This whole deal seems immoral but should we really be surprised anymore?

Widow sues herself for negligence in car crash that killed husband:
A Utah woman is suing the person responsible for killing her husband in a car crash in 2011. That person just happens to be herself.

In December 2011, Bradley Vom Baur died after Barbara Bagley lost control of a Range Rover in the Nevada desert. The vehicle flipped after she hit a large sagebrush. Vom Baur was thrown from the vehicle and suffered severe injuries. He died January 6, 2012.

In her suit, Barbara Bagley claims she was negligent for failing to control the car and should have notice the obstruction. She is both defendant and plaintiff in Bagley v. Bagley. But the lawsuit is not as demented as it first appears. By suing the person responsible for her husband's death, herself, she is actually meeting a legal responsibility to act on behalf of her husband's estate.

It's a complex case, which the The Salt Lake Tribune has covered in great detail.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/03/...aing-grid7|maing10|dl28|sec1_lnk2&pLid=621946

Gotta do what you gotta do I guess to keep going in life. But I can't stop thinking to myself, is this going to be the dangerous new legal way to try and get everything vs half all while saying :finger?

As a dork analyst, these are interesting cases as there is a general "insured vs. insured" exception in most policies. In other words, both the husband and wife are insured on the same policy so the claim of negligence is by an insured against another insured on the same policy.

The concept has typically dealt with Directors and Officers polices but is now being tested in other types of situations. You are right that it seems like suing yourself to get money for the spouse that you killed is disgusting, but that is just the world we live in today.

I bet she ends up settling.

They shouldn't have to lose the other half $$ to begin with. Couples work as one for a certain future which relies on the money they have both pooled. The gov't gets the money just cause one of them die, thats immoral

just after she hit the bush, means that he had no seatbelt/harness on while the vehicle was in motion . If the Range Rover is in fact 'their own personal vehicle', she really has a long road to plow, while explaining how she 'lost control', of a car she knows, while he is 'without seatbelt/safety restraint' while she performs simple or complex maneuvers . If she has no prior knowledge of this vehicle, why was he in the car, sans seat belt, shoulder harness/strap, and allowed to 'fly out the window', during an accidental maneuver ? There may be STATE LAWS that require this kind of case, to motivate east coast Insurance Companies, but "her loss of control", along with "his lack of seatbelt/restraint", makes this really tough to 'assign a percentage of liability to each party' . Do you demand that your passenger 'buckle up', before you move the vehicle ? This deal right here is all about what could happen if you don't ................

If she's so hell-bent on suing herself for negligence, the state should charge her with negligent homicide and throw her ass in jail.

pronstar said:

If she's so hell-bent on suing herself for negligence, the state should charge her with negligent homicide and throw her ass in jail.

Click to expand...

Range Rover owners don't go to jail. They will just buy the system, then set it to auto.