Laura Bush Concedes Negligence in Fatal Crash From Her Youth

Former First Lady Laura Bush has conceded negligence in the November 6, 1963 car crash she was involved in at age 17, in Midland, Texas. She concedes running a stop sign and hitting another car, killing its driver. The driver of the other car, Michael Douglas, was a start athlete and friend of hers.

Her concession comes, according to the New York Times today, in a book that she wrote to be released next month. According to the Times,

Mrs. Bush concedes that she and her friend were chatting when she ran the stop sign. But she also suggests a host of factors beyond her control played a role — the pitch-black road, an unusually dangerous intersection, the small size of the stop sign, and the car the victim was driving.

Those other factors that are mentioned, however, would likely have no bearing on her own fault, a subject she basically acknowledges in discussing her grief over the accident that has carried on for decades.

Since accidents of this type are rather common in the personal injury field, here’s my two rupees of analysis if a civil suit resulted:

In the language of the law — at least in NY — the failure to yield at a stop sign makes someone negligent as a matter of law that requires a court to grant summary judgment if a civil action was brought, unless the defendant could set forth a non-negligent reason for the conduct.   The fact that the road was “pitch-black” would be a reason to be more cautious, but it doesn’t work as an excuse. The fact that the intersection was “unusually dangerous” might play a role in municipal liability, but since she was a local resident presumably familiar with that intersection, that would likely be a tough defense to raise.

As to the “small stop sign,” I don’t know what to think since I’ve only seen one size on roadways and would presume this one was the same as all others. I would not accept her word that it was anything other than a regular sized sign and would want some kind of proof of it being smaller. Since that part of the Times piece is paraphrased, and not quoted, I’ll leave that part as an open question on the issue of municipal liability.

Tags:

2 Responses Leave a comment

  • Interesting post. Any insight as to why you believe she is bringing this up in her book 47 years later?

  • Eric Turkewitz 2010.5.1 at 20:09 | Quote

    Any insight as to why you believe she is bringing this up in her book 47 years later?

    Well, the cynic says book sales. But on this issue I’m not a cynic. It’s way too deeply personal. I take it for what it appears to be; a guilty mind wanting to unburden itself from a youthful lapse of judgment that turned tragic.

Comments are closed.


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.