Owners of Escondido Property to Remove Abandoned Shack Connected to Fatal DUI Crash

In what many call as a step a little too late, owners of an abandoned guard shack in unincorporated Escondido will be brought down after being linked to a fatal DUI car accident that killed an 18-year-old.

A spokesperson from New Urban-West, the owners of the building, said that they are making arrangements to tear down the building and clean up the 10-acre property at 2070 Country Club Drive to prevent any more trespassing.

This move came after it was discovered that some teens used the dilapidated shack to drink and party before the December 11 crash that killed Jeffrey David Hodson.

Hodson’s mother claimed that the shack should have been torn down years ago as it was being used by a lot of teens as a place to drink alcohol for years.

It took her son’s death to finally wake up the people who own the property.

Preventing car accidents, especially those related to DUI, needs active involvement from the community.

Both the residents and business owners have a role to play in preventing these tragedies from happening.

The parents should be able to educate the people in their household, especially their children about the dangers of getting behind the wheel while intoxicated.

The business owners in their little ways can also contribute.

Store owners can be stricter about requiring IDs from those buying alcohol or by making sure that their unused buildings or structures will not be used to secretly hold parties where teens drink alcohol.

Although, we can make a claim for personal injuries or wrongful death against drunk drivers, the money awarded cannot really replace the losses we incur in a car accident.

Preventing a DUI accident from happening is better than trying to handle the consequences after it has already happened.

Failure to Wear a Seatbelt is An Act of Negligence

Seven teenagers aged 15 to 20 sustained minor to major injuries after the Honda car they were riding slammed into a parked big rig at an onramp to Highway 99 in Selma.

Apparently, the car was travelling south and exited Highway 99 at about 80 mph and failed to stop at the stop sign at Second Street.

They ended up in a rear-end collision with a big rig that was parked on the left shoulder.

According to reports, four of them were not wearing seatbelts during the collision.
The passengers could all file for personal injuries against either the parked truck driver if he committed any traffic infraction or against the driver of the car they were riding.

From the details of the report, the most liable party in the car accident though is the driver of the Honda car.

Running at 80 mph, which is beyond the speed limit and failing to stop at a stop sign can be considered by the courts as reckless driving, therefore a negligent act.

However, the conditions of the accident could affect the decision and the damages that will be given by the court.

Since four of the six passengers (excluding the driver) were not wearing a seatbelt during the car vehicle collision, the defendant could argue that those four had committed some comparative negligence.

Since the California seatbelt law requires that all vehicle riders wear a safety belt, the 6 passengers had a duty to wear their seatbelt while inside the car.

By not wearing a seatbelt, the four have breached or failed to fulfill that duty.

The defendant may also argue that the injuries may have been caused or has been aggravated by not wearing a seatbelt in the first place.

They could still win the case, but it would not be surprising if the amount of damages awarded would be significantly smaller compared to those who wore seatbelts.
We should all remember that the laws passed federally and by the state gives us a duty to follow it; failure to do so is an act of negligence.