4 ms·
> Just as a quick FYI the other side of the story is the the claim that he'd been drinking large amounts of cognac. You're not quoting the article accurately:
by ot 5y ago
> Just as a quick FYI the other side of the story is the the claim that he'd been drinking large amounts of cognac.
You're not quoting the article accurately:
> lawyers for the city argued [...] that he had consumed a “large amount of cognac” the night before
> A judge who ruled against the city when it asked that the lawsuit be tossed wrote in her order that no forensically defensible blood alcohol test had been administered.
It's very unlikely that his BAC was over the limit the day after (he was going to a job interview!), and regarding the cannabis in the urine, that stays detectable long after the effects are gone.
These allegations are tactics to discredit the plaintiff (note how vague they are, no hard numbers) and make him unsympathetic, and by looking at many of the comments here they're working.
- tempnow987 5y agoExcept the doctors noted evidence of the smell of weed, all their case notes and discharge notes indicate intoxication and bloodshot eyes. The plaintiff stopped AT a weed shop on the day of the accident. This is not a criminal trial, a jury may weigh some probabilities here. 750ml of cognac drunk the night before, a stop at a weed shop, 11,000 miles of sidewalk, and the claim the city is at fault for this accident and the plaintiff is not.
- gruez 5y ago>It's very unlikely that his BAC was over the limit the day after (he was going to a job interview!) A sibling comment[1] alleges that he drank 750ml of cognac. If that's true it's reasonable to assume he was intoxicated, even if there's no blood test [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30909634 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30909634