jubalharshaw

As if I haven't had enough issues lately, I present to you, faithful reader, the piece de resistance:

I'm being sued. Remember back in October one YEAR AND A HALF AGO, when my car was totaled? No, you wouldn't, but I do. The other guy is suing me. NOW, he's suing me. It says that I exited my apartment's driveway (to go across the damned street) "in a negligent manner, and at a high rate of speed" causing the accident. The "Plaintiff sustatined sever and permanent injuries to his neck and back...{lost wages, pain and suffering, yadda yadda}." The plaintiff "prays for judgement" against me to the tune of "an undetermined amount in excess of $50,000.00, as well as his costs and disbursements incurred in the prosecution of this action."

Let me start out with compassion: if he really did sustain permanent injuries, he has my sympathy. HOWEVER:

*It was raining that day, and according to witness he was speeding and did not have his lights on. According to the Plaintiff himself, when trying to stop he couldn't and skidded into me. To me, this is him not visible and disregarding a safe, in-control driving speed.

*How the hell can you get out of a driveway "at a high rate of speed"? I was sitting at that damned curb waiting a good mo' for a chance to get across, and at the time that I crossed, saw no danger in doing so. High speed? What, with my 4 cylinder corolla? Musta really hit terminal velocity there.

*The summons/complaint describes the road as having parallel parking on both sides of the street, two lanes, and a middle lane for turning. At the time of the accident, it was a plain 4 lane street. The city specifically turned it into it's present form after my accident, because apparently, mine wasn't the only one of its type. I think anyone can tell you it's a dangerous bit of roadway. I was simply the straw that broke the camel's back and made the city act (or perhaps it was already on the docket. I'm not sure; bureaucracy and all). Either they're negligent in their capture of the actual circumstance of the accident, or they're trying to pull a fast one to make me sound really irresponsible.

*At the time of the accident, the responding officer tagged me for something or other to the tune of irresponsible driving(I forget the specific wording), however he opted not to appear at my court date, and the charge was dismissed. While not tagged for speeding, the Plaintiff openly admitted to the officer that he didn't have lights on in precipitation, and was so cited.

*I know that it's possible that spinal injuries can occur and not show up at first, but at the scene of the accident the guy swore up and down that the only thing hurting was his knee that bumped into his car dash. He was many times offered and advised to go to a hospital and get checked out, and he refused. The complaint cites 4000 dollars of medical treatment. My question is twofold: why come out and sue only now, and why over a year and a half did he only incur $4,000 dollars in treatment for a "crippling" medical condition. *Edit: Correction, it's "in excess of $4000", significant because it nullifies No-Fault laws.

Again, if he's truly suffered from this, my heart goes out to him, but I smell tuna, and ambulance chasers.