Houston judge's daughter sues driver she ran into while DUI

[Bob Juch]

Convicted last year of intoxication manslaughter for the death of her boyfriend, the 21-year-old daughter of a state district judge is suing the truck driver she ran into during a drunken driving crash.

Elizabeth Shelton, the daughter of juvenile judge Pat Shelton, is accusing truck driver Lance Bennett of negligence in the Oct. 23, 2007, wreck that killed her boyfriend Matthew McNiece.

Shelton had a blood alcohol concentration more than three times the legal limit, two tests showed. She was sentenced to eight years' probation and had to serve four months in jail.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hot ... 70554.html

[silverscreenselect]

I don't know what the laws of contributory/comparative negligence are in Texas, but it would seem that she would have a tough time showing that her state of intoxication did not contribute significantly to the accident, especially since she rear ended the other vehicle.

[gsabc]

Way to teach your kid personal responsibility, Judge Shelton,while dishing out justice for other people's kids. I hope his opponent in his next election race brings this up early and often.

[SportsFan68]

If she can shift even 10% of the responsibility, that's 10% she (or Dad) doesn't have to pay.

[TheCalvinator24]

It's been a long time since I took Torts, and I haven't practiced civil law in about 6 1/2 years, but IIRC, if the Plaintiff is found to be 50% responsible, then she gets nothing.

Something tells me that she won't get anything out of this suit if it goes to a jury. She's hoping the Defendant's Insurance Company will throw some money at it to save the cost of trial.

[SportsFan68]

It's been a long time since I took Torts, and I haven't practiced civil law in about 6 1/2 years, but IIRC, if the Plaintiff is found to be 50% responsible, then she gets nothing.

Something tells me that she won't get anything out of this suit if it goes to a jury. She's hoping the Defendant's Insurance Company will throw some money at it to save the cost of trial.

I would agree with that, except there is no insurance company. The defendant allowed his coverage to lapse, and she's alleging that as part of his negligence.

I agree with SSS, I don't see how she has anything but 100% negligence in this case, and even if a jury did take pity on her and give the other driver 10% contributory negligence, I can't see how a judge wouldn't set that aside as a matter of law.

[Bob Juch]

If she can shift even 10% of the responsibility, that's 10% she (or Dad) doesn't have to pay.

That depends on the state. In North Carolina if you're found even 1% responsible, you get nothing. I can't find anything that says what Texas has.

In New York, some insurance companies are using contributory negligence to reduce the amount they pay their own customers who are in an accident. For instance, one friend was stopped at a light and rear-ended by an uninsured driver. Her insurance company said she was 10% contributory just because she was on the street and reduced her payment!

[BackInTex]

If she can shift even 10% of the responsibility, that's 10% she (or Dad) doesn't have to pay.

That depends on the state. In North Carolina if you're found even 1% responsible, you get nothing. I can't find anything that says what Texas has.

In New York, some insurance companies are using contributory negligence to reduce the amount they pay their own customers who are in an accident. For instance, one friend was stopped at a light and rear-ended by an uninsured driver. Her insurance company said she was 10% contributory just because she was on the street and reduced her payment!

That sounds like the insurance company denying a fire death claim here because the victims succumbed to smoke (which was a pollutant) and death from pollutants was excluded from the fire policy.

A jury should, in both cases, find for the insured and quadruple the benefits. As well as send the insurers' lawyers to prison for fraud, perjury, or contempt of court.

In both cases, the insurance companies are denying claims based on the reasons their products are purchased (and marketed).