It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A Hampden Superior Court jury awarded $32.3 million Tuesday to the family of a woman killed when a motorist crashed into a Cumberland Farms store in Chicopee in 2010.
In the Cumberland Farms case, an elderly motorist drove his SUV at more than 70 mph into the store at Grove and Front streets, killing Dubuque, then 43 and director of finance at the MassMutual Center in Springfield. The driver suffered a stroke, and was not prosecuted in Dubuque's death.
The victim's family sued Cumberland Farms Inc., claiming that the site was dangerous and barriers should have been installed to prevent vehicles from colliding with the building.
Lawyers for Cumberland Farms denied negligence and called Dubuque's death a tragic accident. No federal, state or local regulations required the corporation to install barriers outside the store, the defendants said.
In his opening statement, Egan told jurors the store's apex-type driveway posed a safety risk, with vehicles driving directly at the store and no barriers protecting against a crash. "It was like an invitation and in this case... it turned out to be a deadly invitation," Egan said.
With convenience stores from Maine to Florida, Cumberland Farms had the corporate assets to spend on safety precautions, Egan said.
Defense attorney Richard P. Campbell told jurors in his opening statement that Cumberland Farms was founded by a husband and wife team and remains a family-owned company.
The verdict, delivered Tuesday afternoon, capped a three-week trial. By a 10-2 margin, jurors found that Cumberland Farms was negligent and awarded $32, 369,024 to the Dubuque family.
originally posted by: Brotherman
The thing is though some locations do have barriers. I'm wondering if the outcome would be different if they all had them or all did not?
originally posted by: research100
a reply to: Psychonautics
will the family owned company try to appeal??? I think there should be barriers,yes it is sad what happened, it was an accident.... that award seems really high to me, though
originally posted by: Psychonautics
originally posted by: research100
a reply to: Psychonautics
will the family owned company try to appeal??? I think there should be barriers,yes it is sad what happened, it was an accident.... that award seems really high to me, though
I think they should have barriers as well, but since they are not legally obligated, I don't understand how they were legally found responsible.
Makes no sense. It was a bad accident, are we gonna start putting barriers everywhere a car could possibly go?
originally posted by: Box of Rain
originally posted by: Psychonautics
originally posted by: research100
a reply to: Psychonautics
will the family owned company try to appeal??? I think there should be barriers,yes it is sad what happened, it was an accident.... that award seems really high to me, though
I think they should have barriers as well, but since they are not legally obligated, I don't understand how they were legally found responsible.
Makes no sense. It was a bad accident, are we gonna start putting barriers everywhere a car could possibly go?
They weren't found "legally" responsible. It was a civil suit, not a criminal suit.
You can do something legal but still be found liable or negligent in a civil court.
originally posted by: Psychonautics
originally posted by: Box of Rain
originally posted by: Psychonautics
originally posted by: research100
a reply to: Psychonautics
will the family owned company try to appeal??? I think there should be barriers,yes it is sad what happened, it was an accident.... that award seems really high to me, though
I think they should have barriers as well, but since they are not legally obligated, I don't understand how they were legally found responsible.
Makes no sense. It was a bad accident, are we gonna start putting barriers everywhere a car could possibly go?
They weren't found "legally" responsible. It was a civil suit, not a criminal suit.
You can do something legal but still be found liable or negligent in a civil court.
Yes, as it clearly happened that way.
I'm just saying I find it odd that they were not legally obliged to have something, but, I'm a court of LAW they were found negligent by not having the barriers....
I mean, what's the point of laws once you start going down that road.
Well, you didn't go anything legally wrong, but you're still just wrong. Sorry!
originally posted by: Box of Rain
originally posted by: Psychonautics
originally posted by: Box of Rain
originally posted by: Psychonautics
originally posted by: research100
a reply to: Psychonautics
will the family owned company try to appeal??? I think there should be barriers,yes it is sad what happened, it was an accident.... that award seems really high to me, though
I think they should have barriers as well, but since they are not legally obligated, I don't understand how they were legally found responsible.
Makes no sense. It was a bad accident, are we gonna start putting barriers everywhere a car could possibly go?
They weren't found "legally" responsible. It was a civil suit, not a criminal suit.
You can do something legal but still be found liable or negligent in a civil court.
Yes, as it clearly happened that way.
I'm just saying I find it odd that they were not legally obliged to have something, but, I'm a court of LAW they were found negligent by not having the barriers....
I mean, what's the point of laws once you start going down that road.
Well, you didn't go anything legally wrong, but you're still just wrong. Sorry!
Because what the government "requires" a company to do versus what a company "should" do can be two different things.
Government regulations are often just for the absolute minimum requirements. However, a person can feel a company should have done more than just the minimum.
originally posted by: research100
will the family owned company try to appeal???