NEED TO REPLY UNIT 5

After researching some interesting civil cases, I come across this case involving a women suing volkswagen, for her husband, (who died) crashing in to a utility pole while drunk!

This happened in New Yorks' court of Appeals. The court ruled Shauna Alami can sue car manufacture Volkswagen for liability in her husbands death, driving a 1989 jetta while drunk. Silhadi Alami, the husband, had a blood alcohol content twice the legal limit. He crashed in to a utility pole and subsequently died. Mrs. Alami, according to the website (cfif.org), claimed the jetta was defective by not having lap belts, and a frame that was not crash worthy. In his lone dissent Judge Albert Rosenblatt, Cited an earlier decision, a commission of a crime precluded recovering damages in an accident. The courts ruling doe not exclude the husbands intoxication from being an issue, but allowed the lower court to decide on comparative fault between the driver and volkswagen.

I do not agree with the courts response, how can the court see any way but to not throw the case out? A law was broken, (drunk driving), but yet some one can still sue, because of loop holes in the system that enables a lawsuit, even though the person was drunk and crashed, resulting in death.