Wal-Mart faults Tracy Morgan for accident injuries

scotttie · ‎03-09-2010

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/s/walmart-faults-tracy-morgan-not-wearing-seatbelt-during-183608445.ht...

Thoughts?

mstyrion 1 · ‎09-18-2014

that is a very typical affirmative defense in answering a lawsuit. In some states, the failure to wear a seatbelt is comparative negligence, which means the plaintiff is partially or entirely responsible for any injuries that could have been prevented by wearing a seatbelt.

~Enough is enough~

deepwaterdotter · ‎03-09-2010

I'm sure Mr. Morgan's attorneys will see otherwise.

Autumn in NY · ‎09-22-2014

Both sides were negligent.

croemer · ‎03-10-2010

Well...they make a point...he should have been wearing his seat belt...but that did not have anything to do with the Wal-Mart driver hitting Tracy's vehicle. Had he been wearing seat belts it may have diminished Tracy's injuries....though.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**Careful... I have caps lock and I am not afraid to use it.**

Lucky Charm · ‎03-09-2010

Seatbelts are the law, too. Doesn't matter if how rich or how long your limo is.

The driver is at fault as are the limo passengers who weren't wearing their seat belts.

Say Nay · ‎03-12-2010

Sounds like the standard legal reaction. Doesn't mean that it's the truth.

_____ ,,,^ ._. ^,,,_____

Lucky Charm · ‎03-09-2010

Seat belts are safety belts. The only reason they are there are for the protection to occupants in the event of an accident.

dreamytoo · ‎03-12-2010

Wasn't he on his tour bus? As far as I know with motor homes etc...only those in the front cab part require seat belts. Look at it this way, this country thinks nothing of jamming 60 or more kids on School Buses with no seat belts.

chickenbutt · ‎03-09-2010

On 9/29/2014 croemer said:
Well...they make a point...he should have been wearing his seat belt...but that did not have anything to do with the Wal-Mart driver hitting Tracy's vehicle. Had he been wearing seat belts it may have diminished Tracy's injuries....though.

That's what I was thinking. It's hard to see any sort of comparative negligence for him not wearing his seatbelt if the proximate cause of the incident was the WM driver running into his vehicle. If I were to split the negligence I think I'd go 80% to 90% WM driver and 10-20% the injured victim.

Or, more realistically, I'd charge the WM driver for CAUSING the accident (100% responsibility) and give Mr Morgan a citation for not wearing a seatbelt if it is illegal in that state.

Whether he was wearing a seatbelt or not had nothing to do with the cause of the accident.