Seems incomprehensible, but it is apparently true. The Utah Court of Appeals has granted a woman the ability to sue herself for negligence in the case of a deadly accident that killed her husband in 2011. She will be allowed to “proceed with a wrongful-death lawsuit against herself for alleged negligence” after a car accident in which she was the driver caused the death of her husband.

What an unmitigated load of crap.

Court documents show that the woman is suing the driver of the vehicle, herself, “for an unspecified amount of money stemming from losses in medical, funeral costs and mental anguish.” She alleges in the case that “she was negligent for failing to maintain proper control of her vehicle and for not keeping a proper lookout as she was driving.” She apparently lost control of a Range Rover while driving in the desert  and hit “a sagebrush”. This caused the vehicle to flip over, ejecting her 55 year old husband, who died several days later from his injuries.

Must've been a damn big sagebrush.

Although the case was dismissed last year by a judge with a brain, the Utah Appeals Court last week reinstated the suit with a unanimous ruling. The court says state law doesn't ban a person from suing themselves for damages.

Here is where it gets interesting. Attorneys representing the poor widow say this is for the benefit of the estate, and assure everyone that creditors will be paid before the woman gets any money from a potential settlement. Lawyers defending the very same woman work for her insurance carrier – the one that is about to get screwed. Not surprisingly, they do not agree with this particular suit.

Talk about having an uncooperative client. This one must be a doozy.

 Lawyers for the carrier argued in court, saying, “If this suit is allowed to continue, a jury would be asked to determine whether [the woman]'s fault caused [her] own harm. The jury would be asked to determine how much money will fairly compensate [her] for the harm she caused herself. The jury will be highly confused — it cannot order a person to compensate herself.”

No, but a jury can probably be convinced in this day and age to order a big, evil insurance company to compensate her for her loss.

On a positive note, I think that my financial path to retirement just became a whole lot clearer for me. At some point in the near future I can just drive myself into a tree and sue myself for my own stupidity. I would of course require compensation for injuries, anguish, depression and loss of consortium. It would be all my fault, and someone would have to compensate me for my loss. That is why I would ask for treble damages, as the intentional aspect of the accident would support my conspiracy theories regarding the entire affair. Clearly I was out to get me, and I didn't deserve what my negligent self did to me.

I would probably no longer receive a Christmas card from my friendly State Farm agent, but that is the sacrifice I would have to make. We all have to give somewhere.

Frankly I am beside myself at the notion of this being allowed to proceed. I would suggest that, if the woman is indeed found negligent and a large award is ordered by the court, then perhaps authorities should look at her negligence from a criminal perspective as well. After all, she crushed hubby in the desert, and will have been proven in civil court to be negligent. Certainly evidence presented there could be used in pursuing a criminally negligent manslaughter charge.

That is a finding I could probably support.

As I said previously, this case, indeed the entire concept, is an unmitigated load of crap. And as we see today in the United States, while loads of crap may be unmitigated, that does not mean that they'll remain un-litigated.