Round 1 pick #9 Eagles select Georgia DT Jalen Carter

[jsdarkstar]

Carter is being sued by the Estate of a crash victim. Suit filed after he signed his contract. As far as I know, the Plaintiff has to prove causation to win. Carter did not cause the accident. He didn't run the other vehicle off the road. Carter didn't strike the other vehicle. Now let's look at the victim. The victim chose to get into a car with a drunk driver. The victim also was not wearing a seat belt which led them to be ejected from the vehicle. The vehicle struck a curb, lost control and crashed through several telephone polls and hit a tree. Both are factors which dramatically reduce the causation element against Carter. Carter pled no contest to reckless driving and racing. He received 1 yr. probation a fine and community service. 
 

[judunno]

1 hour ago, jsdarkstar said:

Carter is being sued by the Estate of a crash victim. Suit filed after he signed his contract. As far as I know, the Plaintiff has to prove causation to win. Carter did not cause the accident. He didn't run the other vehicle off the road. Carter didn't strike the other vehicle. Now let's look at the victim. The victim chose to get into a car with a drunk driver. The victim also was not wearing a seat belt which led them to be ejected from the vehicle. The vehicle struck a curb, lost control and crashed through several telephone polls and hit a tree. Both are factors which dramatically reduce the causation element against Carter. Carter pled no contest to reckless driving and racing. He received 1 yr. probation a fine and community service. 
 

They'll get money from the UGA more than likely since the driver was drunk and school staff. Going to be hard to get money from Carter and the club.

[EaglesAddict]

13 hours ago, jsdarkstar said:

Carter is being sued by the Estate of a crash victim. Suit filed after he signed his contract. As far as I know, the Plaintiff has to prove causation to win. Carter did not cause the accident. He didn't run the other vehicle off the road. Carter didn't strike the other vehicle. Now let's look at the victim. The victim chose to get into a car with a drunk driver. The victim also was not wearing a seat belt which led them to be ejected from the vehicle. The vehicle struck a curb, lost control and crashed through several telephone polls and hit a tree. Both are factors which dramatically reduce the causation element against Carter. Carter pled no contest to reckless driving and racing. He received 1 yr. probation a fine and community service. 
 

I don't even know how the plaintiff in this case can get awarded anything.  These were all personal choices of everyone involved on their personal time.  Seems like a typical  money grab in our litigious society. 

[judunno]

2 hours ago, EaglesAddict said:

I don't even know how the plaintiff in this case can get awarded anything.  These were all personal choices of everyone involved on their personal time.  Seems like a typical  money grab in our litigious society. 

The driver that crashed was UGA staff and drunk. That's probably an easy win. The school should be held responsible so that measures will be put in place for staff to hopefully prevent another incident like this. She was older and should have known better. Probably mentioning Carter because he's more high profile than the recruiting analyst woman that crashed the car. I would sue the hell out of the school too if my kid was killed like this. Can't get any other solace in this situation in terms of convictions because the woman that was being reckless is dead and Carter was already pretty much exonerated since he was just racing/speeding. Again I highly doubt they'll get much of anything from Carter. The school will likely settle and this goes away.

 

[EaglesAddict]

21 minutes ago, judunno said:

The driver that crashed was UGA staff and drunk. That's probably an easy win. The school should be held responsible so that measures will be put in place for staff to hopefully prevent another incident like this. She was older and should have known better. Probably mentioning Carter because he's more high profile than the recruiting analyst woman that crashed the car. I would sue the hell out of the school too if my kid was killed like this. Can't get any other solace in this situation in terms of convictions because the woman that was being reckless is dead and Carter was already pretty much exonerated since he was just racing/speeding. Again I highly doubt they'll get much of anything from Carter. The school will likely settle and this goes away.

 

Can't agree here and honestly don't understand the logic in this way of thinking.  The man's son who was killed along with the female driver...they were both adults who made a very poor choice and it cost them their lives.  It was their personal choice...why should anyone else but them be held responsible?  I can agree that perhaps the university can make changes to help prevent something like this in the future, but that's completely different than being culpable for millions of dollars as if it was the school's fault they chose to get drunk and race. 

[judunno]

48 minutes ago, EaglesAddict said:

Can't agree here and honestly don't understand the logic in this way of thinking.  The man's son who was killed along with the female driver...they were both adults who made a very poor choice and it cost them their lives.  It was their personal choice...why should anyone else but them be held responsible?  I can agree that perhaps the university can make changes to help prevent something like this in the future, but that's completely different than being culpable for millions of dollars as if it was the school's fault they chose to get drunk and race. 

Who was driving? Did the passenger monitor how many drinks the 'designated driver' had? The car was leased by the athletic department. They will get some settlement money on this one. Easy case.

[EaglesAddict]

26 minutes ago, judunno said:

Who was driving? Did the passenger monitor how many drinks the 'designated driver' had? The car was leased by the athletic department. They will get some settlement money on this one. Easy case.

Huh?  Are those rhetorical questions?  In that way of thinking, if someone was to lease a car from anywhere...and that person gets drunk, drives, and kills themselves or others...then the company who leased the car is responsible?  Sorry man, but that is just nonsense.  Too many people are sue-happy these days and it's why insurance rates for everything are through the roof.  

It's always "someone else's fault" instead of just people accepting the responsibility and consequences for their own choices.

[judunno]

1 hour ago, EaglesAddict said:

Huh?  Are those rhetorical questions?  In that way of thinking, if someone was to lease a car from anywhere...and that person gets drunk, drives, and kills themselves or others...then the company who leased the car is responsible?  Sorry man, but that is just nonsense.  Too many people are sue-happy these days and it's why insurance rates for everything are through the roof.  

It's always "someone else's fault" instead of just people accepting the responsibility and consequences for their own choices.

It was a company car. This woman didn't steal the car and she didn't lease it herself.  It was leased by UGA. She was clearly using it for UGA work purposes at some point but got drunk in it, drove the car 100+ miles an hour, and killed herself and her student passenger. The problem is the driver died. This wasn't just an accident. This was drunk driving. If the driver survived she would have been criminally charged and sued. Since she's not around anymore the "company" certainly is a candidate to get sued. Hell even if she was still around there is precedent for the "company" to get sued in this case. The "company" will try to prove that she was using the car in an unauthorized fashion and not using it for employment reasons. I guarantee you there will be a settlement. They will want this thing to go away and go away fast. They threw that huge number out there for a negotiation starting point. The "company" has insurance for stuff like this. Seems like you're putting a lot of responsibility on the passenger for dying which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Are you saying it's his fault because he didn't call a Lyft? I don't get it.

[MF POON]

4 hours ago, EaglesAddict said:

Can't agree here and honestly don't understand the logic in this way of thinking.  The man's son who was killed along with the female driver...they were both adults who made a very poor choice and it cost them their lives.  It was their personal choice...why should anyone else but them be held responsible?  I can agree that perhaps the university can make changes to help prevent something like this in the future, but that's completely different than being culpable for millions of dollars as if it was the school's fault they chose to get drunk and race. 

It would more than likely depend on what capacity she was acting in while operating the vehicle.  It was noted that the vehicle was owned by the univ, so if she was acting in the capacity of an employee while being a DD, then they'll be held liable.   

[EaglesAddict]

17 hours ago, judunno said:

It was a company car. This woman didn't steal the car and she didn't lease it herself.  It was leased by UGA. She was clearly using it for UGA work purposes at some point but got drunk in it, drove the car 100+ miles an hour, and killed herself and her student passenger. The problem is the driver died. This wasn't just an accident. This was drunk driving. If the driver survived she would have been criminally charged and sued. Since she's not around anymore the "company" certainly is a candidate to get sued. Hell even if she was still around there is precedent for the "company" to get sued in this case. The "company" will try to prove that she was using the car in an unauthorized fashion and not using it for employment reasons. I guarantee you there will be a settlement. They will want this thing to go away and go away fast. They threw that huge number out there for a negotiation starting point. The "company" has insurance for stuff like this. Seems like you're putting a lot of responsibility on the passenger for dying which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Are you saying it's his fault because he didn't call a Lyft? I don't get it.

I'm putting 100% of the responsibility on the driver and passengers (I think there was a 3rd person in the car that survived?).  Each one of them chose to get into the car and partake in a race.  I'm sure that when they got into the car, it was with the intent to race.  I highly doubt that the driver was like "let me give you a ride home"...then 5 min later they're spontaneously racing Carter at high speeds.  Street racing is a thing.  So, it's very, very highly likely that they all CHOSE to partake in a race, knowing the driver was drinking/drunk, and CHOSE to get into the car with her to do it.  This is 100% on them.  I don't care who the "company" is or that they leased her that car.  Furthermore, it's probable that the lease agreement mentions something about not partaking in street racing or something to that effect.  Either way, the university should not be liable for what employees do on their personal time.  

All that said, the sad part is I agree with you that there probably is some sort of case here and will probably get settled for some undisclosed financial compensation.  What my point is, is that I don't agree with it and think it's flat out wrong.  Everyone is out for a money grab of some sort and lawyers love this crap.  

[EaglesAddict]

15 hours ago, MF POON said:

It would more than likely depend on what capacity she was acting in while operating the vehicle.  It was noted that the vehicle was owned by the univ, so if she was acting in the capacity of an employee while being a DD, then they'll be held liable.   

I can agree with that.  But I think it must be a foregone conclusion she was not acting in that capacity.

[judunno]

4 hours ago, EaglesAddict said:

I'm putting 100% of the responsibility on the driver and passengers (I think there was a 3rd person in the car that survived?).  Each one of them chose to get into the car and partake in a race.  I'm sure that when they got into the car, it was with the intent to race.  I highly doubt that the driver was like "let me give you a ride home"...then 5 min later they're spontaneously racing Carter at high speeds.  Street racing is a thing.  So, it's very, very highly likely that they all CHOSE to partake in a race, knowing the driver was drinking/drunk, and CHOSE to get into the car with her to do it.  This is 100% on them.  I don't care who the "company" is or that they leased her that car.  Furthermore, it's probable that the lease agreement mentions something about not partaking in street racing or something to that effect.  Either way, the university should not be liable for what employees do on their personal time.  

All that said, the sad part is I agree with you that there probably is some sort of case here and will probably get settled for some undisclosed financial compensation.  What my point is, is that I don't agree with it and think it's flat out wrong.  Everyone is out for a money grab of some sort and lawyers love this crap.  

How do you know the passengers willingly engaged? What are they going to snatch the woman off the steering wheel? You don't have to agree it's not your dead son.

[EaglesAddict]

3 minutes ago, judunno said:

How do you know the passengers willingly engaged? What are they going to snatch the woman off the steering wheel? You don't have to agree it's not your dead son.

Ok...are you a lawyer? lol  Now you're going down a rabbit hole.  I think it's pretty reasonable to conclude that they all knew what they were doing prior to the act of doing it and yeah, willingly engaged. 

So you're trying to say that the passengers: A. Had no clue the driver was drunk.  And B, they were "just getting a ride home" when the driver suddenly decided to engage in a street race with someone they know...spontaneously.  Is that right?  

[judunno]

7 minutes ago, EaglesAddict said:

Ok...are you a lawyer? lol  Now you're going down a rabbit hole.  I think it's pretty reasonable to conclude that they all knew what they were doing prior to the act of doing it and yeah, willingly engaged. 

So you're trying to say that the passengers: A. Had no clue the driver was drunk.  And B, they were "just getting a ride home" when the driver suddenly decided to engage in a street race with someone they know...spontaneously.  Is that right?  

What rabbit hole? Who knows my guy that's my whole point? You're making assumptions. We don't know what the state of mind the passengers were in. All I know is they weren't driving and put their trust in someone that was drunk. I can tell you this from experience... being in a car that's going 100+MPH is scary as all hell. I also don't proclaim to be a lawyer. Just using common sense based on what I've seen over the years with folks getting sued left and right. Trump just took an L for example lol. That's the type of society we're living in and the laws favor this kind of response which is why it happens so often. So again you disagreeing with the father of a dead son is irrelevant.

[EaglesAddict]

37 minutes ago, judunno said:

What rabbit hole? Who knows my guy that's my whole point? You're making assumptions. We don't know what the state of mind the passengers were in. All I know is they weren't driving and put their trust in someone that was drunk. I can tell you this from experience... being in a car that's going 100+MPH is scary as all hell. I also don't proclaim to be a lawyer. Just using common sense based on what I've seen over the years with folks getting sued left and right. Trump just took an L for example lol. That's the type of society we're living in and the laws favor this kind of response which is why it happens so often. So again you disagreeing with the father of a dead son is irrelevant.

That's what I'm doing too!  If you're saying I'm assuming anything, then so are you.  You're just placing blame on the driver and the university and exonerating the player that died of any responsibility in the matter.

And yes, laws do favor this stuff...which get abused to the nth degree.  It's exactly why you hear horror stories about people who win the lottery, then all of a sudden they get bombarded with law suits by scammers looking for a quick settlement just to make the suits go away.  It's absolutely ridiculous.   

[judunno]

3 minutes ago, EaglesAddict said:

That's what I'm doing too!  If you're saying I'm assuming anything, then so are you.  You're just placing blame on the driver and the university and exonerating the player that died of any responsibility in the matter.

And yes, laws do favor this stuff...which get abused to the nth degree.  It's exactly why you hear horror stories about people who win the lottery, then all of a sudden they get bombarded with law suits by scammers looking for a quick settlement just to make the suits go away.  It's absolutely ridiculous.   

That's the info we all have which is fact. There's no assumption there. She was drunk driving in a company car. Where am I making assumptions?

[EaglesAddict]

6 minutes ago, judunno said:

That's the info we all have which is fact. There's no assumption there. She was drunk driving in a company car. Where am I making assumptions?

<sigh>  I'm just gonna let this go.  Obviously we disagree and it seems no matter what I state, you just don't see it.  It's all good.  Go Birds

[judunno]

56 minutes ago, EaglesAddict said:

<sigh>  I'm just gonna let this go.  Obviously we disagree and it seems no matter what I state, you just don't see it.  It's all good.  Go Birds

<sigh> == I was right... wooooo GO BIRDS!!! lmao

[EaglesAddict]

41 minutes ago, judunno said:

<sigh> == I was right... wooooo GO BIRDS!!! lmao

 

 

 

[Cheesteakitis]

so anyone that’s drunk,high or makes stupid decisions in a company vehicle. Said company should/could be held liable? BS she wasn’t on the clock it’s was dark and they were going to waffle house.. bad decisions were made, lives were lost, learn from the mistakes and try your best to move on. The lawsuit is total rubbish 

[judunno]

56 minutes ago, Cheesteakitis said:

so anyone that’s drunk,high or makes stupid decisions in a company vehicle. Said company should/could be held liable? BS she wasn’t on the clock it’s was dark and they were going to waffle house.. bad decisions were made, lives were lost, learn from the mistakes and try your best to move on. The lawsuit is total rubbish 

Yes... that's the way the law works in many states. Your opinion is noted :)

[MF POON]

On 5/12/2023 at 5:59 PM, Cheesteakitis said:

so anyone that’s drunk,high or makes stupid decisions in a company vehicle. Said company should/could be held liable? BS she wasn’t on the clock it’s was dark and they were going to waffle house.. bad decisions were made, lives were lost, learn from the mistakes and try your best to move on. The lawsuit is total rubbish 

The fact that she was an employee of the university, drove their car, and it involved a student is the link here.  All you have to do is look at Sandusky and Penn St.  He was taking advantage of boys at his camp away from the college, and the University was still held liable and settled with former victims.  I pretty certain UGA will settle with the family in this case.

[MF POON]

On 5/12/2023 at 8:03 AM, EaglesAddict said:

I can agree with that.  But I think it must be a foregone conclusion she was not acting in that capacity.

True, but it may not matter and who knows what UGA's fraternization rules are for employment. It could be a position where she's always a representative of the team/univ while interacting with players/staff, and she must remain professional. In that case, she, along with the univ would be held liable for any wrongdoing in that capacity.  I get your point though and I would probably take your stance if she had killed someone with no ties to the university. 

Anyway, Go Birds! lol

[judunno]

1 hour ago, MF POON said:

True, but it may not matter and who knows what UGA's fraternization rules are for employment. It could be a position where she's always a representative of the team/univ while interacting with players/staff, and she must remain professional. In that case, she, along with the univ would be held liable for any wrongdoing in that capacity.  I get your point though and I would probably take your stance if she had killed someone with no ties to the university. 

Anyway, Go Birds! lol

Yeah... we all know what these "recruiting analysts" really do. They're going to settle this one quick. They don't want none of that smoke opening closed doors. Oh the stories we would hear

"Jesus, say hello to Buffy and Suzie."

[SkippyX]

It did not make sense how much Carter was legally punished for his role (speeding/racing)

It makes more sense now.

He did not go to traffic school as part of his earlier speeding issues so he was driving with a suspended license on the day of the crash.

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/clarke-county/uga-star-jalen-carter-was-driving-suspended-license-during-deadly-crash-court-records-show/QCC6XRNK4JHHPN37LGTZ3HG7GQ/

He went to traffic school a few weeks later.

 

It does not make him evil or a bad person but its another instance of poor judgement and might be a factor in him possibly having to pay some money in that lawsuit.