Bird-flipping passenger off hook for shooting

[Kadie]

Bird-flipping passenger off hook for shooting

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, July 10, 2009


(07-10) 17:23 PDT RICHMOND -- A car passenger who gestures angrily at a passing vehicle can't be held responsible if someone responds with gunfire, a state appeals court has ruled in dismissing a lawsuit that blamed a passenger for provoking a shooting.

Adam Vue was taking an SUV for a test drive on Interstate 80 in Richmond in January 2007 when a car entered the freeway and nearly hit him. He honked his horn and his passenger, auto salesman Gabriel Lobos, threw his hands in the air. According to Vue, he also made an obscene gesture at the other driver.

Someone in the car fired a shot that hit Vue in the head. The 22-year-old pharmacy technician from Gold River (Sacramento County) was in a coma for six weeks and suffered permanent brain damage and impaired mobility, his lawyer said. Police never found the shooter.

Vue sued Lobos and his employer, East Bay Mitsubishi of El Cerrito, in Contra Costa County Superior Court, saying the salesman's gestures provoked a violent response that should have been foreseeable.

Judge Joyce Cram dismissed the suit without a trial last year and the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco upheld her ruling Thursday. Whether Lobos acted prudently or not, the court said, his gestures weren't the type of conduct that could be expected to draw a lethal response.

"Yes, there are acts of aggression that result from disagreements between drivers," Justice James Richman said in the 3-0 ruling. "Yet, that does not make it foreseeable that shrugging one's hands at, or even 'flipping off,' the occupants of a car that just made a dangerous move would prompt the occupants to respond with a deadly weapon."

more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/10/BACA18MI8S.DTL&tsp=1

[rrneck]

1. I hope they

didn't get paid overtime to figure that one out.

[dysfunctional press]

2. well...DUH.

retaliating with potentially lethal force because someone flips you the bird? someone actually argued that it was justifiable?

[MADem]

3. I think the argument was that the flipper "caused" the whole chain of events.

Particularly since the flipper was the car salesman, and the guy who was shot was the customer of the salesman.

The person responsible was the guy with the gun, at the end of the day.

[dysfunctional press]

5. i know what the argument was, and it's ludicrous on it's face...

the guy(well- his lawyer, actually) was going after the car dealership because they were the ones with the deepest pockets...(that, and the fact that the shooter was never found, anyway) but to try to argue that gunfire was a reasonable response, and to be expected from a finger gesture is just silly. of course the person with the gun is responsible.
although- i would think that it would be covered by the dealerships own liability coverage. if someone is in my car and gets injured- isn't my car insurance the ones who would end up paying? :shrug: maybe the guy wanted more than the insurance co. lawyers wanted to give?

[MADem]

6. Well, when you said "someone actually argued that it was justifiable?" I took a different meaning

from that phrase.

I don't think anyone was arguing that "gunfire was a reasonable response"--they were simply arguing that the "finger" lit the situation off, and put the customer in danger.

I guess we'd have to see the full ruling to understand the details of it all...

[Touchdown]

4. Tragic they never found the shooter.

That salesman's idiot move lost himself a customer. Impaired mobility and permanent brain damage makes me believe the shopper can't drive anymore.

I'll ask about their bird flipping and if that's an extra charge, part of a premium package or a comp the next time I'm in the market for a Mitsubishi. Then go for a Nissan down the road.