Lazy Journalism

Today's lazy reporting award goes to this story in the Huntsville Times:

A Huntsville teen hit by a drunk driver in Panama City two spring breaks ago was awarded $5.6 million from the car dealership that owned the car.

[The victim], 17, remains seriously injured, unable to communicate or move much at all. He was hit by a Ford Mustang in March 2003 as he and four friends from Grissom High were crossing the road from the beach to their hotel, where [the victim]'s dad was waiting.

The driver, then-22-year-old Kathryn Duggan from Dothan, was driving a car that her boyfriend, an employee of Rahal Buick in Dothan, had borrowed.

The settlement represents the maximum that the dealership's insurance would pay...

[The victim's attorney Tommy] Siniard said the driver was convicted of a felony and was given a five-year suspended sentence. She was ordered to speak to groups about the dangers of drunk driving.

Yes, this is a terrible tragedy, horrible circumstances, etc. But, this story leaves many questions unanswered. The Times report is chock full of sensitivity but devoid of many of the most important details. Why was the car dealer held responsible for an accident caused by an employee who "borrowed" the car? Did the employee get permission from the dealer to "borrow" the car? Did the dealer know that the employee's girlfriend would be driving the car? Did the dealer know that the driver would be drinking? What does the law say about all of this?

Did the victim's lawyer sue the auto dealership solely because of its deep pockets? Did the lawyer shop around for a favorable jurisdiction in which to bring the case? $5.6 million is a lot of money. It even seems excessive, especially if the car dealer was not directly involved in the accident. How did the judge or jury come up with that amount?

Who knows? The story never says, and the reader is left to speculate idly, and even to feel a bit guilty upon asking a few relevant questions about such a terrible tragedy.