I am surfing all my favorite news sites this morning while drinking my coffee when I happen upon a story in the New York Post www.nypost.com about a jackass named Dustin Dibble (sounds like an evil scheming punybrained character out of a Harry Potter movie) who has just lost his "controversial $2.3 million dollar jury verdict award."
Wait for it .... wait for it ..... WHY DID Mr. Dibble lose his $$ ?????
Our justice system at its finest: Mr. Dibble, a former college basketball star (and moron) had apparently gone on a four-hour drinking binge on April 23, 2006, then managed to topple his drunk ass onto the subway tracks at Union Square in New York only to be run over by a train and lose one of his legs. A (clearly intoxicated jury) awarded Mr. Dibble $2.3 million dollars, finding that the MTA (NYC Transit Authority) was liable for the loss of Dibble's leg because the train operator should have taken measures to stop the train and therefore avoid running over Dumb Dibble's drunk ass (or leg in this instance) which was splayed across the subway tracks.
How many "are you serious" comments were just spoken after the above paragraph?
Mr. Dibble's sleaze-asarus attorney, who sued the MTA, convinced a jury that the train operator was at fault "based on the basis of a mathematical formula used a purported average reaction time as a factor in calculating whether defendant's train operator could have stopped the train to avoid running over an intoxicated 22-year old."
Thankfully, the MTA's legal eagles sprinted to the courts with their appeal clutched in their fists and four years later, the NY State Appellate Court (obviously a group of sober judges thank God) overturned the jury's award and threw out Dumb Dibble's lawsuit.
Can we say justice prevails all at the same time?
It is interesting to note, however, that the appeals panel of five judges did not focus on Dumb Dibble's "drunkeness" but rather based their decision on whether the train operator could have stopped in time to avoid running over Dibble's leg. Interesting, but logical view. And of course, Dibble's attorney Andrew Smiley plans to appeal the appeal and so on and so on and so on.
Just one more way to clog up our already clogged justice system.
Let's work backward here. If Mr. Dibble had stayed home and drank himself into a stupor in front of his TV, then (a) he would still have his leg; (b) the docket slot for his ridiculous lawsuit could have been given to another more reasonable case; and (c) New Yorkers would not have had to look at Dumb Dibble's sorry mug - AT ALL.
But yet Dumb Dibbles OWN CONSCIOUS CHOICE (no one holding a gun to his head here) CHOSE to go drinking, CHOSE to drink for 4 hours and CHOSE to take a subway. Couldn't he have CHOSEN to sit down instead of teetering at the edge of the platform? Well, that's a gimme either way. But the point is that when people drink, they make a conscious, voluntary choice to do so. And in my view, whatever the consequences are of their action - choosing to drink, choosing to get drunk and fall onto subway tracks and lose limb or life - is their own liability, fault and responsibility.
For this man to actually have believed in his twisted mind that the train operator was at fault for the loss of his leg is incomprehensible. Dibble was actually quoted as saying "I didn't choose to lose my leg."
No you dumb ass moron you CHOSE to make a decision to drink yourself into oblivion and as a result of your choice (which I need to remind you yet again and that no one was forcing you to drink, no one was holding a gun to your head while you were drinking and no one was forcing your hand to your mouth to gulp down alcohol during your binge) you lost your leg.
The fault is yours, Dibble. NO ONE ELSE. Your own stupidity and recklessness caused the loss of your leg. I have no sympathy for you.
Using the old adage here: Dibble, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Kudos to the appeals court for meting our proper justice against morons like Dibble.
No comments:
Post a Comment