MovieChat Forums > Out of the Furnace (2013) Discussion > Nonsense: Russell would not have went to...

Nonsense: Russell would not have went to prison over the car wreck


The car accident and ensuing prison time make zero sense.

Regardless of being drunk or distracted by the radio Russell was not negligent for accident. The other vehicle backed out from a driveway or another street into Russell's lane causing the wreck. Being drunk when getting into a car accident does not determine who is responsible for a collision.

At the very least he may be held SLIGHTLY responsible, a small percentage if it's concluded that because he was intoxicated he had a slower response time and could have possibly decreased the severity of damage by hitting the breaks or avoiding the accident altogether. But this idea that he would be held negligent to the point of being sent to prison is nonsense. Again DUI does not determine responsibility. The other vehicle was clearly responsible.

Not sure how anyone could disagree if you saw the scene?




You're wearing my breast, little Jack is drinking, Moses is sodomizing Jinx. What is going on here?

reply

I think you have a point. He appears to only have one drink at Petty's bar (almost reluctantly). Hardly enough to become raging drunk. And as you say, if the other vehicle is backing out on to a thoroughfare, it is incumbent upon that driver to give right of way, not receive it.🐭

reply

He had at least one beer (it is unclear how long he was waiting for Rodney). Then he had a large drink of hard liquor shortly before leaving in his truck.

It appears from the scene that the child in the backseat died. So, he is guilty of vehicular manslaughter due to his BAC and the fact that he was the one that t-boned the other car. Prison time is not unexpected.

reply

(Posting my response to two messages on this thread in an attempt to clear up any misunderstanding I can help you with)
With all do respect,

I do not know what your profession is nor do I know the country (or state if the US) you reside in. While I cannot fully disclose my profession nor the 26 different states in which I practice I can tell you without uncertainty that you are incorrect. I do not mean to be short; I am not attempting to be misleading or speak from a false, non factual, inexperienced perspective.

The proximate cause of this accident and negligence is probable with the other driver involved. Severity of injuries and property damage are irrelevant in a "negligence" investigation. It is no different than if Russell was completely intoxicated on alcohol and illegal drugs as he proceeds LEGALLY through a green light T boning another vehicle whom which ran the adjacent red light. Fatalities in the opposing vehicle may cause for a higher manslaughter "charge" as you mention but a conviction would not follow. Expensive attorneys would also not be necessary as attorneys do not determine negligence. Insurance professionals (liability specialists), police officers, scene investigators, reconstructions, vehicle diagnostics (such as "black box" equipment), and other physical evidence relevant to the accident (not his BA level) determine

Based on what we see in the scene, regardless of which state it occurs in and the negligence standards within that sate, Negligence itself in large part if not entirely lies with the party that backed from the driveway.



The end.

reply

Been watching this movie and this has literally been annoying the bejesus out of me..

When it went so quickly from the accident to him being in jail.. And especially the scene with him talking to his brother.. I was like who the hell is in jail..

I assumed he was doing a job in jail




There is no way in hell he would end up in jail for that accident

reply

haha I couldn't tell who went to jail either...

reply

You may not say exactly what the other opposing poster said but it's pretty darn close, close enough to know that you share the same opinion as him/her. So I will respond with the same thing I sent him:

"Doesn't matter who was at fault in the accident. If he was over the legal limit, then he is automatically at fault."

You do realize this is 100% inaccurate, correct?

Sounds like someone that has zero experience with applying negligence standards and liability law. Sounds like someone that thinks they know the law because of what TV and DUI billboards tell them. It may be rare for me to be the expert on IMDB subject matter but this is one thread in which, professionally, I speak from a specialist's standpoint.

The only thing Russell is "automatically at fault" for by being over the legal limit is Driving Under the Influence, for which he will most certainly receive a DUI. DUIs, for the purposes of liability, are nearly meaningless. They may be able to hang a "delayed response time" on him, suggesting that loss severity may not have been as high had he been able to react quicker but that is an absolute stretch that if proven may put 5-10% negligence on him at the most depending on the venue (state/county/case law/legal precedence/etc.). This 5-10% is especially meaningless in this particular accident and this particular state. Pennsylvania operates under a modified comparative negligence standard in which being 51% or more negligence for a loss bars your rights to recover from the other party. In other words, liability is probable with the other driver (not Russell) to the extent of 90-100% negligence so based on state statue this venue is far from allowing that driver to collect damages from Russell. On the contrary, the best case scenario for a driver in this person's shoes would be if this loss occurred in Maryland. Maryland is a Contributory state in which 1% negligence bars you from recovery. Contributory means if you at all "contribute" to the cause of an accident, regardless of extent, you are barred from recovery rights. That "delayed response time" becomes very very important if we are in Maryland because if we could hang even 1% negligence on Russell that would bar hIm from recovering damages.

Can DUIs lead to accidents? Absolutely. People act differently when drunk, they may a make mistake when driving that they normally would not make had they been sober. However, realize that "DUIs can lead to accidents" is a completely different statement than "DUIs cause accidents." The DUI does not CAUSE the accident, the driving mistake CAUSES the accident. That is why you can be five times the legal limit and not at fault for a loss. If you are drunk but do not make any error and drive perfectly normal then you hold zero negligence. I would think this is a very easy idea to grasp.

Let me know if you have any questions. I think you are most likely forming an opinion based on your own personal beliefs with who you THINK should be liable. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your beliefs, in fact I am in no way attempting to even discuss personal beliefs. The reason? Because your beliefs don't matter. And nothing personal, yours don't matter just like mine don't matter, just like the relatives of the dead party involved don't matter. Liability and negligence are determined objectively.

I can go as far into insurance law, state statue, and legal precedence as you wish but I would hope with just what I type above you can see that I am arguing from a general pedestrian's standpoint. In other words, the perceived logic and non-specialized thought process you are attempting to apply here are grossly inaccurate and for anyone that knows better, your stern, absolute statement above comes across more than just a little bit ignorant. It comes across childish and was obviously derived from someone that very simply does not know the industry.

reply

With all do respect,

I do not know what your profession is nor do I know the country (or state if the US) you reside in. While I cannot fully disclose my profession nor the 26 different states in which I practice I can tell you without uncertainty that you are incorrect. I do not mean to be short; I am not attempting to be misleading or speak from a false, non factual, inexperienced perspective.

The proximate cause of this accident and negligence is probable with the other driver involved. Severity of injuries and property damage are irrelevant in a "negligence" investigation. It is no different than if Russell was completely intoxicated on alcohol and illegal drugs as he proceeds LEGALLY through a green light T boning another vehicle whom which ran the adjacent red light. Fatalities in the opposing vehicle may cause for a higher manslaughter "charge" as you mention but a conviction would not follow. Expensive attorneys would also not be necessary as attorneys do not determine negligence. Insurance professionals (liability specialists), police officers, scene investigators, reconstructions, vehicle diagnostics (such as "black box" equipment), and other physical evidence relevant to the accident (not his BA level) determine

Based on what we see in the scene, regardless of which state it occurs in and the negligence standards within that sate, Negligence itself in large part if not entirely lies with the party that backed from the driveway.



The end.

reply

"due"

We all enjoy the maddness 'cuz we know we're gonna fade away

reply

Judging by the scene, he probably had a beer or two, or maybe more. Then he had a LARGE drink with Willem Dafoe's character before leaving the bar. That drink was like 3 shots worth. Obviously, he was over the legal limit when he hit the other car and killed the kid. Doesn't matter who was at fault in the accident. If he was over the legal limit, then he is automatically at fault. Serving time for vehicular manslaughter is totally within the realm of possibility and VERY likely. You are an idiot if you think otherwise.

reply

"Doesn't matter who was at fault in the accident. If he was over the legal limit, then he is automatically at fault."

You do realize this is 100% inaccurate, correct?

Sounds like someone that has zero experience with applying negligence standards and liability law. Sounds like someone that thinks they know the law because of what TV and DUI billboards tell them. It may be rare for me to be the expert on IMDB subject matter but this is one thread in which, professionally, I speak from a specialist's standpoint.

The only thing Russell is "automatically at fault" for by being over the legal limit is Driving Under the Influence, for which he will most certainly receive a DUI. DUIs, for the purposes of liability, are nearly meaningless. They may be able to hang a "delayed response time" on him, suggesting that loss severity may not have been as high had he been able to react quicker but that is an absolute stretch that if proven may put 5-10% negligence on him at the most depending on the venue (state/county/case law/legal precedence/etc.). This 5-10% is especially meaningless in this particular accident and this particular state. Pennsylvania operates under a modified comparative negligence standard in which being 51% or more negligence for a loss bars your rights to recover from the other party. In other words, liability is probable with the other driver (not Russell) to the extent of 90-100% negligence so based on state statue this venue is far from allowing that driver to collect damages from Russell. On the contrary, the best case scenario for a driver in this person's shoes would be if this loss occurred in Maryland. Maryland is a Contributory state in which 1% negligence bars you from recovery. Contributory means if you at all "contribute" to the cause of an accident, regardless of extent, you are barred from recovery rights. That "delayed response time" becomes very very important if we are in Maryland because if we could hang even 1% negligence on Russell that would bar hIm from recovering damages.

Can DUIs lead to accidents? Absolutely. People act differently when drunk, they may a make mistake when driving that they normally would not make had they been sober. However, realize that "DUIs can lead to accidents" is a completely different statement than "DUIs cause accidents." The DUI does not CAUSE the accident, the driving mistake CAUSES the accident. That is why you can be five times the legal limit and not at fault for a loss. If you are drunk but do not make any error and drive perfectly normal then you hold zero negligence. I would think this is a very easy idea to grasp.

Let me know if you have any questions. I think you are most likely forming an opinion based on your own personal beliefs with who you THINK should be liable. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your beliefs, in fact I am in no way attempting to even discuss personal beliefs. The reason? Because your beliefs don't matter. And nothing personal, yours don't matter just like mine don't matter, just like the relatives of the dead party involved don't matter. Liability and negligence are determined objectively.

I can go as far into insurance law, state statue, and legal precedence as you wish but I would hope with just what I type above you can see that I am arguing from a general pedestrian's standpoint. In other words, the perceived logic and non-specialized thought process you are attempting to apply here are grossly inaccurate and for anyone that knows better, your stern, absolute statement above comes across more than just a little bit ignorant. It comes across childish and was obviously derived from someone that very simply does not know the industry.

reply

Makes a lot of sense. He was likely over the limit, wracked with grief and as an old school responsible person did not lawyer up trying to reassign blame.

He killed sixteen Czechoslovakians. Guy was an interior decorator.

reply

[deleted]

Are you kidding? 2 DUI's in america within 10 years regardless of where they happened involving no accident or anything that could have been very close to .08 will get you jail or prison time. SO one DUI actually featuring an accident will certainly will.

reply

Texas: Intoxication Assault:

Sec. 49.07. INTOXICATION ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person, by accident or mistake:
(1) while operating an aircraft, watercraft, or amusement ride while intoxicated, or while operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, by reason of that intoxication causes serious bodily injury to another; or
(2) as a result of assembling a mobile amusement ride while intoxicated causes serious bodily injury to another.
(b) In this section, "serious bodily injury" means injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
(c) Except as provided by Section 49.09, an offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.


I know someone that got 7 years for barely clipping a truck in a parking lot, but, the girl lost control hit a tree and broke her leg pretty bad. 7 years in prison.

reply

Take note of the word "causes."

Again, he was not the cause of the accident.

reply

He caused the accident, he crashed into her.

The film shows him becoming visibly drunk during the conversation with Dafoe.

The film shows his car - the car he is driving - speeding and weaving over into the opposite lane.

You see the car driving over the line, you see the road from the driver's point of view and for a moment the car is driving half in his lane and half in the opposite lane.

The film sound is ultra-amplified for viewers to hear and feel the sound of speed: you hear and feel the car speeding over patches of road that have been patched and repatched and patched again, you see and feel that the car is moving too fast and being steered uneven.

You see Russell looking down at the car radio, he looks like he's partially nodding off and partially listening to the game, he reaches over to raise the volume, his face is looking down, his eyes away from the road.

The scene switches to other the car backing out to a stop: the car is already partially backed but has come to a stop - once again: the car has come to a stop, as if the driver sensed or heard another car approaching (Doppler Effect) the curve, the car's tail lights are shining bright, lighting up the road - once again: the car's tail lights are shining bright, lighting up the road, and Russell does not see the other car's lights because (the last time we saw Russell) he was looking down and away from the road.

When the scene switches to the car backing out, you see Russell's car is speeding way too fast out of the curve, the car is driving over the line into the opposite lane, and he jerks the car back into his lane (indicating that he finally started to pay attention to the road), the same lane the other car was partially backing into, and Russell's car smashes into the other car at high speed.

The other car was already partially pulled out and had stopped when Russell came around: the mother may or may not have seen his bright headlights, she probably heard his car approaching (Doppler Effect), which explains why she only pulled partially out and braked, but she had no time to reverse forward because he was driving at a high speed and had inadvertently allowed his car to cross into her lane (because he was looking down and drunk and drowsy, not even alert enough to have glimpsed the bright light of her tail lights ), in that split second all she could do was pray the other vehicle would steer left around her car, which a sober person might have done, but a drunk and drowsy driver could not do.

Vehicular forensics would prove her car was braked and his car was speeding and veering over the lane (tire tread marks). Forensics could even prove he had a window of opportunity to veer left. He's "lucky" he was drunk because being under the influence makes the accident involuntary. Had he been sober, he could have been charged with something like second-degree murder (straightforward vehicular manslaughter), instead of involuntary vehicular manslaughter.

Also, the point of the scene is, the crash flashes by in a heartbeat, it's a flashing moment of that forever changes his life, it's a flashpoint of moral ambiguity, and it's how he responds to that moment, how he accepts his own culpability in that violence, that transforms him into a tragic hero viewers identify with. He nobly accepts the punishment, making him tragic and sympathetic, crucified by laws that seem disproportionate and unfair and outdated. The moment catapults him to Christ status and firmly establishes that the film is concerned with cycles of violence and cycles of vengeance and the problems of justice. His response to the moment sets up the film's exploration of vengeance and justice and redemption.

reply

I was pretty suprised too he went to prison because it wasn't really specified why he went except way later in the movie when the cop suggested it briefly. I think the reason it felt so unreal is probably because the movie absolutely doesn't show him drunk at all at any moment. Yes he drinks a bit at the bar but he seems under total control especially when he interrupts the tough meeting Dafoe had and was ice cooled when confronting Woody Harrelson. Then he takes what we can assume to be a last "hard" drink before taking his car but even then he doesn't seem to drive under the influence of alcohol. He didn't seem to speed and the accident seemed like ... an accident. Night, pulling back a car from the rear dow a hill (seems really stupid by the way), on such a road, everything was there to cause an accident, drunken or not. Also, his reaction after the hit : far from someone who was drunk : trying to assist instead of leaving, seemed to be fully sober, calling for help.

Honestly, I never thought he was drunk. I thought it was a trap set by Harrelson !


I read your post carefully and here are my comments :

I don't know where you saw he became drunk when talking with Dafoe. i didn't see that at all. Yes he had a drink but he seemed to keep his cool perfectly.

After reviewing the movie, yes he seemed to drive a little in the middle but it seemed more because of the night than because he was drunk. Also, I was not under the impression he was speeding, or if so, not recklessly.

Don't know where you saw the car stopping and all that stuff. Maybe the version of my movie was cut or something.

However, I really liked your final paragraph your analysis of what the accident meant. Really interesting.

reply