Family sues rock singer

Family sues rock singer

There are 25 comments on the Lowell Sun story from Dec 31, 2008, titled Family sues rock singer. In it, Lowell Sun reports that:

The parents of a 28-year-old Chelmsford woman, who suffered severe brain damage in a car accident last year, have filed a federal lawsuit against the other driver, Salvatore "Sully" Erna, vocalist for the ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Lowell Sun.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Tank

Chelmsford, MA

#1 Dec 31, 2008
So this attorney Gallagher thinks that the person driving the TANK oh I mean HUMMER who was driving to fast and rear ended the car is not responsible, he is the most responsible out of the accident cars. I would love to be on the jury for this one.
Linda

South Lancaster, MA

#2 Dec 31, 2008
Unreal, the guy is driving a tank(basically) and cause serious damage but now his lawyer is trying to deflect the blame onto another driver? Typical.
As far as I'm concerned Hummers should never have been made into street vehicles, I remember when they were only used by the military and with good reason.......they are too big. I see people drive these things and some of the larger suv's like they don't care if they run the rest of us off the road and I am convinced they don't care,part of the reason for driving these behemoths is they can be as aggressive as they please and not get hurt themselves.
It grieves me to see how cold and uncaring towards one another so many have become.
khaos

Concord, MA

#3 Dec 31, 2008
sully should lose every penny he ever made. the guy is a complete bum with crap "music".he should of stayed the dish washer at the river street 99's and stop pretending he's a celebrity
feel safe

Boston, MA

#4 Dec 31, 2008
people are money hungry it was an accident. i like my hummer i am safe from all the jerks and yes get in my way and you'll get hit. thats why i pay insurance.
Steve

Lowell, MA

#5 Dec 31, 2008
This is ridiculous. More money hungry folks out there. First, the driver of the car rear ended another car. Secondly, was she even wearing a seat belt? I find it difficult to believe she would have such severe injuries had she been wearing a seat belt. This was one of those accordion type accidents. I am willing to bet that if this wasn't a multimillionaire celebrity, there would be no lawsuit.
Okay

Chelmsford, MA

#6 Jan 1, 2009
Steve wrote:
This is ridiculous. More money hungry folks out there. First, the driver of the car rear ended another car. Secondly, was she even wearing a seat belt? I find it difficult to believe she would have such severe injuries had she been wearing a seat belt. This was one of those accordion type accidents. I am willing to bet that if this wasn't a multimillionaire celebrity, there would be no lawsuit.
Both drivers are included, this was an innocent passenger who has been injuried. I don't see any item that would indicate a false claim, not like its a neck or back injury, we are talking about a brain injury you can't fake that type of injury.
Okay

Chelmsford, MA

#7 Jan 1, 2009
feel safe wrote:
people are money hungry it was an accident. i like my hummer i am safe from all the jerks and yes get in my way and you'll get hit. thats why i pay insurance.
Love when someone posts and proves my point. You want a tank, thats fine it's your right but you better have really good insurance when you hurt and cause permanent damage to an innocent person with that tank. I mean REALLY GOOD INSURANCE. We are talking a rear end accident and speeding in a Tank. Don't care who is driving. The fact that this rock star has money will only make settling more difficut as he can afford attorneys to fight over doing the obvious right thing, which is make restitution so this innocent person does not suffer financial burden as well as the continued physical permanent injury.
Bruce Lee

Lowell, MA

#8 Jan 1, 2009
It's an accident and the driver of the Hummer was not cited for any violation. People these days are money hungry and sue happy.. I hope you don't get a dime out of this..

“Ask, and I Shall Tell”

Since: Mar 08

Lowell

#9 Jan 1, 2009
Are you people serious?!?!
This was an unfortunate accident that wouldn't have happened if the guy didn't rearened someone else before he was then hit.
You guys wouldn't be on here bad-mouthing if it were you or someone you know. Accidents happen people!!!
I'm sorry for the passenger that was hurt, but if Sully wasn't cited to begin with, then he's clearly not at fault.

“Ask, and I Shall Tell”

Since: Mar 08

Lowell

#10 Jan 1, 2009
Bruce Lee wrote:
It's an accident and the driver of the Hummer was not cited for any violation. People these days are money hungry and sue happy.. I hope you don't get a dime out of this..
I couldn't say it better myself.
Bruce Lee

Lowell, MA

#11 Jan 1, 2009
And to Godsmack leading man.. A quetion to you with all that millions in the bank.. why do you hire a lawyer from Lowell?..
lowell

Tewksbury, MA

#12 Jan 1, 2009
Bruce Lee wrote:
And to Godsmack leading man.. A quetion to you with all that millions in the bank.. why do you hire a lawyer from Lowell?..
Because he was raised in Lawrence, and I'm sure his family is using a lawyer that they trust and have used in the past.
lowell

Tewksbury, MA

#13 Jan 1, 2009
Okay wrote:
<quoted text> Love when someone posts and proves my point. You want a tank, thats fine it's your right but you better have really good insurance when you hurt and cause permanent damage to an innocent person with that tank. I mean REALLY GOOD INSURANCE. We are talking a rear end accident and speeding in a Tank. Don't care who is driving. The fact that this rock star has money will only make settling more difficut as he can afford attorneys to fight over doing the obvious right thing, which is make restitution so this innocent person does not suffer financial burden as well as the continued physical permanent injury.
I agree. Higher insurance policies should be required to drive excessively-sized vehicles like Hummers.

I get pissed off when I come out of the mall and see one of those things sitting 5 inches from my car, squeezing out of the parking spot. It reminds me of the seinfeld episode when George had to get in through his sunroof because the ass who owned the spot next to him got a Hummer that didn't fit into the space.
Bruce Lee

Lowell, MA

#14 Jan 1, 2009
I have seen Gallager in action at Lowell District court and I'm not impressed to say the least.
micnel

Edmond, OK

#15 Jan 1, 2009
Is this guy Sully Erna the same guy with the tux shop in downtown lowell?
Steve

Lowell, MA

#16 Jan 1, 2009
Okay wrote:
<quoted text> Both drivers are included, this was an innocent passenger who has been injuried. I don't see any item that would indicate a false claim, not like its a neck or back injury, we are talking about a brain injury you can't fake that type of injury.
I didn't say it is a fake injury. I said if he wasn't a millionaire, they wouldn't be suing anyone. They just see this as a way to get some money. It was an accident. Yes, I feel sorry that she is going to have to go through the rest of her life like that. But it still doesn't make it right to go after someone just because they have money.
Okay

Chelmsford, MA

#17 Jan 1, 2009
NiKl wrote:
Are you people serious?!?!
This was an unfortunate accident that wouldn't have happened if the guy didn't rearened someone else before he was then hit.
You guys wouldn't be on here bad-mouthing if it were you or someone you know. Accidents happen people!!!
I'm sorry for the passenger that was hurt, but if Sully wasn't cited to begin with, then he's clearly not at fault.
The guy who rearened someone before he was hit is being sued also, he was unharmed, he was given a warning for driving close, the Rock Star in the TANK, of course unharmed, was given a warning for driving fast. Don't suppose either one of them protested the warning in court, both are guilty and both should pay the cost, of course, that innocent girl passenger has paid the biggest cost for their stupidity. If you drive a TANK and speed with obvious disregard and arrogance you should pay twice. Sorry about the story reiteration but you don't seem to get it
Okay

Chelmsford, MA

#18 Jan 1, 2009
Bruce Lee wrote:
I have seen Gallager in action at Lowell District court and I'm not impressed to say the least.
If he is a good attorney he would never let this get to court a jury would eat them alive, I know I would if I was on the jury.
Okay

Chelmsford, MA

#19 Jan 1, 2009
Steve wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say it is a fake injury. I said if he wasn't a millionaire, they wouldn't be suing anyone. They just see this as a way to get some money. It was an accident. Yes, I feel sorry that she is going to have to go through the rest of her life like that. But it still doesn't make it right to go after someone just because they have money.
They are not only going after him they are going after the person driving the car she was in and just how are these people going to pay medical bills and care. This company must have HUGE insurance for the corporation and on personal, even I have huge insurance and I don't drive a TANK or drive fast or own a company. Why make these people suffer like this and have lawyers that will need to get paid. If I'm on the jury they get 50 million. I'm called every year :) so who knows.
Peter Gunn

Londonderry, NH

#20 Jan 1, 2009
This is just basic logic. If you rear end someone on the highway, you are almost ALWAYS at fault.
SO many people tailgate that its not even considered a crime anymore.
If you are going at a speed, ANY speed that makes it impossible for you to stop if the traffic in front of you stops, the you were going to fast and traveling to closely. There is no way around it.
The law says that you should drive at least one car length behind the car in front of you for every ten miles per hour you are traveling. It doesnt matter what you are driving. So, if the car in front of you stops dead, and you hit it, guess what, you were too close. Its the very definition of "too close". If the first car rear ended someone, they are at fault for hitting that car. If the Hummer then hits the car in front of it, then it was going too fast and was too close to stop. Its the Hummers fault. Its not up for debate, or interpretation. Its black letter law.
If you cant stop, you were too close. Period.
If you're driving down 93 tomorrow, ask yourself a question - "If the guy in front of me stops dead in his tracks, can I avoid hitting him?"
If the answer is no, then guess what. You're too close, and you're going too fast. Its the very definition of the phrase, period. If you need to be 12 car lengths behind someone in order to A) See that they have stopped - And B) Apply your brakes and avoid hitting that car - Then you need to travel 12 car lengths behind the car in front of you. Its math, its physics. There is no debate. If you slam into the car in front of you on the highway, its your fault. Period. Its proof that you were either too close or you were going too fast. Why? Because you hit them, thats why. Duh !

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Windham Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
cable tv May 15 pelham cable hater 1
News Derry man arrested for allegedly stabbing Hudso... (Feb '14) May 9 Hama17 3
Taurus Judge public defender warning. May 7 Taurushater 2
News The Week In N.H. News: Bobcats, Bagels and Bono Apr '16 Julie Jane 1
Jocelyn's in Salem presents: live music with DA... Apr '16 New England Music... 1
Windham, NH advice Apr '16 Gsauls 1
Dan Kirouac - solo acoustic show live at Jocel... Mar '16 New England Music... 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Windham Mortgages