A law that makes sense in Texas!

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by chrisjm18, Sep 6, 2023.

Loading...
  1. chrisjm18

    chrisjm18 Well-Known Member

    Suss, Garp and Rachel83az like this.
  2. Rachel83az

    Rachel83az Well-Known Member

    Amazing, a Texas law that should be everywhere, IMO.
     
    chrisjm18 likes this.
  3. chrisjm18

    chrisjm18 Well-Known Member

    I agree 100%.
     
  4. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Well...no...it's more like grandstanding.
     
    Rich Douglas likes this.
  5. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Drunk drivers have always been liable for the financial harm they cause their victims and the families of their victims. This law really changes nothing and may have major undesirable consequences depending on whether they mean it or not. My guess is they don't mean it.
     
    SweetSecret and Rich Douglas like this.
  6. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Nosborne covered anything I would have said. Concur.
     
  7. elcastor21

    elcastor21 New Member

    Rachel83az and chrisjm18 like this.
  8. sideman

    sideman Well Known Member

    I'm ambivalent about the law. If it dissuades some to not drink and drive, then I'm all for it. But if you look at the offenders that cause fatalities while driving drunk, a lot of times its not their first offense. Many suffer from alcoholism and drug abuse. I'd really like to see more monies put into rehab programs, mental health facilities, and drug dependency treatment for the middle class to poor. The rich and famous can afford rehab but what about the rest of us? Let's not forget that alcohol is a drug. It's a legal drug and a socially acceptable drug. Perhaps those that produce and sell this drug should have more of a financial stake in what happens to the breadwinner victim's offspring? Regardless, you can't get blood from a turnip, and if the offender can't hold a job, drinks his/her lunch, and continues to drive drunk (sometimes on a suspended or revoked license), that should let us know how responsible they'd be in fulfilling the financial requirements of this law.

    But sadly, what usually happens is, if the child or children are orphaned, they become wards of the state, and the state supports them until age 18. There's already money set aside for this in the annual budget. And as a citizen of Texas, I know that part of the taxes I pay go towards this already. Parents should always plan for the worst, so life insurance is usually inexpensive during child bearing/raising years, so they should have adequate amounts to make sure a surviving spouse can have the funds to raise the child or children on their own, if need be. This is just being a responsible parent. But if worse comes to worse, there's always a way to make sure those children are supported until the age of majority.

    So what's the answer that will rid the world of irresponsible drunk drivers? Darned if I know. I just know that we've been more successful in some states and less in others. In the stats below you can look up your state and see which way it's trending. Ironically, Nosborne, your state of New Mexico is number 6 on the list. And Albuquerque is number 7 among cities for DUI's/DWI's. But Texas trumps them all with 4 cities in the top 5 (Houston, El Paso, Austin, and San Antonio), so we're even worse. And on it goes.....


    https://backgroundchecks.org/which-states-have-the-worst-dui-problems.html
     
  9. elcastor21

    elcastor21 New Member


    Hard agree.
     
  10. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Absolutely not. That's like holding Bic and Office Depot accountable because they made and sold a pen that was used for check fraud.
     
    chrisjm18 and elcastor21 like this.
  11. elcastor21

    elcastor21 New Member

    Guns don´t kill people, people kill people
     
  12. sideman

    sideman Well Known Member

    Please note the question mark in my sentence. Just putting it out there to see if I get a response. I kind of liken it to "deep pockets theory of litigation". If you're going to sue someone for wrongful death, you certainly aren't going to sue an indigent person. You'd go after a company like Anheuser-Busch. What company could take a 1 billion dollar loss and still stay in business? But it all comes down to what a jury would say anyways. But hey, it's fun to speculate.

    I couldn't find a specific case on a fatality accident where a lawsuit was filed against an alcohol manufacturer and plaintiff/s won, but just some brief scanning brought this up:

    https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1956&context=wmlr

    If interested, check out pgs. 183-186. I especially found the dissent interesting. But again, none of these cases were successful.
     
  13. sideman

    sideman Well Known Member

  14. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

Share This Page