I agree. I have little sympathy for the lady; she wouldn't want me on her jury. I would have a hard time moving beyond my preconceived notions that I have about her.
But from a legal matter, even if it was stupid on her part, it wouldn't excuse the criminal act of Vick (assuming the allegations are true). On the civil front, it doesn't matter that it was stupid on her part when determining liability of Vick. If it is true, then Vick is liable. Her stupidity would be what is called contributory negligence. I don't know how the law in Georgia works, but here in Texas, it would work like this: say the jury found her 10% negligent for not checking him out. Then whatever judgment that was assessed against, it would be decreased by 10% (or the amount of the contributory negligence of the girl). If they found her more than 50% negligent, then she couldn't recover in a civil suit for damages against Vick. But that is the analysis in Texas; again I don't know Georgia law.
If what she says is true, I think he could easily be hit for a couple million.
