Photo: Rare Delights
One argument between husband and wife on the road home from a family barbecue turned into a movie-like scenario when he opened the passenger door and jumped out of the moving car. It didn’t end well.
That was back in 2012, and the protagonists were Brian Lim and Eunkyung Cho. Since then, Lim has been trying to convince the court that his wife was guilty of negligence for not braking the car when she saw his intention of jumping out, ABC.net reports.
According to documents provided by his lawyer, Lim suffered “catastrophic” injuries that left him “under legal incapacity” when he jumped out of the family’s Mercedes-Benz. His wife was behind the wheel and specialists verified that she was going at about 50 kph (31 mph) when the incident occurred.
The argument started when Lim reproached his wife for speaking to an acquaintance. She fought back and said something nasty about his mother, to which he replied by saying he wanted a divorce. Next thing, he opened the door of the car and jumped out.
The couple’s 2 minor children were in the car when this happened. Cho tried to grab her husband but wasn’t able to hold on to him.
Lim’s argument in court is that his injuries would have been considerably less severe, had she braked the car when she saw what he planned to do. It is a driver’s duty to ensure all passengers’ wellbeing while traveling, and that included him, even if they were fighting.
The initial verdict was that Cho wasn’t responsible for something he did to himself, but Lim appealed. The final verdict came yesterday: he was the only one guilty because he was the one who made the choice to jump out of a moving car.
Moreover, had Cho braked, she might have injured the kids or other drivers. If she was guilty of negligence, he was guilty of contributory negligence and any money he would be rewarded would be taken away.
“There was no evidence … that [she] had any inkling prior to [him] opening the door of the vehicle that he would do something as dangerous as leaping from a moving vehicle,” Acting Justice Ronald Sackville said of the verdict.
“Not surprisingly, at first she did not grasp that [he] would act as recklessly as he did,” he continued. “[Her] actions in a sudden crisis not of her own making were not unreasonable in the circumstances she faced.”
According to documents provided by his lawyer, Lim suffered “catastrophic” injuries that left him “under legal incapacity” when he jumped out of the family’s Mercedes-Benz. His wife was behind the wheel and specialists verified that she was going at about 50 kph (31 mph) when the incident occurred.
The argument started when Lim reproached his wife for speaking to an acquaintance. She fought back and said something nasty about his mother, to which he replied by saying he wanted a divorce. Next thing, he opened the door of the car and jumped out.
The couple’s 2 minor children were in the car when this happened. Cho tried to grab her husband but wasn’t able to hold on to him.
Lim’s argument in court is that his injuries would have been considerably less severe, had she braked the car when she saw what he planned to do. It is a driver’s duty to ensure all passengers’ wellbeing while traveling, and that included him, even if they were fighting.
The initial verdict was that Cho wasn’t responsible for something he did to himself, but Lim appealed. The final verdict came yesterday: he was the only one guilty because he was the one who made the choice to jump out of a moving car.
Moreover, had Cho braked, she might have injured the kids or other drivers. If she was guilty of negligence, he was guilty of contributory negligence and any money he would be rewarded would be taken away.
“There was no evidence … that [she] had any inkling prior to [him] opening the door of the vehicle that he would do something as dangerous as leaping from a moving vehicle,” Acting Justice Ronald Sackville said of the verdict.
“Not surprisingly, at first she did not grasp that [he] would act as recklessly as he did,” he continued. “[Her] actions in a sudden crisis not of her own making were not unreasonable in the circumstances she faced.”
Google News