October 21, 2009

"Are you seriously wanting this [parking] spot so badly?"

A $5 million lawsuit arising out of a deliberately run-over foot.

28 comments:

Hoosier Daddy said...

Sorta on topic but back when I was a yout, I remember this one guy who worked in our office and he had this brand new Trans Am that he was in love with. So much so he would get to work much earlier than most and park it at an angle which took up two whole parking spaces. It was an office complex parking lot. Evidently this would prevent people from parking next to him and thus avoiding any ugly door dings he might receive.
Needless to say the inevitable happened when he storms in the office one day shrieking about some asshole who keyed his car door.

It goes without saying the sympathy among the rest of us was lacking.

rhhardin said...

Protestors have the right of way.

Actually deliberately blocking the way is a crime in Ohio, somewhere in the fighting words sections.

Shanna said...

Todd, who could not be reached for comment, was not charged with a crime, though police were called to the scene.

Seriously? It's not a crime to run over someone on purpose in NY?

Ron said...

Eh? We talkin' about Mad Men? Cool!

MadisonMan said...

Why would anyone live in that hellhole?

Bob From Ohio said...

Why not 50 million or 1 billion?

A broken foot, intentional or not, will not being in 200,000, let alonre 5 milion. Just a publicity stunt by the lawyer.

Don't count on punitive damages either. He was "saving" a parking place, do most NYers think much of that?

Leland said...

Where's the tag for stupid lawsuits?

ricpic said...

You had to have lived in NYC and searched for a parking space for a quarter of an hour and then finally spied one only to have a guy standing in it "reserving" it to understand the rage of this driver.

chuck said...

A friend of mine was stabbed and killed in an argument over a parking spot in Washington DC. Parking spots aren't to be taken lightly...

traditionalguy said...

I see this as a great personal injury suit with punitive damages very likely. The law has to handle this stuff, or people will get revenge of their own. That dude had better not eat sushi their any time soon. I understand that some fish can be toxic.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

When playing a game of chicken, it is important to remember that being the first one to blink is not the only way to lose.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Hoosier-

We had a woman at our office who did that after getting a shiny new car. However, our lot was only ever half full, and she parked far from the building, so it was never a problem.

Of course, we did give her a hard time about it, including one day where four of us parked our cars within inches of hers on all sides.

G Joubert said...

Running over someone's foot is of course not good, but at the same time attempting to hold a parking spot by standing there and with no car to go in it is a little bit on the obnoxious side. The rule ought to be the first one to the spot with an actual car gets it.

former law student said...

This situation is no joke. When a truck accidentally backed up over my father's foot, he ended up with gangrene and needed skin grafts.

CarmelaMotto said...

If I was the driver, I may have done the same thing. The man is not a car, he should have moved. When I see a car coming towards me, when it backs up with it's parking lights on, I MOVE.

His boss wasn't there for the spot? Tough shit - you snooze, you lose. End of story.

traditionalguy said...

The law is a necessary tool in these cases. Otherwise some of the commenters today would justify just shooting him for blocking the space, and then self defense would cause him to return fire. Then they could rename the restaurant the O K Corral. The law keeps the peace and lawyers make that happen.

Balfegor said...

If I was the driver, I may have done the same thing. The man is not a car, he should have moved.

Pedestrians have right of way. Of course, simply in view of the size differential, they ought to move. But it is absolutely the fault of the car driver if he injures a pedestrian who is visible right in front of him, and who he clearly knows is standing there.

Bissage said...

This tragic injury to Mr. Du's foot could have been avoided if only he'd used his head.

Pogo said...

Was this a drunk driving case?
Shoot the driver.

Was this a drunk waiter trying to hold the space?
Shoot the waiter.


Problem solved.

Paddy O. said...

"deliberately run over foot"

So, the guy didn't move when the car was backing up into the spot? I don't get how someone can "maniacally" parallel park. I mean I get there's rage and anger, but it seems like if the car is coming at you there's time and choice to move, or to play chicken with the truck.

Balfegor said...

but it seems like if the car is coming at you there's time and choice to move, or to play chicken with the truck.

If you play chicken with the truck -- if you are standing there, and the truck deliberately runs you over, yes, you've been foolish, but the truck driver should lose his license and go to jail. I don't think there's a rule that says: "It's OK to run over pedestrians if they see you and they don't hop it to get out of the way."

traditionalguy said...

In my experience the Chinese are a very stubborn people when they believe that they are right.Maybe it comes from their writing and thinking in pictures. Anyway, chinese negotiators will talk for hours in a friendly way over all the points you make and then politely never budge an inch.

miller said...

I'm no lawyer, but it seems like vehicular assault. Sure, the waiter was in the way, but the driver *did not have* to park there.

I would like to see them both be fined and/or otherwise punished: the waiter for obstructing traffic, and the driver for vehicular assault.

Gabriel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chris Althouse Cohen said...

It's sort of like when Britney Spears ran over a paparazzo's foot, when they were all mobbing her car. They thought they could force her to stop by swarming the car and putting themselves in danger. I think if you willfully get in front of a moving vehicle, you should to face the consequences if you get hit. If you walked into traffic intentionally and got killed, that would be suicide, not murder. Also, I think it should be illegal to "hold" a spot by standing in it. I've seen people do that, and I think it's wrong. Let's say the police were called before the "accident" occurred, and were there to resolve the dispute of who should get the spot. Don't you think they should side with the person who has a car, not the person who is standing in the spot and is essentially a pedestrian obstructing a parking spot?

Balfegor said...

I think if you willfully get in front of a moving vehicle, you should to face the consequences if you get hit.

As far as I can tell, he didn't "get in front of" the moving vehicle. He was standing there, and the driver drove into him. Or over his foot.

Let's say the police were called before the "accident" occurred, and were there to resolve the dispute of who should get the spot. Don't you think they should side with the person who has a car, not the person who is standing in the spot and is essentially a pedestrian obstructing a parking spot?

If he called a policeman. Yes. But driving your car into a pedestrian is self-help, and illegal. I'm not allowed to set up lethal booby-traps to kill burglars, after all. And automobile drivers aren't allowed to use lethal force over a parking spot. The pedestrian should be fined, and the driver should be fined and lose his license.

Kev said...

From the linked article:

Ke Hai Du, sporting cast and cane after his foot was run over in dispute over parking spot outside Manhattan restaurant Suteishi, is suing driver for $5M.

I feel bad for the guy, despite his likely bad judgement in this case, but if the photo is any indication, someone needs to teach Mr. Du how to use his cane; he has it on the same side as his bad leg, when it's supposed to be on the same side as his good leg (take it from someone who just became an ex-cane user in the past week and a half).

dbp said...

"And automobile drivers aren't allowed to use lethal force over a parking spot."

True, but what determines lethal force should not just be the fact of the car pulling into the spot. Doesn't the rate of speed matter? If the driver pulled in really fast, so that the pedestrian would have to jump out of the way that is one thing. If he pulled in really slowly then it looks more like the pedestrian injured himself. He didn't need to keep standing there anymore than the driver needed to park there.