Drunk Driving teen kills 4, injures 9. His defense? Rich and spoiled.

[luv]

Kid pleads Guilty but gets no jail time because his parents are wealthy, didn't set limits and made excuses for bad behavior. He is plagued by - get this - "Affluenza", so he goes to rehab/therapy and has ten years of probation.

I am wondering if his parents didn't pay someone off for the "But I'm rich and spoiled!" defense to work.

People can't really be excusing this based on "Affluenza", can they??

 

[Nemo14]

That is just so repulsive - he should be rotting in jail with a overly-friendly cellmate!

 

[Disneyhead'71]

16 year olds have poor decision making skills. Especially when impaired. My heart goes out to everyone impacted by this sad situation.

 

[Hakunamatata]

16 year olds have poor decision making skills. Especially when impaired.

Everyone has poor decision making skills when impaired. That's why they call it impaired. 16 yo is old enough to take responsibility for actions.

 

[Bairstow]

The boy will still be civilly liable for the accident, I'm sure.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/us/texas-teen-dwi-wreck/

"There is nothing the judge could have done to lessen the suffering for any of those families," said defense attorney Scott Brown, CNN affiliate KTVT reported.

"(The judge) fashioned a sentence that is going to keep Ethan under the thumb of the justice system for the next 10 years," he said. "And if Ethan doesn't do what he's supposed to do, if he has one misstep at all, then this judge, or an adult judge when he's transferred, can then incarcerate him."

 

[Hakunamatata]

The boy will still be civilly liable for the accident, I'm sure.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/us/texas-teen-dwi-wreck/

No, his insurance carrier will.

 

[Bairstow]

No, his insurance carrier will.

You don't name the insurance carrier in the suit.

 

[Hakunamatata]

You don't name the insurance carrier in the suit.

Nope, but most accident chasers settle for policy limits because it's too much work to go after the individual.

 

[flynnibus]

No, his insurance carrier will.

Insurance coverage is capped.. and it's not that high for most policies.. only like 100-300k types of numbers. Wrongful death suits (times 4) will be in the millions easily.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Insurance coverage is capped.. and it's not that high for most policies.. only like 100-300k types of numbers. Wrongful death suits (times 4) will be in the millions easily.

You can get whatever judgement you can. If the person doesn't have the assets, you get nothing.

 

[Gabe1]

Kid pleads Guilty but gets no jail time because his parents are wealthy, didn't set limits and made excuses for bad behavior. He is plagued by - get this - "Affluenza", so he goes to rehab/therapy and has ten years of probation.

I am wondering if his parents didn't pay someone off for the "But I'm rich and spoiled!" defense to work.

People can't really be excusing this based on "Affluenza", can they??

Did you ever hear of a man named Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and that sad night at Chappaquiddick?

 

[Bairstow]

You can get whatever judgement you can. If the person doesn't have the assets, you get nothing.

Sure, and considering this boy likely stands to inherit a considerable sum from his parents, a judgment lien against him is plenty lucrative to attract attorneys.
...and that's assuming the wealthy parents can't be joined by some theory (negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrumentality, etc.) or through Texas statute.
The judge here clearly assessed blame against them in court, though I don't know enough about Texas law to say if they're in legal danger there civilly. The stakes are high enough for someone to at least try.

 

[StarWarsGirl]

Poor parenting is definitely playing into this, but seriously? Afluenza?

 

[Hakunamatata]

Sure, and considering this boy likely stands to inherit a considerable sum from his parents, a judgment lien against him is plenty lucrative to attract attorneys.
...and that's assuming the wealthy parents can't be joined by some theory (negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrumentality, etc.) or through Texas statute.

If the vehicle was registered in the parents name, and the child lives with them then they are most likely in deep crud.

 

[flynnibus]

You can get whatever judgement you can. If the person doesn't have the assets, you get nothing.

The judgement doesn't disappear if they don't have the dollars right now - sure they could try bankruptcy, but there are lots of assets in play here - the kid is a minor operating under his parents. The parent's would be named as the liable parties.

 

[Hakunamatata]

The judgement doesn't disappear if they don't have the dollars right now - sure they could try bankruptcy, but there are lots of assets in play here - the kid is a minor operating under his parents. The parent's would be named as the liable parties.

Yep and judgements in Texas can be renewed every seven years ( I think it's seven years).

 

[Bairstow]

The judgement doesn't disappear if they don't have the dollars right now - sure they could try bankruptcy, but there are lots of assets in play here - the kid is a minor operating under his parents. The parent's would be named as the liable parties.

Yes, but they're not automatically liable at common law, even if the judge in the criminal case said they were at fault.
The victims would need to argue that the parents should be liable under some other theory, most likely negligent entrustment.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Yes, but they're not automatically liable at common law, even if the judge in the criminal case said they were at fault.
The victims would need to argue that the parents should be liable under some other theory, most likely negligent entrustment.

Correct. And technically they are not legally liable until a jury rules they are. That's why most plaintiff injury lawyers will recomend settlement for insurance policy funds. It may seem slam dunk, but you still have to win at jury trial.

 

[Megalodumb]

16 yo is old enough to take responsibility for actions.

^Exactly this.

Considering many of our ancestors were married & had children by age 16, I find it a bogus excuse using his age as a crutch to get him off easy for this crime.

 

[flynnibus]

Considering many of our ancestors were married & had children by age 16, I find it a bogus excuse using his age as a crutch to get him off easy for this crime.

It's not bogus - it's the law.

Remember this is the same country that constantly is trying to raise the age to do anything.... not make people more responsible earlier. We're coddling and the laws reflect that (healthcare up to age 26 anyone???)