Scumbag lawyer and plaintiff strike again.

[Fly320s]

Un-freaking-believable.  How in the hell can anyone justify these actions?



Judge's daughter sues driver she ran into during crash
By BRIAN ROGERS Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Dec. 18, 2008, 7:42AM

Nick de la Torre HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Elizabeth Shelton, shown with her father, juvenile court Judge Pat Shelton, had a blood alcohol concentration more than three times the legal limit when the SUV she was driving rear-ended a truck, killing her boyfriend.

Convicted last year of intoxication manslaughter for the death of her boyfriend, the 21-year-old daughter of a state district judge is suing the truck driver she ran into during a drunken driving crash.

Elizabeth Shelton, the daughter of juvenile judge Pat Shelton, is accusing truck driver Lance Bennett of negligence in the Oct. 23, 2007, wreck that killed her boyfriend Matthew McNiece.

Shelton had a blood alcohol concentration more than three times the legal limit, two tests showed. She was sentenced to eight years' probation and had to serve four months in jail.
Shelton, her family and the family of the boyfriend who was killed are suing for $20,000 for the destruction of the Lexus SUV she was driving and an undetermined amount for mental anguish, pain and suffering.

Bennett was driving the box truck that Shelton rear-ended on the Southwest Freeway near Kirby around 2 a.m.

Bennett's attorney, John Havins, said the lawsuit, filed in October, was the last chance to make a claim before the statute of limitations ran out.

He noted that Shelton named 16 defendants, including insurance companies and banks. "They're just throwing everything against the wall to see if anything sticks," Havins said.
During Shelton's trial, an expert for the defense testified there was evidence that Bennett swerved into Shelton's lane. An expert for the prosecution, however, said there wasn't evidence that Bennett got in her way.

Testimony also showed that the company Bennett was working for let the insurance on the truck lapse.

"The injuries and property damage sustained by (Shelton and her family) were not the result of intentional acts, but were accidental and caused by the negligence of the uninsured/underinsured driver," Shelton's attorney Mark Sandoval wrote in the lawsuit.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6170554.html

[lupinus]

no, they were caused by your dumbass clients driving while intoxicated.  Whats your proof he swerved into her lane?  Even had he, she may well have avoided if not intoxicated.

People who bring such BS lawsuits should be jailed.

[makattak]

Any wonder people believe our "justice" system to be broken?

[Viking]

no, they were caused by your dumbass clients driving while intoxicated.  Whats your proof he swerved into her lane?  Even had he, she may well have avoided if not intoxicated.

People who bring such BS lawsuits should be jailed.

Attitude adjustment via a 3-foot piece of re-bar applied generously to the head seems more fitting.

[FTA84]

And people wonder why there is "zero tolerance" for anything anymore.  It is because you can be sued into oblivion for any little thing that someone can argue as your fault.  Why do schools take zero tolerance on stupid things?  Not because school administrators believe any of the actions are required, but simply because they MUST cover their asses or be sued.  Part of the entitlement behavoir, as long as one can legally (say through the courts) steal someone's money (as part of some unjust lawsuit), they have no problem with the morality of it.  They don't think it is theft, they think they are entitled to it.

This is a perfect example.  This girl and her family feel entitled that they should feel no misfortune (even of their own doing).  Therefore, they need to blame someone else.  So they blame the poor schmuck that was driving a night shift (presumably she wasn't drunk during the day) truck route.  They feel it is his fault because he shouldn't have been on the road because it is illegal to drive with lapsed insurance.

[RaspberrySurprise]

She was sentenced to eight years' probation and had to serve four months in jail.

You're frigging kidding me. How much you wanna bet that if one of us was to negligently shoot someone while drunk we'd be hit with the book and then some?

[Rudy Kohn]

You're frigging kidding me. How much you wanna bet that if one of us was to negligently shoot someone while drunk we'd be hit with the book and then some?

And when her probation is up, she'll probably get to drive again. 
I hope she gets laughed out of court.

[slugcatcher]

Did you guys miss this part?

"Elizabeth Shelton, shown with her father, juvenile court Judge Pat Shelton[/b"

Everyone in the Houston area was appalled that she basically got away with vehicular manslaughter and we all know why. She barely got a slap on the wrist and she's whining about that.

[Balog]

Must be nice to be related to a judge. Any chance the ethics committee will slap this guy?

[BridgeRunner]

I do find it particularly amusing that she is just 21, and he is a juvenile judge.  Hmm...

[agricola]

Good luck to them trying to overturn the decision of a criminal trial in civil court (especially in these circumstances), but it should at least make amusing coverage in the local papers. 

As an aside, surely one of the parts of probation would be to demonstrate remorse or at least accepting ones responsibility for the "accident"? 

[grampster]

My truck driver defense would be that she is lucky he was on the road that night.
If he hadn't been she was so drunk she would have went head on with the next bridge abutment instead of his truck and she would be dead too.  His company should write off the damage to their truck as a charitable contribution.

He should counter sue her for mental anguish over being dragged into court  She should be charged with felony nitwittery.

[K Frame]

I definitely would be filing a counter suit were I him.

[Modifiedbrowning]

Hopefully, Matthew McNiece's family is suing the crap out this (censored by me) and her family.
Unbelievable.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the judge elected? that could be changed

[Tallpine]

During Shelton's trial, an expert for the defense testified there was evidence that Bennett swerved into Shelton's lane.

More likely that there were two trucks and she tried to drive between them  :rolleyes:

[MicroBalrog]

In Israel, when one of the drivers in an accident is legally drunk, usually the procedure is to rule the accident to be his fault almost automatically, whatever the other circumstances. Is this the case in America?

[Don't care]

.

[RaspberrySurprise]

My truck driver defense would be that she is lucky he was on the road that night.
If he hadn't been she was so drunk she would have went head on with the next bridge abutment instead of his truck and she would be dead too.  His company should write off the damage to their truck as a charitable contribution.

He should counter sue her for mental anguish over being dragged into court  She should be charged with felony nitwittery.

Yeah I've seen pictures of car vs abutment, not pretty.

[seeker_two]

I definitely would be filing a counter suit were I him.

Same here....unfortunately, Texas judges are a tight-knit lot. At best, the case will be dismissed w/ no recompense for the true victim here....

...maybe natural justice will prevail and the little lush will be rear-ended by a drunk driver herself...preferably without the presence of her SUV....

[taurusowner]

In Israel, when one of the drivers in an accident is legally drunk, usually the procedure is to rule the accident to be his fault almost automatically, whatever the other circumstances. Is this the case in America?

I like that.  I think it should be extended to all obvious law breaking.  Like burglars who sue homeowners for getting injured while robbing their house.  If one is committing a crime while any incident happens, the right to sue for anything relating to that incident should be nullified.  The one knowingly breaking the law should get the the full helping of blame by default in any incident.

[KD5NRH]

Hopefully, Matthew McNiece's family is suing the crap out this (censored by me) and her family.

Nope, his estate is on her side in the suit: http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com/eDocs/Public/CaseDetails.aspx?CaseNbr=200862314&CDI=7#

I'm hoping some of the defendants will countersue for whatever they can come up with.  I notice she waited until the last minute to file, so that any counterclaims directly from the accident would have been beyond the statute of limitations by the time the defendants were served, but they may have some defamation or other claims based on statements made in the interim.

[MicroBalrog]

I like that.  I think it should be extended to all obvious law breaking.  Like burglars who sue homeowners for getting injured while robbing their house.  If one is committing a crime while any incident happens, the right to sue for anything relating to that incident should be nullified.  The one knowingly breaking the law should get the the full helping of blame by default in any incident.

I don't think that makes any kind of sense, really, especially with traffic accidents - at least in the way it happens here, where the government uses it to absolve itself of responsibility with stuff like road planning - a lot of our roads are very unsafely constructed.

[T.O.M.]

A lot of times, people will ask me if they can be sued for something.  My answer is always yes.  Anyone can sue anyone else for anything.  Collecting a judgment is something else entirely.

What we all need to realize as members of the ARMED polite society is that if the unthinkable happens, and we must fire in defense of home or family, we will be sued.  Even if the whole thing is on video tape, showing the bad guy armed with a chain saw, wearing a hockey mask, forcing through the locked front door.  The family will sue.  Why?  becuase some POS lawyer will convince them that they will collect something from the insurance company, at the very least.  this is how so many of the personal inury lawyers get rich.  they don't take the good cases, they take 30%-50% of anything that walks through the door, and make up quality with volume.

And why do insurance companies pay?  It costs too much to defend a case, so they throw cash at the problem to make it go away, then raise the rates of the policy holder to keep that profit margun high.

[Fly320s]

Anyone can sue anyone else for anything.

Absolultely correct.  Unfortunately, most people seem to think that "sue" means "win."  In reality, "sue" means to file a lawsuit, nothing more.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the lack of knowledge since so many people are so damn lazy that they can't even think for themselves.