Judge's daughter sues driver she ran into during crash

I'll also add this is a waste of the courts time and the tax payers money.. if thrown out as a frivolous lawsuit they should be made to pay back the state or county for wasting their time or maybe the young lady should spend more time in jail.  Also the father being a judge should possibly loose his seat.... kinda like the judge that ruined the drycleaners lives over a pair of pants

How do you figure the father should be held accountable for his daughter's actions at all? We're not talking about a pimpled-face under age teenager here, but a grown woman.

AGENT, I agree totally!

See my post above.

Where is the ACCOUNTABILITY in our COUNTRY?!

the father is a judge and obvious supporter also a lawyer the article does state she has an attorney but be sure the father\judge is assisting...

Spikgary, let's hope you're right about the jury. But have you ever noticed when you show up for jury duty that they almost automatically dismiss anyone with an IQ over 40? I never cease to be amazed by outrageous verdicts. I have more faith in judges, for the most part (with the obvious exception of this dillweed's father).

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.

W Scott Lincoln - that statement is made because they are apparently making a UM claim.  Part of the article also said that they named "insurance companies" as defendants.  That is where the real money is in this... in their own uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage.  They are suing their own insurance company for money by claiming the other driver's negligence caused the accident and he did not have enough insurance coverage to cover all of the "damages".  According to the article the company that owned the truck had let the insurance lapse.  I'm sure they (the owners of the truck) are named in the lawsuit as well.  I'm sure the plaintiffs' attorneys will say that it doesn't matter that she was drunk.  Had the other driver not done whatever it is they are claiming he did, she wouldn't have hit him.  A very twisted sense of logic, but they will more than likely get money out of it.

Again, the accident was NOT caused by a truck driver not having insurance.  The accident was NOT caused by the truck driver moving his vehicle - that's called driving.  The way I read it, she hit the truck.  Her response time was significantly impeded because she was drunk.  He could have made a minor lane adjustment and she wouldn't have had enough time to react because she made the choice to drive under the influence.  She may get money out of it, but it will be immoral and she will have to live with the addition of more sins onto the ones she has already committed.

If the majority of judges don't believe they're completely responsible for their own actions (including that they are above the law), why would their children be any different?

Who says the majority of judges feel like that? Do you even know any judges? There thousands upon thousands of judges in this country that take pay cuts to sit on the bench and serve the people, who never make news because they do their job and are law-abiding citizens just like most other Americans.

And how is this woman's father even relevant to the story? She's not suing because she's a judge's daughter. She's suing because she found a lawyer greedy enough to take her case. There are unscrupulous lawyers, just as there are unscrupulous [fill in the blank with any other occupation].

Yes, Rachel, I have. I covered state and federal courts for five years as a newspaper reporter. I've also had enough dealings with lawyers who went on to become judges. Many have front-stage behavior that doesn't dovetail with their backstage behavior. Probably 10 years back -- maybe longer -- an Illinois Supreme Court judge was reprimanded by the state bar for getting state police officers to back down from giving him a ticket when he was caught speeding. The only reason he got caught was because one policeman had the backbone to stand up to his veiled threat. However, two judges I have known whom I believe are above reproach are Stephen N. Limbaugh Sr. (who is since retired as a federa judge) and his son, Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr. (who was appointed over the summer by Bush to a federal judgeship, after years on the Missouri Supreme Court). So, you do have exceptions.  

The exceptions are the judges without scruples, not those with scruples.  Unless you have evidence -- other than personal anecdotes -- to the contrary . . . 

Now, don't you judge me!

I wouldn't presume to judge anyone, EJ. But, speaking from my own personal experiences, there are many, many judges who do no shady deals, who simply and quietly do their job and follow the letter of the law. But no one hears about those judges. So judges get a bad rap, when, as a group, they are no more or less corrupt or unscrupulous than any other profession.

I was just trying to make a joke with the last comment.

Why recognize that its a stereotype, but then use it anyway? As much as you may like to believe otherwise, there are millions of young adults who (1) were not coddled by their parents, (2) are paying their way through school or otherwise advancing themselves, and (3) take accountability for their own actions.

Why can't we say this girl is not a good person, and move on? Why make it about all other young people? It's not fair, nor is it accurate.

Rachael, I know there are probalby a large number of young adults that are very responsible and everything else. I'm not exactly a "slacker" as GenX is labeled.

But I do know what I see around me. I've witnessed this "entitlement" behavior first hand while working retail, at the motel I ran, and the kids of friends. It tends to color my perception.

I know I shouldn't have used the stereotype. I know that was stupid. My apologies. I tried to say that she reinforces the stereotype. It was just worded very very badly.

That may be, but this poor truck driver will have to hire & PAY FOR a lawyer LONG before it get dismissed!

NOT RIGHT!

His insurance will likely pay for the lawyer to defend him. 

And you don't have to have an attorney.  You can choose not to put on a defense in a civil action.

That's a real "SMART" thing to do!  Go into court blindly and hope to win!

That's why people with the money or the means bring things like this to court, in hopes of winning against a far inferior foe (regardless of guilt or innocense).

Besides, it should NEVER be heard by anyone, just weeded out by an intern and thrown away as a WASTE of PAPER!

If it is a frivolous lawsuit, it can be thrown out by a judge before anyone ever comes to a courtroom.  And while you may be okay with it, I don't really want any "interns" weeding out lawsuits.  Judges are capable of tossing out worthless suits. 

Also, the burden of proof will be on the plaintiff to prove her case.  If she can't, no defense is necessary.

That still does NOT mean that the truck driver doesn't need to consult a lawyer beffore that point, does it?

Courts are SHADY places!  Even I have recieved the benefits of a back room deal, just becasue I knew soemone (However, I had not hurt a single person in that case).

I'm not saying he shouldn't get a lawyer.  I'm saying he doesn't have to get a lawyer.  That's all. 

Today's courts are not about justice. He who has the best lawyer wins. Period. If this poor driver doesn't have a very good lawyer, he doesn't stand a chance of winning against such a stacked deck against him. Frivolous or not, this man is going to have to spend thousands of dollars defending himself against this suit. Chances are that he doesn't have that kind of money. Since his insurance was lapsed at the time of the incident, he will have to burden all legal expenses himself.

Today's courts are not about justice. He who has the best lawyer wins.

It definitely helps to have a good lawyer. But there is this thing called the "law," you may have heard of it, and most judges do everything in their power to follow it to the letter. Judges and courts and lawyers have a bad reputation, based on the few instances of really poor conduct that get publicized. But the vast majority of judges and courts follow the law, and aren't corrupt, and do good work -- you just don't hear about that.

Yes Rachael,

I have heard about "The Law". Our courts are "Courts of Law". There was once a time when the laws of the court brought about fair justice. That is simply no longer the case in society today.

This case is a very good example of how the courts serve the "Law" no matter how unjust it may be.

Every day, people who are innocent of a crime are found guilty due to "The Letter of The Law". Conversely, Every day people who are guilty of a crime are set free due to "The Letter of the Law". These people are either convicted or released due to how well their lawyers are familiar with ( You guessed it! ) "The Letter of The Law".

It has been said that; " A society which produces more lawyers than scientist is doomed to failure." So seems to be the case with our society.

Quite frankly, people in general are tired and disgusted with suits such as the one which this article addresses. Never mind the standing of the young lady's father or mother. This person shows no moral integrity by pursuing this venue. She is just another brat who refuses to take responsibility for her own actions through deflection.

I recently was in court to defend a frivolous lawsuit. The plantiff was allowed to "appear by phone" while I had to be in court. I had to go three times before I could get the judge to dismiss the case.

This case has preferential treatment written all over it. Her father, the judge, likely prevailed in getting her a lenient sentence. He surely is involved in this suit. Think for a moment. How likely is a judge to dismiss this suit as frivolous when one of the plaintiffs lawyers is ANOTHER judge. Simply not happening. There are some people here that have far too much faith in our system of "Justice". One of the first things one learns in law school. The Justice System is NOT about justice it is about the law. A lot of difference.

Dr Know,

I agree with your statements wholeheartedly. I for one have little faith in our justice system in it's present form. I have seen the favoritism shown through the "good ole boys" network too many times.

I think that Rachael is VERY NAIVE!

She got that, "Oh, that can't happen" attitude.

She'll learn the hard way one day, when a "friend" sues her for burning her lip on the coffee she served that's too hot!

You'll have to point out to me where I said anything equivalent to "that can't happen," Shan-man, because I sure as hell never expressed any sentiment remotely close to that.

You'll have to to forgive me for not jumping on the "all judges are evil" bandwagon. My tolerance for people who claim to know about the state of the judiciary based upon a few idiot judges who happen to make the papers is pretty low. Thinking rationally about the subject may not be in favor on this particular thread, but I can assure you it serves me well.

It seems like a lot more than just a couple of judges that hand out favors (from all the other posts on here), doesn't it?!

Stories are awfully similar as well.

Even ONE bad judge is too many & opens the doors for all his/her followers to get in on the fun!

I agree, it should carry the same penalty as 1st. murder when a drunken driver kills another. This is something that has been a who's who crime and punishment for to long. DUI deaths aren't new to this country, yet the punishment does not fit the crime. The 1st. DUI offense, should carry a mandatory1 year in prison, no questions asked. Make it a progressive penalty, there are  dozen's in my area that would be in jail for years. You see the same names month after month in the arrest reports.  

From the Billings (Montana) Gazette:

Beverly Cybulski, the wife of District Judge David Cybulski, was arrested on Aug. 31, 2006, after driving nearly 50 miles on the wrong side of Interstate 94 between Miles City and Glendive and passing multiple vehicles going the opposite direction, court records said.

She refused a breath test, and her driver's license was revoked.

In January 2007, District Judge Gary Day granted a petition to return her driver's license, after finding that Custer County Deputy Kyle Hayter had cause to arrest Cybulski for driving on the wrong side of the road but lacked cause for the drunken-driving arrest. Day also held that Hayter lacked the "particularized suspicion" required to conduct sobriety tests on Cybulski.

In a decision issued Monday, the state Supreme Court disagreed.

"We conclude that an experienced officer could infer that Cybulski was driving under the influence from the sheer length of time that Cybulski traveled on the wrong side of the interstate, and her apparent obliviousness to oncoming traffic traveling in the same lane," the high court wrote. "When this was paired with Cybulski's unusually delayed response to the officer's emergency signals, spotlights and sirens, Deputy Hayter was entitled to infer that Cybulski was driving under the influence before she even stopped her car."

Cybulski pleaded guilty in February 2007 to the wrong-way driving charge but fought the drunken-driving and criminal-endangerment charges. A jury found her guilty of felony criminal endangerment and first-offense DUI in August, and a judge gave her a five-year deferred sentence, fined her $1,000 on each charge and suspended her license for a year.

Cybulski's attorney, A. Lance Tonn of Miles City, said Tuesday that it's possible his client could have her license suspended twice: once for refusing the breath test, and once as part of her sentence on the DUI and criminal endangerment charges.

Her sentence in that case has been stayed pending another appeal to the state Supreme Court. Tonn said he had not yet seen Monday's ruling and declined to comment on it.

Custer County Attorney Wyatt Glade said he felt the Supreme Court "reached the appropriate decision."

Now, we'll see how long the courageous custer county attorney keeps his job.

What about her father that is a JUDGE?

What does this say about how he runs a court room?

I wouldn't want to be in front of a man who ALLOWS his daughter to go ahead with such a frivolous case!

This "man" can't be right in the head!

What does this say about how he runs a court room?

Uh, nothing.  He won't be involved in his daughter's case, as he'll be conflicted out.  And who says he knew anything about before it showed up in the news?  Maybe they aren't on speaking terms.  Who knows?  Why condemn the judge for the actions of his adult daughter?

The picture shows them together, coming directly out of a court room.

If I were another judge that knows this girls father, I would be calling him to get his daughter to drop this case before it looks like sheer stupidity before a jury.

I know that he IS NOT responsible for what his daughter is trying to do, but are you so naive as to think that she never even asked her father, the Judge, for legal advice on this?!

Get real, Rachael!

Shan, I just think its inappropriate to make assumptions.  Perhaps she asked his advice, and he said "don't do it," but she decided to do it anyway and, being her father, he's standing behind her decision, as foolish as it seems to him. 

And the presiding judge can't ask her father to get her to drop the case.  That would be ex parte communication with a party, and inappropriate and unethical.  If it's a frivolous case, the judge presiding over it may dismiss it on his motion, and that will be that.

Those things NEVER HAPPEN behind the Judge's door though.

I am assuming a little bit, but it's not as inconceivable as this STUPID lawsuit is!

I'm not defending the lawsuit.  I think it is offensive and frivolous.  But I don't think the judge should be blamed for it, or take any heat for it, whatsoever. 

Rachael,

You obviously have some vested interest in judges as even when others have stated facts about cases known to them, you still refuse to except SOME judges and lawyers are corrupt and others I'm sure hand out "professional favors" to any of their colleagues or their families.  It is that "birds of a feather flock together theory".  However I'm sure we will never know the motivation behind your undying support for the criminal justice system.

With that said, it would be interesting to know how many other cases that fit such a description or close if the drunk driver in those cases were let off so easily, I'm not assuming, but I suspect not.

I heard Rachael acknowledge (#9.9) that poor judicial conduct does occur and also gets all the publicity.  And all of us have a "vested interest" in judges and the judiciary system because without them we'd be living in totalitarianism. This case (which does have a pretty high "peee-ewww" factor) doesn't mean all judges are corrupt or mouth breathing cretins.

Let's hope this case goes before a conscientious judge who will throw it out the window.

I read her comment/s.  My point to her was that just like she believes and would like us to believe that most judges are on the ligit, there are just as many that are not and do favors behind closed doors.  My statement of "vested interest" was directed at her arguement that more are clean than dirty.  Unless one works very very closely with the judicial systems of each state, how on earth can one make that broad statement without the substance to back it up. 

Southern Bell, what do you do?

How would like it if I said that more [whatever it is that you do] are bad people, not legit, back-dealing scum?

there are just as many that are not and do favors behind closed doors

Do you know how many judges there are in this Country? In NY alone there are thousands. You hear every year about how many being bad? Ten? Twenty? Five? No one has posted any "evidence" that more judges -- or even as many judges -- are bad than are good.

The only vested interest I have is in not seeing an entire profession demonized because of the shady actions of some. The same way I get angry when someone says "all conservatives as uneducated idiots," or when someone says "all blonds are stupid."

And point of fact, I do work in the judiciary system with a large state. Are there corrupt judges? Certainly, but I've never come across one. So unless you've got some evidence that more judges are bad than good, or that as many judges as bad as good, then you should stop using gross overgeneralizations based on the actions not even of a judge, but of his daughter.

Excuse me Rachael,

Didn't mean to step on your high all mighty toes, but this is a topic, you know to be discussed and debated upon.  You, with all due respect in just about every comment was argumentative with anyone who offered up a case they knew of.  I'm a nurse by profession, and there are good and bad in all professions.  However you stood firmly by your assumption that because you don't know any corrupt judges, well that means that most aren't.  No it means that where you are you don't know of any. 

It would be foolish to insinuate all judges are dirty, that would be like saying all white people are racist.  Most on this post were trying to discuss this specific judge, not all !!

TOO MANY LAWYERS in this Country, FAR TOO MANY!

As Paul & AL have said many times, "Lawyers are Scum"!

It would be foolish to insinuate all judges are dirty, that would be like saying all white people are racist.

That's all I was saying, SB. I don't like gross overgeneralizations or people who make them.

In Massachusetts, you are AUTOMATICALLY half at fault just for being involved!

Who benefits there I wonder?  Could it be Insurance and Lawyers?!

Say it isn't so, another corrupt state government!

How WRONG is that?!

I'm not sure where you obtained that information about fault in Mass, Shan-man, but you're incorrect. 

They have NO FAULT insurance in Mass, Rachael!  That's what that is, in a nutshell.

Maybe it doesn't include KILLING a person?!  But, I do not KNOW that.

The new generations' Motto, "It MUST BE someone else's fault"!

I'm aware that Mass is a no-fault state.  But no-fault in no way prescribes 50% fault to anyone involved in an accident.  You're misunderstanding the law if that's what you think it means. 

I know that it means that you, as an involved person, must pay your own deductible regardless of guilt or innocense.

Not if the other person is at fault, so long as that person has insurance. 

To have or not have insurance has NOTHING to do with how an accident happens!

It's either your fault OR it is NOT!

I think you maybe have an oversimplistic view of the insurance system and how fault in accidents relates thereto. 

shan-man - unfortunately, in Texas is you are involved in an accident without insurence, you are automatically at fault and responsible

That's not true, either, D DeMilo. 

RachaelMM.......You have put in a valiant effort in calmly promoting reason and accuracy on this board......it needed to be said.

Motion seconded. This is an emotional and (cough) broad-ranging discussion and RachaelIMM is helping keep us focused.

D.  Demilo

Yep the same here,  no insurance and the fault is yours no matter what the other folk did.

Thank you folks. I'm trying.

santame, that's not true. You're misunderstanding the law.

Rachell;

Yes it is true, it happened to my daughter.  She was not in the wrong but had no insurance.  She had a restricted license for one year, had to get in the insurance pool and had to pay damages for the other car.  Where do you live?

I'm sorry santame, you're misunderstanding the law.  There are no states where it is the case that because you don't have insurance, you're automatically at fault for an accident.  I'm positive that you're misunderstanding the law as it relates to your daughters case.

You got that in as I was typing the next comment!

Darn it.

lol you had better delivery

That is the case I was mentioning in 3.1. more on that,, the jerk-off judge (who is no longer a judge) appealed and the appeal was throw out also.  he's also appealed losing his government judge job... this guy is messed up...

AND YET this case was ALLLOWED to Go ON & ON & ON, WASTING Tens of Thousands of dollars!

BS!

Own theory,

Great point!  Thanks cause I totally missed that little detail, and you are so right, makes the fact of her guilt even more obvious and this more of an injustice.

I would also like to add.  Truck drivers get blamed for a lot of accidents that are absolutely not avoidable.  Now before all the naysayers attack that part of my comment, I can tell you from experience and seeing many many accident victims in the ER that this is indeed the case in some accidents.  Ask yourself this? How many times have you been on the freeway and saw cars jump over in front of a semi truck and then put on their brakes because traffic slows in front of them.  Now mind you there is a law about tailgating and keeping your distance. But I've seen trucks almost jack-knife trying to avoid some idiot who jumped over in front of them thinking he can stop as simply as they can in a car. 

Trucks like that are sometimes loaded down with a full trailor and then they have air breaks.  Takes longer to stop than it does in a car or regular truck/suv.  I've also seen truck drivers leave the road and hit the shoulder just because someone was not paying attention and the truck moved over to avoid the car hitting them.

Just finished the link. Gotta say I'd like her, daddy, and the scum sucking Lawyer under the jail more than ever. I really like the part about being Disbarred twice.

piece of work aren't they... 

I wonder when he is up for re-election. Cause you know here in Texas, they elect the judges in Partisan elections.

Yep. Judges declare themselves Rep or Dem and run for office.