In Montana, people are upset over a recent tort filing. Justine Winter is suing, among others, the family of Erin Thompson and her 13-year-old son who died in a crash with her car. That might not seem too uncommon in a torts case. However, Winter was allegedly trying to commit suicide at the time by driving into opposing traffic before she hit Thompson and her son. (Her son, Caden, is shown left)
Thompson was four months pregnant at the time and she was returning with her son, Caden Odell, from a middle-school choral concert.
She is also suing the construction company that built the U.S. 93 overpass where the accident occurred.
Winter, 17, with her father, Randy Winter, filed the lawsuit iagainst Knife River Corp., Western Traffic Control Inc., Mountain West Holding Co. and the estate of Erin Thompson. They were able to name Thompson’s husband, Jason Thompson, as personal representative of the estate because he was not killed by Winter’s car.
Police say that Winter crossed into the opposing traffic in her Pontiac Grand Am when she hit Thompson’s northbound Subaru Forest at 85 mph. She now claims that the road was poorly designed and Thompson was negligent. They cite a defense witness who claims that she was not in the opposing lane.
Prosecutors cite a series of text messages just before the crash to suggest that Thompson crashed intentionally into the car. She had just had an argument with her boyfriend and appeared to believe that they were about to break up. Some of those text messages include:
“Good bye… My last words…”
“If I won. I would have you. And I wouldn’t crash my car.”
“And think this is now life or death. It shows you would rather me die because I want to kill myself. Good bye…”
“Because I wanted to kill myself. I wanted you out of my car so I could do what you told me I couldn’t. Because I lost you and it’s my fault.”
Prosecutors also point out that she was moving 85 mph and that the vehicle’s brakes were reportedly not applied until one second before deployment of the air bags.
We have seen other cases where the alleged victims were converted into defendants, here and here.
Source: Flathead
Sammy,
Reckless and Deliberate are two very different words, especially in the legal world. One is basically I don’t care and the other is I intended to do such and such.
Now how would I have felt, that is an interesting story. Have you ever had a child die? I have.
Now how would I have felt 35 years ago? Well, I probably would have been rather hard lined they did it and they should not be able to get away with it.
Now how would I have felt 21 months ago? I don’t know, I was too catatonic.
Now how do I feel about it today? Oh that is where mistake, age and experience make wisdom come together. I offer that sufferance advice, by the example of a 2 year of wants and needs and a 21 years old wants and needs vs a 50 year olds wants and needs. Get back to me when you have the answers…I certainly don’t….
Hey, I almost lost my avatar there. Should be back now.
tomarch:
“Isn’t there any sort of ethical standard among lawyers? Is there any line beyond which a lawyer filing an absurd, appalling case like this should fear being disbarred? This case clearly brings shame on the profession, and if the family of the deceased actually has to defend themselves, then it brings shame on the courts and the law.”
*************
Tom, your question is one I continually get from lay people all the time — both in jest and in a serious vein — and is a good one. The short answer is “yes” but hear me out before any urge to scoff overcomes you. Actually, the fact that even the most ridiculous seeming case can be brought to the highest courts in teh land is teh majesty of the law and not its shame.
The legal system in a democracy is premised on two basic notions: first, the courts are a place of fair resolution of disputes by dispassionate jurists using the law as their guide; second, the courts to have any credibility must be open to all and free from political pressure. In authoritarian regimes, courts are “permitted” to hear only those cases approved by the state. There is no right of judicial review. Courts are stages for show trials designed to market the ideology of the state or promote values that state deems acceptable. You got it – societal propriety.
The case here presents inflammatory published facts and hence draws the expected ire of those directly affected (Cheri – my sincere condolences, by the way) and those who feel the system is being abused (many here). What is going on here on teh blog (by some) is a rush to judgment before all the facts are in based on some notion of societal propriety. What the courts do, however, is deliberate. They listen; they analyze; and they decide. They are not persuaded by hearsay, press reports, or passionate indignation of claimed victims. It is still, believe it or not, the last stronghold of reason over emotion. One cannot reason unless one has facts, and facts must be presented to be considered. This is all axiomatic,of course, but it points up the problem of pre-juding cases before each side has the opportunity to present its supporting facts and arguments. That is what the defenders of societal propriety want to see done here.
Like free speech, disputes between persons should not be subject to prior restraint. That foments the mindset of the vigilante, and the denial of access to redress of wrongs is precisely the type of resentment from which violence springs.
On the subject of what can be done to prevent frivolous lawsuits, every court system of which I am aware provides a mechanism for sanctions or an award of costs and attorney’s fees if the case brought is vexatious or designed merely to harass. The filing attorney is also personally subject to sanction for bringing such a suit under the supervision of the bar association or the state supreme court. This system of “subsequent sanction” is effective at making the defending party whole.
I am sorry to say that freedom requires suffering some discomfort, embarrassment, or inconvenience at the hands of your fellow citizens whose position might seem ridiculous, but it seems a small price to pay to avoid anarchy.
tomarch, you should know that many in our profession believe that courts are majestic, not because they reinforce societal norms, but precisely because they provide a forum where those norms can be challenged, critiqued, and ultimately changed.
Tocqueville said, “Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question.” He really could have omitted the word “political.” Like the thoughtful 19th century French jurist, I find this no sin.
Anonymously Yours (August 6, 2010 at 5:38 pm)
No, the question is how would you, Anonymously Yours, feel if your wife, mother or sister, or son and unborn child died after being struck by an “irrational child” driving at 85 mph?
And yes, you are wrong.
I really cannot understand your point.
I did not know. that a 8 and ) would make a thingy with sunglasses….That was not my intent.
Hey Professor….H-E-L-P would you correct this?
8)
Cheri,
I am sorry for yours’ and your families loss. Whether this guy is self employed or not does not really go to his credibility as an expert. If you really think about it, we are all kinda self employed one way or the other.
This story is replete with all sorts if things, that at first blush angered me. I then went to the source and read all sorts of things which changed my initial opinion of thus story and the girl.
The facts as they unfold:
1) She was a 16 year old female;
2) She was presumptively an inexperienced driver;
3) She was in fact driving;
4) The road was under construction;
5) There was no visible fog line;
6) There was another vehicle on the road;
7) There was an accident;
8) Two people died;
9) The deceased mother was pregnant;
10) This child is injured;
11) She sent Text Messages to her boyfriend;
12) The Text Messages indicated she wanted to die;
13) She gave her boyfriend a ride home;
14) She is a minor; and
15) She was charge with deliberate homicide as an adult.
Which one of these factors would sway you that maybe the child was irrational, and may have said some rather stupid stuff. But where do you find the intent to murder?
It seems to me that, if she was aiming at killing herself, the mens rea is lacking. I may be wrong. But put yourself in her shoes…..How would you feel….
I am a family member of the victims. The story is true. The accident pictures taken at the scene show what happened. There was construction, which was well marked and the speed limit was marked at 30-35. Justine was doing 85 mph at impact, Erin was doing approx 29.4. The re-creation by her “self employed engineer was done months after the accident.
My sister spent much of her career trying other attorneys for their licenses. Filing bad suits was not an offense that bothered the state supreme court disciplinary council. Stealing from clients? Hell yes.
As noted above there might be more to the story than what has been published. I hate this kind of shit. How many times have we seen lawyers fight cases in the media by selectively reporting bits of information? How many times have we seen “reporters” produce stores based on these bits with no attempt to determine if they are true, if they are disputed or if there are alternative bits of information?
The end result is an angry mob who see the law & lawyers as opponents to truth, justice & the American way.
If this is just an attempt to force a change of venue or a scorched earth defense from the criminal charges then I hope the family & their lawyer DIAF. But I have no confidence that this story is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Something I do know about MT is that they were one of the hold out states to impose a maximum speed limit sign. It was and as I understand it, (I have a client in Billings) reasonable and prudent speed…
The girl may have a valid point. The article points that there were no signs or fog lines on the road. People do know how reasonable 16 year old girls can be. They are never irrational and never , ever say stupid things. Come on it was way past the time she dropped her Boyfriend off….
Yo Prof,
Did you mean to attach this one to the story? The one attached is about the charges she faces. This one is about her law suit. Not that it matters to moi’..However, some will get the shorts in a knot and not know how to untie them….just saying…..
http://www.flatheadnewsgroup.com/articles/2010/08/05/whitefishpilot/news/news_8719058176_03.txt
Lawyers reading this, please make sure you are not drinking milk:
Isn’t there any sort of ethical standard among lawyers? Is there any line beyond which a lawyer filing an absurd, appalling case like this should fear being disbarred? This case clearly brings shame on the profession, and if the family of the deceased actually has to defend themselves, then it brings shame on the courts and the law.
I’d hate for that milk to come shooting out of your nose.
“Tort reform” is usually a euphemism for “making it hard for injured individuals to sue big corporations,” but isn’t there some adjustments we could make legislatively to bar this sort of suit, or make the consequences of filing such a suit very, very unappealing?
Apparently a civil engineer testified that there was no evidence that the Winter vehicle crossed over into opposing traffic. While my general feeling is to view that testimony with great skepticism under the circumstances, the stories about the lawsuit have completely failed to provide any information allowing an evluation of the engineer’s credibility. I couldn’t find any information as to whether he had any experience or qualifications in accident reconstruction, or any discussion of the facts upon which he based his opinion.
It boggles my mind that there is an attorney out there who would take this case, and would seriously file a lawsuit.
Gives the law a bad name. What a waste. Get her sone therapy and get her out of court.
Any judge with integrity should throw it out and charge her with manslaughter and wasting court time.
I’ll have to read the full article so that I may learn the name of the individual who agreed to represent her.
From the article it looks like she and her father are hoping for a tort verdict or settlement in her favor to use as mitigation in her criminal trial. Considering the grief this is going to put Mr. Thompson through I can only be disappointed by Ms. Winters lack of success in what was to be her final act.
What part of the “Good Faith Filing” am I missing….unless extortion is rampant in Montana….