for all of you not knowing Miller... he isn't going after the insurance co. He was insured up till 2 weeks before the accident, when his insurance lapsed. He did have a good job making good money till the accident... he is not able to do the same job anymore due to the injuries sustained in the accident. He lives with this everyday of his life. it took him a long time just to sit in a car agian, he walked home from the hospital with his ijuries. at the same time the family is hurting inside as well, i couldn't imagine what eather side is feeling. if he could he would switch her places. Miller is a responsible young adult with a 2 yr old daughter. i feel as though both parties need to deal with this tragic event in their own way, but why put yourself and others through more pain and suffering by taking something like this to court. i agree with someones comment about bankrupsy... but if i was in his shoes i would file as well. he never tried to go after anyone for any money. His car was totalled, he could have made a claim, but didn't. FOR A LITTLE INFO THAT WASN'T PRINTED IN THE REPORT BECAUSE OF THE TIME OF QUESTIONING (WHILE IN THE AMBULANCE) HE WAS SO SHOOK UP HE DIDN'T REMEMBER... BUT SOON AFTER HE TOLD THE POLICE THERE WAS A TRUCK TURNING ONTO WUTHERING HILLS, WHICH BLINDED BOTH BLADORN AND MILLER FROM EACH OTHER. I believe i am too late with the comment but it is still here

How many other tickets has Darren received not related to this accident? Let's see- Inattentive driving, speeding....I don't think he has learned anything!!!!!!!!
I believe he has gotten money from the Bladorn's insurance as well, so don't blame them for trying to get money.

My understanding for the Bladorn family having this lawsuit is: Mr. Miller has to be found a greater percentage than Mrs. Bladorn from this accident, for the family to collect from there OWN insurance policy... This is where your Un-Insured and Under-Insured policy comes into play. This may answer alot of questions on where the money is comming from. I carry this on my auto policy.

I was driving west on highland when a young lady ran a stop sign on grant street. She never slowed down and just plowed right into me. My car was totalled, I had multiple injuries putting me out of work for over two months. I retained a lawyer to recoup my lost money and hospital bills. Her own admission was that she was totally at fault she had dropped her cell phone and never slowed down. Her insurance company even agreed. But even with the admissions that I was not at all at fault I still ended up losing money in this situation. I still, three years later, have residual effects of this accident. I was able to recoup lost wages and they paid my hospital bills. But I was not awarded anything for future medical or pain and suffering.

gonefishing- I disagree. But that's JMO. Let the jury decide.

yes, my thoughts also. The child is the one who is going to suffer the most from this. Losing your mother is tough, especially at the age of 12. God bless that young girl.

I feel bad for the kid...

buckyfan, yep. as tragic as this ended up being. she is still partially at fault. so the damage on her side should be occured by her insurance. We all agree the kid was being an idiot. but to make him pay for everything because she screwed up to is ludicrous. People are just looking to cash in for a quick buck thats all. Kind of like the wife of that lunatic that raped that poor woman at the mall. WHen he did the right thing and offed himself in the jail his wife turned around and sued the jail.

Awhile back, a co worker of mine was killed in a similar situation. She was on HWY 11 and Hanover Road. Amy was riding in a huge pick up truck on her way to McDonald's to get food for her little girl and was stopped at a stop sign. She turned into a motorcycle driven by a young man who was going in excess of 90mph after leaving the courthouse and having his license revoked for speeding and other driving offenses. They were both killed.
RIP Amy. We miss you!

So let me get this straight, the family probably would have been able to recover the cost of medical bills, pain and suffering and vehicle damage from the guy's insurance (assuming he bears the greater blame). But because he doesn't have insurance, the family shouldn't get anything?
---
The guy's got a pretty long life ahead of him (barring any unforeseen circumstances), so he has many years of collecting paychecks. I don't think it's too much for a family to ask that he take some financial responsibility for the damage he played a part in causing.

It sad that someone had to die over this accident. Unfortunately suing isn't going to bring them back. It's also unfortunate that they are wasting their time in the suit. How are you going to get money from a 22 year old that didn't even have car insurance. I doubt that he has much of anything else. He will have to ask the state to pay for his lawyer as well. As the old saying goes 'You can't get blood out of a turnip'.

fldpan- you think? Most people would not have thought of your advice.

This tragedy is a perfect example of why you should always look twice in both directions before proceeding...

Hmmm, I wonder, even if the kid may have been at fault, what is going through his emotions with having caused another human being to die.

localboy, it has been shown in studies that even an accident going less than 20 MPH can kill a person. So to say that if he had been doing 35 she would still be alive is VERY speculative. She may have survived, she may not. 35 MPH in a 3000 pound vehicle is still a pretty powerful impact

curtaincall: You're right and my post wasn't very clear: thank you for cleaning it up.
.
My main point remains the same though: So what if other states require insurance to drive? So what if Wisconsin doesn't? It's not like we live in a gated community where we have to pass the guard every morning and show him title, license, registration and proof of insurance before he lets us out and about. Has Illinois EVER had an uninsured motorist illegally driving schmuck kill someone? Of course. Whether the law existed or not, sadly, the result would more than likely have been the same. If people obeyed every law because it was a law, we wouldn't need law enforcement or jails. Period.
.
Mrs. Bladorn didn't die because Mr. Miller didn't have insurance. She died because he was driving 1 1/2 times the legal speed limit and weaving in and out of traffic with little to no regard for HIS or anyone's life. She, sadly and tragically, pulled out at the exact wrong time at the exact wrong place. Insurance would not have altered this end result.
.
It sucks when it results in tragedy, but it's called free will.

buckyfan is correct. persuant to W.S.A. 895.045, as long as the court does not find she was at least 51% at fault she will be able to recover. if that is the case, the amount of recovery will be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to the recovering person. depending on how much she was at fault, the amount awarded (if any) can be diminished quite quickly. people can argue about injustice, etc...but the law is the law, and this is exactly how this case will play out. plain and simple.

mom of five, the only time you are EVER questioned about insurance coverage is if you are in a accident. In quite a few different states, you so much as get a traffic ticket you have to provide proof of insurance. IF you can not you will end up in municipal court before a judge. I work insurance so I see this all the time. WISCONSIN does not legally require insurance. IF Wisconsin did this guy would have gone to jail..He was not fined for not having insurance. There is a big difference in being asked for it after a accident and being required just to have it to drive.

What if she had pulled out and he was doing the speed limit when he hit her? Would she still be alive today? I think you can prove without doubt, that his excessive speed is what killed her.

From state statutes with Bladorn replacing plaintiff and Miller replacing defendant: The Bladorns may recover damages if Miller's negligence is greater than that of Mrs. Bladorn's negligence. Thus, if Bladorn's causal negligence is determined to be 51% or greater than the total negligence attributable for the accident, then the Bladorns are barred from recovery.
---
Personally, I think speeding and reckless driving trumps failure to yield, but that's not up to me.

You do have to have insurance in Wisconsin. If you are in an accident, like Mr. Miller, and do not have insurance, you get a fine and a MANDATORY SR-22 filing status. I think the SR-22 lasts 3 years. Just like drunks who drive and get picked up repeatedly, how are you going to stop them? You can have all the laws you want, but they are only as strong as they are enforced. I could be wrong, but isn't there a law against speeding? Not yielding? Didn't make a bit of difference in this situation, did it?
.
Suing him is not going to accomplish anything productive or healthy. Period. And, to assume that Mr. Miller will not amount to anything or ever have a good paying job is just as reckless as his driving habits as of last September.

I agree. The state should make EVERYONE have insurance. Illinois does, why not us?

Ok so you sue an uninsured driver, what will you get? And how will he ever pay it out? The kid is 22 he will probably will do everything not to pay any judgment against him.
It needs to be law in Wisconsin, if you have a drivers license you have insurance! Regardless of whether or not you have a car.

agreed mespl. they state that he was "weaving in and out of traffic" right before this happened. well........... shouldnt that be an indicator that hes going a little faster than the speed limit. I know if I saw a car weaving in and out of traffic and passing I would come to the conclusion that he is going a little faster than allowed.

I am sounding heartless. sorry. I feel for that poor little girl losing her mother. that is an unthinkable situation to be in. I hope she is able to move on and live a great life.

Like it or not she failed to yield the right of way that was determined by the State Patrol in a reconstruction. That means that they decided that she should have seen that he was traveling at a higher rate of speed and she should have decided not to enter the intersection, key words they used was “partly at fault” they were both "partly at fault". You people are placing all the blame on one party, hello both were responsible. As an adult she should have been more aware of her surroundings especially with her daughter in the car. A responsible adult would have seen the car moving too fast (because you CAN tell when someone is going 60 in a 35) and not pulled out in the way. It is a horrible tragedy that this family is going through however the woman was at fault also and people just love to sue each other, if he had died because of her actions and his family was suing would you all be supporting them instead?

Yeah, the kid was driving reckless, I've done that before. The woman pulled out without THOROUGHLY looking before pulling out in traffic, yeah I've done that too. When you stop at a stop sign, you are to yield to ALL traffic. Not just for ones you think are not speeding. Never, Ever ASSUME. I've worked for a wrecker service and have seen things I wished I could forget. Most of the victims that would still be there when I would show up didn't have a pulse anymore. I've even lost friends in accidents just like this one. Some were the reckless drivers and some were the ones that didn't yield to ALL traffic. Yeah, I'm mad that I lost my friends but it doesn't change the fact that they were ALSO in the wrong.
I have learned to drive more defensivly and slower because I know what the wrecker driver will see and have to live with. People, please, watch out for the reckless ones and slow up. Thanks...Merry Christmas...

It does not matter if you "willfully" break the law or not, it is still against the law. Her actions (pulling out in front of him) contributed to the accident and had she not done this it most likely would not have occured. Yes, it goes both ways, had he not been speeding it most likely would not have occured either. These are things that the jury will need to consider when they go to court for this lawsuit.

This was a tragedy. But to turn around and sue is pretty ridiculous. Those of you saying "he was speeding and she couldnt tell", are you serious? you mean to tell me if someone is doing "double the speed limit" you cant tell they are moving a little to fast? I know I can tell when a car is coming at me at double the speed limit. The kid was in the wrong for driving like an idiot, no doubt about it. But the woman also should have been a little more attentive. Its a tragedy that will not turn out good no matter what happens. but suing is ridiculous, that is all society is nowadays. sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue. its crazy!

tjncj: The article reads: "Because the state patrol concluded both parties contributed to the crash, the prosecution could prove that either party was criminally negligent, O'Leary said at the time."
....Intheloop may or may not be related to Miller. But, even David O'Leary and the Wisconsin State Patrol is putting some culpability on Bladorn. Once you take the road, you are automatically, no matter what, 10% at fault.

and suing him is going to accomplish what?
.
I watched the Van Ryn and Cerak families last night on Oprah. I cannot attest to the grief Ms. Bladorn's family feels. And, I am sure I too would be tempted to "sue the pants off them" if something happened to my loved one. However, I feel that the majority of this society could take a cue or two from these families (Van Ryn and Cerak). Google it if you don't know who they are or how gracious they were: especially the Van Ryn's.

tjncj-
I have to be able to do math as a nurse and I do it well,with formulas, but my husband is a genius with it and I have to say you are right up there with him.
You are too modest. :)

Wow, people are so "sue happy". Yes, this guy should be held accountable, but suing for loss of companionship? Are you serious? And he is going to have to live with the fact that he killed this woman. I bet it haunts him every day!

Mr. Tombone-Nothing an 6th grader or an engineer shouldn't be able to do.

tjncj- U got some mad math skillz! Are you by chance a physics professor or an accountant?

I can't believe people are defending Mr. Miller. He was driving recklessly and should be held accountable.
*
intheloop...your argument is ridiculous. You're comparing someone who was intentionally negligent by driving AT LEAST 20 mph over the posted speed limit with someone who misjudged a distance she thought was safe due to the intentional negligence of another driver. Sure, when it comes down to it, they both violated a law, but as another poster pointed out, one person was willfully breaking the law and the other was not.
*
intheloop...there is a difference between 1 mph over the limit and 10 mph over the limit. They're treated differently in terms of points off the driver's license and amount of the fine because the faster a driver is travelling, the longer it takes to stop and the more likelihood there will be an accident in an unexpected situation, such as a car pulling out from a stop or a child running into the street. Had Mr. Miller not been travelling at 20+ mph over the 35 mph posted limit, this accident would've either not happened or been fairly minimal.

Too far from school. Intheloop you are obviously a friend or relative. No one else could defend his actions and talk such nonsense. He was going 21 to 26 mph over the limit or in percentages somewhere between 1.64 and 1.7 times the speed limit. That is not the same as going 56 in a 55 zone.

Wuthering Hills and Milwaukee Ave is a distance from the school zones but I do believe there may be day care centers near there?

Isn't the speed limit in a school zone with children present 15 MPH? Or were they too far from school?

What difference most of you failed to indentify is that she didn't pull out and danger her life and her childs on purpose. Her action was on accident and possible her decision was based on judgement of what a normal distance was needed to safely to pull out due to the speed limit. On the other hand, Miller made the decision to drive like an idiot regardless of the consequences. His decision was not an accident, and therefore at fault.

While it's true that Wisconsin's comparative negligence law wouldn't put either of these drivers 100% at fault the statement that it "never" places one party 100% at fault is incorrect. There are several circumstances, such as a rear end collisions and striking a legally parked and unattended vehicle as well as others in which a driver could be held 100% at fault. The degree of each driver's negligence is determined by the facts of the accident. But I agree with curtaincall, let a jury decide who is more at fault and whether the victim's family should be compensated.

Those of you who advocate mandatory insurance should look at both sides of the coin and be ready to pay higher premiums yourself if it becomes law. Not a single state with mandatory insurance has a lower average auto insurance premium than Wisconsin. Also it's unlikely insurance companies will be able to charge uninsured drivers an appropriate premium adequate to cover the exposure. In that event higher costs would be passed on to all other drivers. Also mandatory insurance states still have uninsured motorists and the percentage of them is not significantly different than that of Wisconsin. No matter what law you pass people will find a way around it and drive without insurance. I know it sucks but it's reality. Regardless I do favor mandatory insurance laws.

But the consequences are NOT the same. In a crash, 1 mile over won't make much difference, but please, at 62mph in the city, it will make a BIG difference. He was going almost double the speed limit, racing another car, weaving in and out of traffic. Is it not possible that he weaved back into the lane she was pulling into? Or that he was going so fast she misjudged the distance that she had? I think so.

They both contributed to this accident. If she hadn't broke the law and pulled out in front of him no matter how fast he was going she would be alive also. If he was the only one at fault then I would say yeah go ahead and sue. I would venture to say that it is just as dangerous if not more so to pull out in front of somebody than it is to speed. Just remember this incident if you are ever going 56 mph (in a 55 mph area) and someone pulls out in front of you(Fails to yield)and an accident occurs. According to what most of you are saying it is automatically your fault. No, there is no difference in 1 mph over and 10 mph over they are both against the law.

observant-He might as well have been going 80 mph. The fact remains, if he HADN'T been driving as fast as he was, she might still be alive. Your "reasoning" is ridiculous.

PLUS it was at a time when children were starting school. What if it had been a child that had been hit because he/she crossed the road while that car was going ALMOST double the speed limit during school hours with children???
It's called reckless endangerment and his actions directly caused the death of
another human. He does and needs to be held accountable.

I saw the distance that car was pushed and my guess is he was at the high end or 62 mph. That is 90.93 feet per second compared to the speed limit of 35 mph which is 51.33 feet per second. If he had been going the speed limit and it takes 2.5 seconds to clear the east bound lane she would have made it by 100 feet. Not even close. Also the impact at 62 mph is exponentially more damaging than at 35 or 40 mph. He should have been charged to the max and forced to plea bargain like every other criminal in this county.

If you drive without insurance, you deserve to get sued. I hope they win the lawsuit.

curtaincall,

You are correct. It should be a criminal offense in Wisconsin and the car being driven by the uninsured motorist should be confiscated on the spot. And this should happen even if the traffic stop is just for an offense such as speeding. These idiots cause insurance premiums to be as high as they are.

First of all, 55-62mph is not DOUBLE the 35mph speed limit as a couple people have stated.

Secondly, nurse4u and others, had this kid been driving 40mph (which is conservative because I'm sure almost all drivers through this area average 42-45mph), do you really think the accident would've been avoided? It would've taken him probably 1.5-2.5 seconds longer to reach the area where the accident happened, so the likely answer is NO.

The accident may not have ended with the same consequences and a woman dying, but some people are making his 55mph speed sound more like 80mph!

Wisconsin should have a law that makes it a CRIMINAL OFFENSE not just civil to be driving with out car insurance. Most states do.

I still would have taken him to court on homicide charges , and let the jury decide if someone who is driving almost twice the legal limit, played a part in the death of some one they hit.

This kid has learned nothing. He will more than likely at some point in his life file bankruptcy if this judgment goes against him.

The family of this lady deserves better than this.

The only reason they concluded she failed to yield right of way is because she pulled in front of a moving vehicle. But, based on the speed limit in that area, she would have been fine had the other driver not been driving DOUBLE the posted speed limit. I think the family has every right to file suit and it sounds like the only reason DA O'Leary didn't file criminal charges was because he was afraid the prosecution wouldn't win. In Wisconsin, if you're on the road and in an accident, you're always partly at fault just for being there. Wisconsin law never places one driver 100% at fault. It's stupid, but true. You can be hit head on by someone crossing the center line drunk and be considered a small % at fault just for being on the road.
*
The kid who was driving recklessly should be held more accountable for his actions than just getting a $500+ fine. He took a life, even if accidentally, by driving recklessly. He needs to be held accountable.

intheloop - Two wrongs do not make a right. The woman was killed. Get a clue..

The kid had no insurance. If he ever has a decent job (highly unlikely), it would take them a very long time to see any money if a judgement was won. At minimum, he deserves to have a judgement against him for taking a life with his reckless driving.

She broke the law also by failing to yield the right of way. In my opinion if the other driver was also breaking the law the lawsuit should be tossed.

I agree. ESPECIALLY if he was racing with another car and weaving in and out of traffic. If a speed zone is 35 mph you shouldn't drive at double that speed! The poor woman who died probably thought the car was further away then it actually was, which is why she pulled out into traffic. Little did she know it was going twice the speed limit, thus causing the car to collide in half the time it would have taken for the car to actually get there had it been doing the speed limit.

his speed alone should have had him at fault.