I really don’t know what you’re trying to prove? Are you hitting your fists against the posts and struggling to insist that you see ghosts?

I’m sorry, but I believe you’re a bit related to the original poster in this thread. I never once absolved the motorist who hit her of culpability. The intent of my original post was to not absolve the original “street racers” of their requisite liability. Thinking otherwise places you within that village.

Getting a little angry, what with all the bolding? Relax friend. Note the original blurb on jalopnik notes that there is video? The sun sentinal does however, note their were witnesses to the original wreck. Almost as good as video evidence. In any event, the individuals that caused the original wreck are as culpable…

Further, the woman who hit her is indeed responsible for her conduct. The issue here is that others seem to believe that because someone else killed the victim, that the original actors are no longer responsible - this isn’t the case. Roads are dangerous places to be as a pedestrian, and this victim would not have…

There is evidence - based upon what we know, they have video evidence (see original article.) Assuming video evidence, they’re culpable.

Yes. There is the requisite relation to the event that occurred. In your hypothetical, there would be no relation to the incident and no liability. Despite this, cases have been tried that have tested this concept and the majority have lost.

No. I just think its pointless to continue an intelligent discourse when the opponent is completely devoid of intellect. I’ve noted the but-for test, I’ve attempted to explain the proximate cause, and yet, you come up with all sorts of random nonsensical hypotheticals that yes, I am forced to concede defeat. You can’t…

I think a village is missing its idiot.

Again, thats not how this works. Research proximate cause and the but-for test. Examples can be found with the previous discussion with the other village idiot. While the driver who hit her is responsible, so too are the drivers who fled who caused the initial accident.

He’s a coward because he would only readily fight me in the ring, knowing he would win. The same can’t be said for someone with whom he would stand a reasonable chance of losing against. Thats how the author is claiming him to be a coward. Personally, I would welcome the opportunity to go against him in the ring, even…

I always like when I encounter pro se’s. They’re always good for a laugh. The previous commenter cemented the reality quite well. Perhaps you have a comprehension issue?

Would she have done that had the accident not occurred? This is basic law school stuff. But for the accident, she would not have been on the road. Try defending the idiots who caused the accident, who then fled, in front of a jury. No jury would find much sympathy for them.

Thats not how it works. In Tort law, there is the proximate causation analysis. Here, we examine the root cause of her being outside of her car - The original accident. But for the accident, she would not have exited her car. They are ultimately the reason why exited her car. Is it reasonably foreseeable that a…

You clearly missed the sarcastic dig at dealerships. Then again, I might expect as much from someone using the term, “lulz.”

Fuck groupon. Seriously, Fuck them. Three years after using the service for something else, we were hit with three $120 charges with no warning. Fuck you for recommending people use that fucktastic service.

Fuck groupon. Seriously, Fuck them. Three years after using the service for something else, we were hit with three…

I don’t like her or people similar, but I dislike tow workers even more. I’ve said worse to tow workers because they’re scum. Its only a big deal because this idiot is famous.

This one time, at band camp...

You're an absolute idiot who misses the entire bloody point. Good job counselor.

I see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Article 9 governs secured transactions, those occurring in a bank loan involving the purchase of property. The entire point of noting the differences is showing that they're irrelevant to the point at hand - you don't need a car salesman to buy a car. They're not…

I know I'm going to go against the grain here, but I'm frequently annoyed that a tip is expected. Its an entirely optional thing; It is a courtesy for superior service. Why shouldn't I have the option of not tipping should I feel so inclined? If its to be expected, then it should be required and included as part of…