situation with truck completely legal and safe that the same results would Not happen. Cement trucks are top heavy even empty. There seems to be no doubt that the 15 year old inexperienced driver changed lanes illegally. What if I had been in the position of the truck. I could be dead now.

Your logic would lead to believing that even though I am breaking no traffic law if I can't avoid someone elses illegal manuver it can still be my fault. This is true I read some years back. The family of a drunken driver sued the estate of a young couple whom the drunk ran into head on and killed. Honest to my God they claimed that since the young couple was not drunk they could have gotten out of the way.

May 13, 2009 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Larz13 (anonymous) says...

Greedy lawyer parasites. Where's Hamilton to sing the praises that it is such an honorable profession.

I wonder if Nobama in asking the health insurance companies for $2T in reduced costs is also going to reign in the trial lawyers (that would probably save $10T!!!!). If he has, it would be an admirable thing. My thoughts are that he hasn't, for fear of losing campaign donations.

May 13, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

johnsisland1 (anonymous) says...

I just think it is great we have so many experts focusing on this P&C article. I guess the economy is down - so all of the out of work forensic scientists, civil litigation attorneys, physics and tort law professors, and police officers are on the case.

Great stuff.

May 13, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Luna (anonymous) says...

Pink when I was born harold - now I just wear the tag so many others have given me.

This is a sad case, not sure what I would do in a similar situation. I'd like to think I be able to use a little common sense and realize that no amount of money would ever bring back my love ones. But truth be known I could see the vengeful side rearing its ugly head.

Regarding the race thingie - people of ALL colors, creeds, religious backgrounds and socio-economic status file laws suits. Some have basis, some do not and there has to be some sort of common sense used before it ever gets before the courts.

May 13, 2009 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tc1 (anonymous) says...

And sometimes, not often anymore, common sense wins. Some are begining to understand that those big bad evil companies, certainly some are or the leaders are, also provide the jobs and products that we need and want. So sue them all out of existense they can afford it. They won't have to raise prices or eliminate jobs because of frivolous law suits.

May 13, 2009 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Luna (anonymous) says...

tc - there are some evil companies. What about that peanut factory that knew they had contamination?

Should they see lawsuits?

May 13, 2009 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jblakeslee (anonymous) says...

Thinkaboutthis:.....the article made no mention of a driver training course....she probably had not taken the Mandatory course for drivers under the age of 17....she probably wanted to wait until after she got her permit......

And I agree with you: the "sudden" (about 1/8 a mile, notice) lane ending in the rest area should not have been a factor...you can plainly see where the lane goes, and even so, like it was stated: If you see the lane going into the rest area and cannot get over, just go into the rest area!

Note to all parents with teenagers coming of driving age: A student driver CAN drive a Driver Education car WITHOUT a leaners permit.......Please....get them drivers ed before you let them get behind the wheel with anyone in a POV!

May 13, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jblakeslee (anonymous) says...

"Suddenly, when the lane becomes the rest area, you are forced, to get over quickly. ?????? NO you are not forced to get over quickly.....Just drive into the rest area!

May 13, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tc1 (anonymous) says...

Luna,

Quote myself:
"certainly some are or the leaders are"

The peanutbutter co? Yes. Actually in this case I think top management should be at least charged with negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. But then what about the lower level workers who knew but said to themselves they needed their job?

May 13, 2009 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

PalmettoDP (anonymous) says...

There is indeed a racial component in the trial lawyers' decision to choose Orangeburg County.

If the defendants are white (and I believe they are, with the exception of SCDOT, an agency), the lawyers will stir up racial animosity among the jury (as if there isn't already enough of that).

The insurance companies know defendants in civil cases always lose in Orangeburg County, so they will be eager to settle out of court. The judge could throw out the suit, but that is HIGHLY unlikely.

May 13, 2009 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ThinkAboutThis (anonymous) says...

Thanks for the info jblakeslee, I thought all SC drivers were required to take Behind the Wheel thus, my children were NOT allowed to drive AT ALL until they took lessons from an established local driving school. I have a 15 year old who has the valid SC permit but we have not allowed her to drive at all- told her she must have driving school lessons first and that will occur over summer break.

Personally, I would never allow a child to drive until they have had at minimum- driving lessons.

May 13, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ThinkAboutThis (anonymous) says...

Did the accident occur in Orangeburg- the court case/procedures should be in the location the accident occurred, IMO.

May 13, 2009 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kb18 (anonymous) says...

I feel for the family, but to blame the truck driver and the state. That is wrong. The mother is more to blame than anyone. What on earth was she thinking??? Taking a 15 yr who just got her learner permit on a busy interstate. Most like she just did the abrupt lane change and did not even look to see if anyone was there. That child should never have been let on the interstate till she had some driving experience under her belt. That poor truck driver will have to live with this the rest of his life all because the mother did not think and use her brain.It is hard enough for an adult to drive on the interstate but a child that just got her license.... There are two things you never do never put out from the dead stop on to the interstate infront of a big truck esp loaded one or never put in front of one if you are not going f aster than him. Trucks dont stop on a dime, esp if they are loaded. I feel sorry for this family, but it was only one people to blame for this accident, the mother for allowing this child to drive on a busy interstate with no experience. I feel for the truck driver too

May 13, 2009 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jblakeslee (anonymous) says...

Thinkaboutthis: In Sc drivers under the age of 17 are required to take Drivers Ed., Either at school or with a private company. They are required to have 40 hrs behind the wheel practice (6 has to be with a liscensed instructor, the other 34 with a liscensed driver over the age of 21 or with at least one years driving experience) 8 Hrs of classroom is also required. After completion of the course they have to take a form to DMV to be able to take the road test. If 17 or over, you can just walk in and take the test, no training required.

The biggest flaw in the system, is what happened in this case.....you can get your permit and drive with someone, before you have to take the ED.

If the young girl in this case just got her permit, she either had to have had lessons before she got it, or driven with someone without her permit, or this was her first time behind the wheel......if this was the her first time behind the wheel, there is no way in the world the mother should have even considered letting her drive........

May 13, 2009 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hartley8184 (anonymous) says...

I absolutely refuse to believe the truck was overloaded with cement. I mean, do people think that a bunch of guys climb up on top of the big spinning cement thing and pour bags of powder into it and grab a water hose? Grow a brain.

The driver has nothing to do with the load. But he might have been speeding. Driving on I26 during rush hours is bumper to bumper madness and that you have to SLOW DOWN and SPACE YOURSELF between cars. There is nothing heavier than a fully loaded cement truck on the highway. In this town, you HAVE TO anticipate chaos from the idiots around you. You can't drive like a maniac stacked up on everyones bumper, talking on your phone, tuning the radio, drinking a soda pop. And you've got to watch for stupid people. They are everywhere. What this poor girl did is something I witness every single day somewhere in this town.

Last week, I was doing the speed limit down highway 78, when an eighteen wheeler came roaring right up on my bumper, starting popping his airbrakes and then goosing the gas alternately, playing chicken with me. I wouldn't speed up or something, so he was acting out. And I had my 9 year old in the car with me. So, at the next traffic light, I put the car in park, got out, walked right up to his truck, wrote down the business name, registration number and ID, and told him I was going to report him to his boss. Of course, being a redneck, the moron responded with arrogant defiance and blame displacement...

I've driven all over the world. Mexico, Korea, even in rural Africa. Charleston drivers are the WORST DRIVERS I've ever seen in my life. What is it with this town? Is there a giant magnetic field that warps reality? Maybe an underground meteor? It's like, the people in this town deliberately do everything backwards like out of spitefulness or something. Charlestonians don't even know what "Right of Way" is. Merge? What's that? Yield? What's that? You're supposed to do 30 mph in the left lane on the interstate. Stop on the merge ramp... no signals...

May 13, 2009 at 2:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...

jblakeslee, this is straight from SCDMV website. These are the requirements.

Class D - Passenger Vehicle Beginner Permit

A regular passenger vehicle beginner's permit allows you to practice driving a vehicle while you are accompanied by an experienced licensed driver.

To get a Class D Beginner's Permit:

* You must be at least 15 years old.
* You must bring your birth certificate, social security card, proof of residency and insurance information.
* If you are under 18 years of age, you must bring your parent or legal guardian with you to sign your application.
* You must pass the vision and knowledge tests.

Restrictions:

* You may drive from 6 a.m. to midnight if a licensed driver who is at least 21 years old and has at least one year of driving experience accompanies you in the front seat.
* From midnight to 6 a.m., you may drive if a licensed parent or guardian accompanies you in the front seat.
* You must have your beginner's permit for 180 days before you can apply for a driver's license.
* If you are under 18 years of age, you must practice driving with your licensed parent or legal guardian for at least 40 hours, including 10 hours during darkness, before you can apply for your driver's license.

There are NO Driver's Ed requirements.

May 13, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jblakeslee (anonymous) says...

coolfreaknbeans: Please get the CURRENT information, there is in fact a requirement for someone under 17 to take the ROAD TEST.......there is no driver's ed requirement to get a permit....check out a form entitled: Provisional Drivers Liscense Application....all people wanting to take the Road test under the age of 17 need to have one....and it is filled out and signed by the school/private driving instuctor........call the DMV ask for yourself........don't always trust a outdated website.

May 13, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jblakeslee (anonymous) says...

Coolbeans: oops....I stand corrected: the DMV website is not outdated......you just did not look hard enough, you thought you found something that supported your position and stopped looking......

At the website: click on the heading "drivers Liscense" then click on "initial drivers liscense" scroll down and in bright blue letters you will see "form PDLA" open it, and read it, and you will see the requirement.

May 13, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

luvmydogs59 (anonymous) says...

15 is WAY too young to be getting behind the wheel of a car. Back in the day, when I was in high school, we had to take mandatory beind the wheel drivers education. We couldn't get our permits without it. And we had to be 17 to even get a permit. Even my children, who still live in that state, had to go to an accredited driving school, which had to be paid for (the public school systems all dropped behind the wheel training because of insurance liability costs) before they could go to DMV for their permits. They lowered the age to 16 which I think is still too young.

This whole thing was a tragedy that didn't have to happen. Poor judgement on the part of the mother...and she and her daughter lost their lives because of it!

I've been driving for well over 30 years and I avoid the interstate like the plague. Won't drive on it unless I have to. Apparently nobody comprehends what a 65 mph speed limit is!

May 13, 2009 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

CWL922 (anonymous) says...

Scenario - You are driving your car on the interstate. A cement truck is in the far right lane approaching the entrance to the rest area not knowing the lane enters the rest area. He realizes at the last moment that is the entrance to the rest area and whips it into your lane causing an accident. Who is at fault? According to the plaintiffs lawyers, YOU ARE! You were driving at an unsafe speed with a faulty car design. The items in your trunk made your vehicle overloaded. You have got to be kidding. If the jury finds in favor of the plaintiff, I would not trust this jury with any common sense at all.

May 13, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

prosperous_hb (anonymous) says...

Armymom - it was just an assumption. I have no idea who they are using.

May 13, 2009 at 4:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...

jblakeslee- You are awfully grumpy and wrong. That requirement is for 16 yr olds NOT 15 year olds getting their permit. You didn't read it all.

Special Restricted License for 16 Year Old Drivers

If you are 16 years old and have held your beginner's permit for at least 180 days or have a conditional license, you are eligible for a special restricted license.

To get a Special Restricted License:

* To get a special restricted driver's license, you must bring your parent or legal guardian with you to sign your application.
* You must bring your beginner's permit.
* You must submit Form PDLA that certifies you have:
******o Completed a driver's education course *******
o Had satisfactory school attendance
o Practiced driving with your licensed parent or guardian for 40 hours, including 10 hours of driving practice at night.

Those extra asterisks were added by me to point it out. My information was 110% correct and you were an obnoxious know it all who practically accused me of getting my info from Wiki or something. You have now been schooled. Your welcome :)

May 13, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wonderdog (anonymous) says...

The case can be filed in the home county of the defendant, as in this case, or in the county where the accident occurred. That would be Dorchester, Berkeley or Charleston (I'm not sure which county this occurred in), all counties which are not considered as plaintiff-friendly as Orangeburg.

This was a horrible accident, but going after the innocent truck driver is WRONG. I hope the driver and trucking company hire a great lawyer who will see this to the end.

May 13, 2009 at 8:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wonderdog (anonymous) says...

According to the Orangeburg County website (accessible to the public), the plaintiff attorneys are Dwayne Green, Scott Mongillo, and Ronald Richter.

May 13, 2009 at 9:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

whalernut (anonymous) says...

sue the ass off em
He was full and flying down the interstate. THere is no reason for those dame mixers to be in the fast lane of an interstate anyway. ESPECIALLY FULL!!!!!

May 14, 2009 at 5:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wonderdog (anonymous) says...

Were you a witness, or do you just believe the standard BS language in every summons and complaint against a trucking company?

Trucks are required to keep weight tickets. If the truck really was overloaded, that will come out. I have never seen a summons and complaint that did NOT include that language - even when the truck was almost empty.

I believe the accident occurred in the right lane or lane #2 - not the fast lane.

May 14, 2009 at 7:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jblakeslee (anonymous) says...

Coolbeans: No I am not grumpy and wrong..just know what I am talking about......the requirements for a 15 year old to get a liscense are the same as a 16 year old.....for crying out loud...why would they require a 16 year old to have drivers ed, but not a 15 year old?????? think about it.....a 15 year old does not get a restricted liscense, they get a provisional liscense, and have to have drivers ed just like a 16 year old.......I was a driving instructor for 6 years, pretty sure I know what the requirements are....Call the DMV, find out for yourself!

May 14, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jblakeslee (anonymous) says...

Coolbeans: You are the one who did not read enough......go to the DMV website.....look under drivers liscense, look for "Conditional Drivers liscense for 15 year olds"....(and I can admit when I am wrong: I said it was a Provisional, but it is now called conditional".....and you will see that for 15 year olds, a PDLA is REQUIRED, and to get a PDLA a 15 year old MUST complete DRIVERS ED.....I am not arrogant, or a know it all.....but in this case I DO know what I am talking about......

NOW, go back to school!

May 14, 2009 at 8:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jblakeslee (anonymous) says...

Coolbeans: I am not the type of person who starts or like to argue........

I posted the comments yesterday about Driver's Ed in an effort to inform people that it is required for 15 and 16 year olds....and they should think about getting it done BEFORE they let their child get behind the wheel of their POV......it was an effort to inform people, and to maybe get someone to think before they let their child drive and have a situtation like this one a year ago......

You said there is NO requirement for driver's ed. That is mis-information.......so I responded only because I want parents to know what the requirements are and maybe keep their child safe........

Here's what I suggest: If you firmly believe there is no requirement for 15 year olds, call the DMV and ask......and then maybe your 110% correct attitude will change. Humility is a wonderful thing.

I am done with this issue.....I stated fact. 15 and 16 year olds MUST have a PDLA to get a liscense, and to get a PDLA you must complete Drivers ED either at your high school, or at a private company.

May 14, 2009 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

moephishwater (anonymous) says...

The lane does not "end", but it turns into a rest area. I know that this is a dangerous place on I26, because I live right near this area and drive it daily. Even though I am experienced, I have made the mistake many times! I can't tell you how many times I almost made an accidental trip to the rest area.

May 14, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shawtownpioneer (anonymous) says...

Akabi-Davis, 15, was driving home that day and had entered the interstate eastbound at College Park Road when she made an abrupt lane change in front of the cement truck.

If this was a responsible parent.. Why was she letting her inexperience daughters drive on College Park Rd? I use to live on this road and NEVER WOULD let my children drive on this road!

If I was on the jury, This family would not get a dime!

My husband has Worked for DOT and Has a CDL license they have to go in a great deal of training to get where they are! For CDL license you have to get a physical yearly and renew your license more often than a regular license! I believe 1-2 years. If you get in accident or even a ticket this has to be reported to DOT.

Next, they are going to place blame on the car manufacture.

My sympathy goes to the Family.

But they should not get a dime! When this accident could of been avoided by letting a inexperience driver on a busy rd of COLLEGE PARK!

I am sorry for their loss. But I agree they are being Very GREEDY!

May 14, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Slick50 (anonymous) says...

Imagine that...a lawsuit.

May 14, 2009 at 12:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

TLG87 (anonymous) says...

I was actually shocked last year when this happened that they didnt file lawsuits then. But I also feel there is absolutely NO grounds for a lawsuit.

The 15 year old driving the car is the one at fault for the accident. Cutting off a cement truck, seriously? Do people think they stop on a dime? Her mother is truly at fault as well for letting her drive on I-26 just minutes after getting her learners permit! I was 16.5 when I got my permit (law in NJ), and I was not allowed [parents rules] to drive on the interstate until I was 17 (limited license) and had experience driving on other roads often first.

This lawsuit is disgusting, and I do hope the judge throws it and tells them they are wasting his/her time. Money is NOT going to bring someone back. It does not heal your pain and suffering. How do you blame the truck manufacturer, DOT, the cement company, and the driver for things that would have been avoidable had this woman not let her 15 year old drive on I-26? I'm bargaining that if the mother had been driving, everyone would be alive today. Or if the mother had her daughter take an alternate route than I-26. Instead of making a dangerous lane change in front of a very large, somewhat unstable truck, she should have just gone into the rest area. It DOES come out the other side!

Stupid ridiculous greedy sue happy people in this world.

May 14, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

TLG87 (anonymous) says...

And to add to my previous comment - maybe the truck driver should counter sue. I mean, that girl was at fault in the accident, and he probably had medical bills come out of it after being checked over. He was a victim as well. If the truck was overloaded or speeding, that definitely would have been mentioned.

If the jury rules for the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, I will just have completely given up hope on this world.

May 14, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

CedarPosts (anonymous) says...

I'm going against the tide, having driven past the accident scene soon after it happened.

The truck driver could have avoided the accident, too many people drive like they own the road and whatever lane they are in.

May 15, 2009 at 6:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ThinkAboutThis (anonymous) says...

I'm curious and for my own safety- how could the cement truck driver avoided the accident? A car pulls out in front of him- so are you stating at every single on ramp I should be prepared to slam on brakes and stop or at every single on ramp am I too be prepared to make a quick lane change resulting in an accident then being my fault?

At every on ramp be prepared to back off causing accidents behind me?

It was rush hour traffic- an inexperienced driver makes an abrupt lane change in front of oncoming traffic- guess we can lal be lucky more were NOT KILLED by this accident and indeed the cemnent truck driver could have possibly made an inexperienced driver's mistake better than it could have been by avoiding more collisions.

I'd say the cement truck driver pretty much did the best he could with the given and was able to avoid more fatalities and collision by not swerving and hitting other veheicles that were present in that rush hour traffic!!

May 15, 2009 at 7:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jblakeslee (anonymous) says...

Thinkaboutthis: Your are right, sometimes there is nothing you can do......As a driving instructor, I always taught my students to be aware of the traffic and to be always scanning it. As you approach an interstate on ramp you should look and see if any vehicles are entering the interstate, and be aware of them, if traffic permits move to the far left lane (or at least one lane over) away from the ramp. Traffic on the interstate has the right of way, but that does not always mean anything. In some cases there is not much you can do. Like you said, you cannot slam on the brakes and get hit from behind. All you can do in a case like this is be aware of the car entering the interstate, and if possible move over to the left, or slow down gradually just in case they come over.

All this young woman had to do in this case was just drive on into the rest area.......but her lack of experience, and training prevented her from doing the one thing that could have saved her life, and the lives of others.......

May 15, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ThinkAboutThis (anonymous) says...

Scary to think, you ar e driving along being responsible, someone else pulls out in front of you, causing the accident but yet look who is being sued!

How does anyone know or not that the cement truck driver was being a defensive driver and watching the road and again did the best he/she could have done with the situation thrown his way! It's not like the cement truck driver wanted this accident to happen now was it, but yet he is being sued- just crazy!

May 15, 2009 at 8:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jblakeslee (anonymous) says...

The only way to determine if the truck driver was doing what he should is by the method the police use: talking to witnesses, looking at the accident site, and trying to figure out what happend. In this case, they did not ticket the truck driver so I would say he was doing what he was supposed to be doing.

There is No way they should win this case. But everyone being sued will have to spend money to defend themselves, or the insurance company will just settle. Not right at all!

May 15, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

rgsno (anonymous) says...

If the judge in this case has any sense at all; they will dismiss it at its first hearing.

May 15, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

CWL922 (anonymous) says...

CedarPosts - This truck driver caused this accident just as much as you did. The driver of the car had a better chance of preventing this accident than anybody. Your reasoning is that you can prevent someone from hitting your vehicle without you causing an accident is absurd.

May 15, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

flame711 (anonymous) says...

Counter-sue the family for the damages & neglagance. This is a sad situation. Very unfortunate, but there should have been a better sense of judgement. They JUST got the learner's permit. Why would it be a good idea to let a 15 y/o get on I26 of all roadways this soon in the driving experience. People always run into some blood sucking lawyer, who say.. "oh, thats wrong, let me get you some money" Or they just watched many of the idiotic commericals on tv. It could have been anyone in that lane, also a big truck like that, can't even get out of its own way!

May 16, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tslady51 (anonymous) says...

I know this family grieves for their loss. However, to blame the truck driver, concrete company, SC Department of Transportation, etc. for this tragedy is unethical. An inexperienced 15-year-old who only received her permit within minutes has no business driving on an interstate. Obviously she had never been taught how to merge or many other basics in driving. The driver and concrete company where not cited for any violations. Therefore there was no wrong doing on their part. For a driver to automatically assume they have the right-of-way on merging is the sign of over-confidence that often comes with improper training. My own teenage son was not allowed on the interstate until he had many hours of driving experience behind him. I can only hope the judicial system sees the folly in this endeavor for what it is - a means to get some money by hoping one or all of the defendants will settle to avoid a costly trial. Shame on the lawyers for starting this!

May 19, 2009 at 6:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )