...almost missed this one ... red light camera kills person



I wonder who is truly responsible, though. The camera operator? The city? Or the drunk driver that hit the post and sent the camera setup flying?

You know, being that the camera did not directly cause the crash.


Deepest Pockets

This is AMERICA - the attorneys representing the unfortunate victim’s family will go after whoever has the deepest pockets, regardless of where the blame lies.

Perhaps John Edwards can take the case now he's quit the Presidential race. He lives here in North Carolina, about an hour from Fayetteville (or Fayetnam, as we locals call it). He made his fortune chasing ambulances.

Dave - Garmin Nuvi 1390LMT.

Does that mean...

... that if a drunk hits a light pole and the light fixture itself falls and kills an innocent bystander, that they have to remove all street lights for fear of lawsuits? This country has definitely taken another turn for the worse. It happens every time the courts allow blame to go beyond the direct cause of such a tragedy.

Rick - Nüvi 260 - eTrex Summit HC

Am I reading this right?

Besides the death, the sticky point seems to be that the city wants to give only 40 percent to the school district instead of the court mandated 90 percent.

I hope I've misread this.

nüvi 750 & 760

Here is the article link of the crash itself:


my 2 cents:

liability should be split 70/30:
1) 70% to the drunk driver for being a dumb-ass drunk driver
2) 30% to the pole/traffic camera makers, or whomever is responsible for installing the light. Drunk driver or not, the pole should have the strength to withstand motor vehicle impact before losing it's camera to fall on the victim below.

Who's at fault?

So if a person runs into your mailbox and it shoots through the windshield and kills them, you are at fault? Didn't they have to run off the road to hit your mailbox or a lightpole or a tree or a fence. So the drive is NOT responsible anymore? Wait, maybe the car should be at fault for not stopping in time.

You're right, they will go after the money, not who's at fault.

Break-away by design

Many years ago light standards were a LOT stronger. This resulted in numerous injuries or deaths.

The standards were revised to provide a "break-away" feature that reduced the impact forces experienced by the vehicle and occupants, thus saving lives and health care expenses.

If you can't keep your car on the road because of impairment, you should be held responsible.

Local judges can make some very strange awards that make great headlines.

The final award, determined by some higher appeals process some years later, seldom makes the news.

John Nuvi 750 765T Winnipeg, MB