View Full Version : Car crash survivor being charged with manslaughter
What the hell? The kid crashes his car, women run to help and end up stepping in a pool of water that's electrified due to downed power lines. They end up dying because of it and the kid is being charged for it? It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out.
http://kdvr.com/2013/07/26/women-attempting-to-rescue-driver-die-driver-charged-with-manslaughter/
newracer
07-26-2013, 10:45
Makes perfect sense to me.
Yep. F**k the little prick. Shouldn't have been driving like a douche bag. Vehicles driven on public streets aren't toys.
Jumpstart
07-26-2013, 10:52
Well, revenue has got to be generated somehow in every situation the government is involved in these days.
BS charge. His insurance company could potentially be liable, bit the charge of man slaughter is ridiculous. I'd attempt jury nullification if I were a juror.
IMO it all depends on the circumstances... ie. a little common sense. In this case because the kid was driving negligently at excessive speed with complete disregard for others, then I'd say this charge is appropriate. I see this as being similar to being accountable for other charges resulting from actions taken while committing a felony.
newracer
07-26-2013, 11:00
Why is it BS? He crashed his car which caused the deaths of two people. Sure it is somewhat indirect but I see it no different than if he hit them with his car.
The women injected themselves into the situation. By doing so, they assume risk. Otherwise, call 9-1-1 and wait.
Stevensje
07-26-2013, 11:06
You could even spin it as the cities fault. Those darn power lines should be buried.
The women injected themselves into the situation. By doing so, they assume risk. Otherwise, call 9-1-1 and wait.
If someone is committing another crime and a good Samaritan tries to help, and they are killed by some kind of accident, the perp is liable for their death.... why is the act of driving illegally different in your mind?
to add another point of my opinion....basically, you are accountable for the fallout of your choices... he chose to drive recklessly and dangerously, resulting in the crash which lead to the deaths of two people. He created the situation in which they perished, he should be held accountable. Aren't we all striving for increased accountability and responsibility for ones own actions in society these days? I know I am.
If someone is committing another crime and a good Samaritan tries to help, and they are killed by some kind of accident, the perp is liable for their death.... why is the act of driving illegally different in your mind?
Maybe I need to read the definition of manslaughter but it just seems like a stretch for this. Was the kid being an idiot? Yeah. But the ladies could have very well just called 9-1-1 and waited for the experts to show up. If you don't know WTF you're doing, call the pros and follow their advice.
The women injected themselves into the situation. By doing so, they assume risk. Otherwise, call 9-1-1 and wait.
That is a very good point.
Although, there would have been no opportunity to interject had the driver not caused the accident.
Maybe I need to read the definition of manslaughter but it just seems like a stretch for this. Was the kid being an idiot? Yeah. But the ladies could have very well just called 9-1-1 and waited for the experts to show up. If you don't know WTF you're doing, call the pros and follow their advice.
If the charge was murder in any degree, I'd agree that it's bogus, but manslaughter is often due to negligence and poor choices resulting in death... I'm sure you've heard the term "negligent manslaughter" before.
If the charge was murder in any degree, I'd agree that it's bogus, but manslaughter is often due to negligence and poor choices resulting in death... I'm sure you've heard the term "negligent manslaughter" before.
It's just a fine line, IMO. Where does it stop? Why are we not making the women have any responsibility in this? They CHOSE to get involved at their own risk. One could argue that they had a moral obligation to check on the kid but laws don't operate off morals. Their legal obligation was to do nothing. They decided to try and help and ended up dying. This should just reinforce that if you don't know what you're doing, don't be a hero. Call paramedics and follow their directions.
KevDen2005
07-26-2013, 11:26
I would be curious as to what other reckless actions he was doing prior to the crash and how many witnesses there were. Although the article didn't say, I am also curious as to whether he had consumed alcohol or drugs prior to the crash. But these are all "what ifs" that would sway me one way or the other on his charge.
It's just a fine line, IMO. Where does it stop? Why are we not making the women have any responsibility in this? They CHOSE to get involved at their own risk. One could argue that they had a moral obligation to check on the kid but laws don't operate off morals. Their legal obligation was to do nothing. They decided to try and help and ended up dying. This should just reinforce that if you don't know what you're doing, don't be a hero. Call paramedics and follow their directions.
If the women had not died, and were just injured, would you want the kid to pay for their medical bills?
Aloha_Shooter
07-26-2013, 11:29
What's the issue? His own attorney admits he was driving recklessly. Once you're into willfull and reckless behavior, any subsequent damage (especially loss of life) as a result of that behavior should be valid grounds for criminal and civil liability. Yes, he couldn't predict those two women would be electrocuted by powerlines HE BROUGHT DOWN but he could predict that some kind of bad things could happen as a result of his speeding. If it wasn't those women being electrocuted, it could have been running over a kid or pet, losing control and driving into someone's living room, crashing into a schoolbus or any one of a number of other things. I generally think to hell with LA but I'll give the city the benefit of the doubt on this one ...
If the women had not died, and were just injured, would you want the kid to pay for their medical bills?
I assume his insurance would cover that portion of it under bodily injury. But by me saying that, that also says that I feel he should be responsible for the deaths also. You're either responsible or not. At the end of the day, I suppose he is ultimately responsible. Without his actions, the power lines would never have fallen, the ladies never would have stopped, etc. I guess I just feel that if you are going to get involved, be ready for what may happen. Otherwise, let the kid rot in the car and die as a result of HIS actions. Don't put yourself in harms way if you don't want to get hurt.
What's the issue? His own attorney admits he was driving recklessly. Once you're into willfull and reckless behavior, any subsequent damage (especially loss of life) as a result of that behavior should be valid grounds for criminal and civil liability. Yes, he couldn't predict those two women would be electrocuted by powerlines HE BROUGHT DOWN but he could predict that some kind of bad things could happen as a result of his speeding. If it wasn't those women being electrocuted, it could have been running over a kid or pet, losing control and driving into someone's living room, crashing into a schoolbus or any one of a number of other things. I generally think to hell with LA but I'll give the city the benefit of the doubt on this one ...
Just a thought and bringing it to an extreme. So should the power company be brought to court too? They knew they were putting something potentially dangerous up when they erected that light pole even though they had no idea a kid would crash into it one day and the worst case chain of events leading to the death of the 2 people. We all know electricity can be dangerous so that seems pretty reckless. How about the water company? We all know that tap water conducts electricity maybe they should be running distilled water just in case something like this were to happen. How about the city planner? They put both a source of electricity near a source of water that seems pretty reckless to do such a thing even if they never thought a kid would hit both of them.
Like i said i am play devils advocate and bringing the situation to an extreme kind of like the situation its self. I really do not know how i fell about the kid being brought up on charges but that is not for me to decide any way. What i do know is, it is horrible that two good Samaritans lost there lives trying to help.
Aloha_Shooter
07-26-2013, 12:43
Just a thought and bringing it to an extreme. So should the power company be brought to court too? They knew they were putting something potentially dangerous up when they erected that light pole even though they had no idea a kid would crash into it one day and the worst case chain of events leading to the death of the 2 people. We all know electricity can be dangerous so that seems pretty reckless. How about the water company? We all know that tap water conducts electricity maybe they should be running distilled water just in case something like this were to happen. How about the city planner? They put both a source of electricity near a source of water that seems pretty reckless to do such a thing even if they never thought a kid would hit both of them.
Like i said i am play devils advocate and bringing the situation to an extreme kind of like the situation its self. I really do not know how i fell about the kid being brought up on charges but that is not for me to decide any way. What i do know is, it is horrible that two good Samaritans lost there lives trying to help.
No, your slippery slope analogy fails because the utility companies can reasonably assume their lines would have stayed up out of harm's way had the kid's reckless actions not brought them down whereas we can reasonably assume there will be an accident and someone will get hurt somehow when someone is driving recklessly. That's why I maintain he assumed civil and criminal liability for the results of his actions once he willfully engaged in reckless behavior.
It is obviously the automakers fault and they should be sued.
palepainter
07-26-2013, 12:58
Perhaps the the company who made the women's shoes could be held liable due to their inability to insulate the women.
RblDiver
07-26-2013, 13:13
I think it would have to do with proximate cause.
Haven't read the article yet, but from what I've read in the thread, it seems to me the proximate cause was that the woman chose to run up to assist, rather than the actions of the driver. The "death while committing a felony" idea was brought up, but in that case the proximate cause would have been the felony (for example, if a person dies after you set a fire, the fire was the cause). I think (but don't know) that reckless driving is a misdemeanor, not a felony, so this idea wouldn't apply.
My hang up is their death is a result of THEIR choice to assist. Is it a choice most good-hearted people would make? Yes. That makes it all the more tragic. But we can't overlook that it was THEIR choice to approach. He didn't strike their vehicle causing their death. Up to that point, his reckless actions only resulted in harm to himself and vehicle.
Aloha_Shooter
07-26-2013, 13:20
My hang up is their death is a result of THEIR choice to assist. Is it a choice most good-hearted people would make? Yes. That makes it all the more tragic. But we can't overlook that it was THEIR choice to approach. He didn't strike their vehicle causing their death. Up to that point, his reckless actions only resulted in harm to himself and vehicle.
No, his reckless actions created a hazardous situation that would have killed anyone who made contact with that water. The fact they were going to help him is incidental to the fact that his reckless actions created a hazardous condition resulting in death. IMO, his reckless behavior IS the proximate cause of the condition -- then again, I'm neither attorney nor judge so my opinion and $3 may get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.
Bogus charge IMO.
If the women had been standing on the corner when the crash occurred, and got electrocuted, that's a different story.
The first woman jumped out of a car to help while her husband was calling 911.
The women are responsible for their deaths IMO.
What about all the times additional traffic accidents occur due to people gawking at and attempting to maneuver around the original traffic accident. Is the individual who's at fault in the original accident also held liable for each additional accident? No, those drivers are responsible because they did not take enough care while in the vicinity of the original accident.
XC700116
07-26-2013, 13:30
That is a very good point.
Although, there would have been no opportunity to interject had the driver not caused the accident.
You realize that is the exact same line of logic that gets gun owners defending their home and family charged with manslaughter or even worse charges for shooting burglars or other assailants right?
Same thing, these people injected themselves into a situation that got them killed. Just like when POS's get killed committing crimes by people defending themselves. Granted they've done something illegal to do that same thing, but the result and line of thinking is the same.
Charge him with reckless driving, property damage, and the usual suspect charges, but those women, although tragic, got themselves killed by not following the basic rules of rendering aid that's taught in every single first aid program around the country.
Clearly this is BUSH'S fault. <sarcasm>
No, his reckless actions created a hazardous situation that would have killed anyone who made contact with that water. The fact they were going to help him is incidental to the fact that his reckless actions created a hazardous condition resulting in death. IMO, his reckless behavior IS the proximate cause of the condition -- then again, I'm neither attorney nor judge so my opinion and $3 may get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.
A hazardous situation that the ladies voluntarily set themselves in. If they stayed in their car, called 9-1-1 and followed the operators instructions, I bet they'd be alive. Now, if he crashed, hit the hydrant and their car got engulfed in electrified water and killed them, that's a different situation. They would have had no free choice to not be involved at that point.
This is a very difficult matter- for one, anyone with first responder training is taught to assess the scene and make sure it's safe to proceed before rendering aid... I think they cover this in first aid now too. So common sense would dictate that the two women would see that the scene was not safe (downed power lines are usually a dead giveaway that the scene isn't safe)- but... since common sense is practically a superpower these days, and no one is ever responsible for their own actions, the kid gets to take the fall. Although I'll say he does have to shoulder some blame for causing the hazardous scene. Not sure if he should be charged with manslaughter though, maybe reckless endangerment or something to that effect. Sorry, been on a few auto accidents and I would never proceed to help unless there was minimal or no risk to myself becoming a victim as well.
Bailey Guns
07-26-2013, 13:35
I don't know what constitutes reckless driving in CA. But if this had happened here I think the manslaughter charge is perfectly appropriate. In CO you must show either a wonton or a willful disregard for the safety of persons or property to be charged with Reckless Driving.
In the first place, (in my opinion) this kids attorney is a fool for admitting his client may have been driving recklessly. In Colorado reckless driving constitutes negligence and he was definitely negligent.
CO case law states:
One may be said to be guilty of wanton behavior when, although the defendant may not have deliberately intended to injure anyone, he consciously chooses a dangerous course of action which to a reasonable mind creates a strong probability that injury to others will result. Martin v. People, 179 Colo. 237, 499 P.2d 606 (1972).
I think that applies perfectly here. He may not have been intentionally or deliberately trying to injure the women. However, he created the circumstances that led to their injury/death through his negligent and reckless behavior. It would be no different had the women been standing on the side of the road in a puddle of water when the power line fell into it as a result of the accident. The women weren't doing anything wrong, they had every right to be where they were and to assist and had no way of knowing a power line was down and posed a grave risk to them.
The power company analogy just doesn't work. The power company wasn't acting negligently by following proper law and procedures for erecting power lines.
Bailey Guns
07-26-2013, 13:38
Bogus charge IMO.
If the women had been standing on the corner when the crash occurred, and got electrocuted, that's a different story.
The first woman jumped out of a car to help while her husband was calling 911.
The women are responsible for their deaths IMO.
What about all the times additional traffic accidents occur due to people gawking at and attempting to maneuver around the original traffic accident. Is the individual who's at fault in the original accident also held liable for each additional accident? No, those drivers are responsible because they did not take enough care while in the vicinity of the original accident.
Your analogy doesn't work, either. If someone is gawking at an accident they're acting/driving negligently regardless of the fact they're looking at an accident. Rendering aid or attempting to render aid to the victim of a crash isn't acting negligently.
Your analogy doesn't work, either. If someone is gawking at an accident they're acting/driving negligently regardless of the fact they're looking at an accident. Rendering aid or attempting to render aid to the victim of a crash isn't acting negligently.
But I still contend that running into a puddle of electrified water is acting negligently.
Here's some more what ifs:
What if a driver drives their car over the side of a cliff and gets caught 10 feet down from the top. A good Samaritan attempts to climb down the cliff to help, but falls to their death instead. Is the driver responsible?
What if a car is on fire after an accident and a good Samaritan runs into the flames to help the driver escape, but burns up instead. Is the driver responsible?
Bailey Guns
07-26-2013, 13:52
But I still contend that running into a puddle of electrified water is acting negligently.
How is it negligent? They couldn't see electricity and you don't even know if they could see the downed line. Many things at an accident scene could've obstructed their vision. Not to mention that I don't know the difference between a high-voltage line and any other line that might be down...a cable TV line, for example. And I was trained to look for that stuff. But you can't always see it and it's not always apparent that danger exists.
newracer
07-26-2013, 13:55
But I still contend that running into a puddle of electrified water is acting negligently.
They obviously didn't know the puddle of water was electrified.
Bailey Guns
07-26-2013, 13:57
Your "what ifs" fail the reasonable person test. A reasonable person wouldn't climb down the side of a cliff to rescue someone in a car dangling on the side of the cliff. A reasonable person wouldn't "run into flames".
A reasonable person can't see or sense electricity until it's too late.
To me, this charge is just another example of people's need to hold someone/anyone responsible for tragic death. Sometimes death is accidental, as I believe this case is.
Bailey Guns
07-26-2013, 14:02
To me, this charge is just another example of people's need to hold someone/anyone responsible for tragic death. Sometimes death is accidental, as I believe this case is.
I get what you're saying. But there's pretty solid legal theory and precedent behind the decision to charge the kid. And don't forget...the state still has to prove their case to people like you and me to get a criminal conviction.
I'd say the kid faces worse consequences in civil court than he does with the manslaughter charge.
No, your slippery slope analogy fails because the utility companies can reasonably assume their lines would have stayed up out of harm's way had the kid's reckless actions not brought them down whereas we can reasonably assume there will be an accident and someone will get hurt somehow when someone is driving recklessly. That's why I maintain he assumed civil and criminal liability for the results of his actions once he willfully engaged in reckless behavior.
I am sure if someone had a good lawyer you could get my analogy to work. But like i said they are extremes. Extremes are on the edge of posibility, so yes it was a BS analogy in the first place. I was more or less saying you can try to blame anything if you really wanted to. All that really matters to me in this story is the two woman trying to help that lost their lives. My thoughts go out to them and their family's.
Aloha_Shooter
07-26-2013, 14:07
A hazardous situation that the ladies voluntarily set themselves in. If they stayed in their car, called 9-1-1 and followed the operators instructions, I bet they'd be alive. Now, if he crashed, hit the hydrant and their car got engulfed in electrified water and killed them, that's a different situation. They would have had no free choice to not be involved at that point.
I can see we're being stubborn today. [Coffee]
Let me repeat more simply. He created a hazardous condition through reckless behavior. That condition existed for WHOEVER made contact with that water and whoever made contact with it for whatever reason would have gotten fried. His fault. The fact they were going to assist him wasn't negligence on their part (in fact, it's normal human behavior to try to help someone who may be hurt and not everyone is trained to evaluate the scene like some of us) and is incidental to the case anyway because if it wasn't them, it'd have been someone else.
The puddle wasn't electrified due to an "act of God" nor some random freak accident. It happened because HE engaged in reckless driving. It's manslaughter because he didn't INTEND for someone to die but it was highly predictable that someone would get seriously injured or die from his actions.
Aloha_Shooter
07-26-2013, 14:10
To me, this charge is just another example of people's need to hold someone/anyone responsible for tragic death. Sometimes death is accidental, as I believe this case is.
I would agree with you if it was a windstorm that knocked down the powerlines but it wasn't. Active recklessness or malicious negligence are a far cry from "act of God" or "act of Nature". Their deaths were unintentional but they also weren't an accident. They died as a direct and proximate result of his recklessness.
Your "what ifs" fail the reasonable person test. A reasonable person wouldn't climb down the side of a cliff to rescue someone in a car dangling on the side of the cliff. A reasonable person wouldn't "run into flames".
A reasonable person can't see or sense electricity until it's too late.
Good point.
I would agree with you if it was a windstorm that knocked down the powerlines but it wasn't. Active recklessness or malicious negligence are a far cry from "act of God" or "act of Nature". Their deaths were unintentional but they also weren't an accident. They died as a direct and proximate result of his recklessness.
Fair enough.
I can see we're being stubborn today. [Coffee]
Friday is getting the best of me. :)
I can see both sides of it. I see the civil side of this going through but criminal? I'd struggle convicting this guy of criminal charges based on this. But again, they're charging him with manslaughter, not murder. Glad I won't have to be part of the final decision.
Moral of the story: Don't drive like a jackass and you won't have as much to worry about.
speedysst
07-26-2013, 14:31
Of course, had the bystanders not acted and the kid had died, the lawyers would be all over that too.
Aloha_Shooter
07-26-2013, 14:46
Friday is getting the best of me. :)
Yeah, I know what you mean. FWIW, I meant "we're being stubborn today" to include me in the "we". [Beer]
Yeah, I know what you mean. FWIW, I meant "we're being stubborn today" to include me in the "we". [Beer]
I didn't take it personally. I like debating stuff especially when both sides actually do it in a polite manner. Cheers!
Sounds like a great time to introduce banning cars, power lines, rain, standing water and idiots. [Coffee]
Our society is way too litigious. The kid certainly wasn't trying to hurt anybody. You guys are all acting like you didn't drive like idiots, I.e racing, display of power, taking corners too fast..when you were younger. Sometime shit happens. Do you really want to ruin a life because three accidents happened. 1 kid crashes. 2 lines fall, but don't trip the breakers on the transformer. 3 would be rescuers step in charged water.
ac·ci·dent
/ˈaksidənt/
Noun
An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
A crash involving road or other vehicles, typically one that causes serious damage or injury.
Synonyms
mishap - chance - casualty - misadventure - fortuity
The women injected themselves into the situation. By doing so, they assume risk. Otherwise, call 9-1-1 and wait.
I tend to agree with DaveL;
My point, this is the same as "Good Samaritan laws" Person rendering aid can not be sued if something goes awry.
Reasoning? He was driving reckless, he wrecked, did damage to public property, that in itself is an offense.
The women took it upon themselves to attempt to help, good for them in their intentions, sad and horrible that they were killed attempting to render aid. Did the kid force them to attempt a rescue, did he trick them and set up the power lines in the water to kill them, did he have it all planned out? He probably was being a 19 year old kid, young and did something stupid.
Everything we do every decision or direction we take has a consequence somewhere down the road. Our actions cause other actions and if we were liable for everything bad that ever happens down the road none of us would probably be innocent.
I think this is a slippery slope if things like this continues................
Interject an addition to my post, one of the very things they stress in First Aid and disaster care, IS MAKE SURE THE SCENE IS SAFE before you attempt aid. Period......
Aloha_Shooter
07-26-2013, 17:09
Our society is way too litigious. The kid certainly wasn't trying to hurt anybody. You guys are all acting like you didn't drive like idiots, I.e racing, display of power, taking corners too fast..when you were younger. Sometime shit happens. Do you really want to ruin a life because three accidents happened. 1 kid crashes. 2 lines fall, but don't trip the breakers on the transformer. 3 would be rescuers step in charged water.
ac·ci·dent
/ˈaksidənt/
Noun
An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
A crash involving road or other vehicles, typically one that causes serious damage or injury.
Synonyms
mishap - chance - casualty - misadventure - fortuity
I'll agree that society today is way too litigious but in driving recklessly he was showing he didn't CARE if he hurt someone. This wasn't a "shit happens" scenario, it didn't happen "unexpectedly"; it happened predictably because he was reckless hence the criminal charges. "Shit happens" when you hit a pothole you couldn't see or expect; it happens when someone or something runs out into the road from behind a hedge or other vehicle. I don't want to ruin a life but I want other people to learn that lives ARE ruined when you intentionally do stupid stuff.
newracer
07-26-2013, 17:14
Our society is way too litigious. The kid certainly wasn't trying to hurt anybody. You guys are all acting like you didn't drive like idiots, I.e racing, display of power, taking corners too fast..when you were younger. Sometime shit happens. Do you really want to ruin a life because three accidents happened. 1 kid crashes. 2 lines fall, but don't trip the breakers on the transformer. 3 would be rescuers step in charged water.
ac·ci·dent
/ˈaksidənt/
Noun
An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
A crash involving road or other vehicles, typically one that causes serious damage or injury.
Synonyms
mishap - chance - casualty - misadventure - fortuity
His actions took two lives.
There is no such thing as an accident, actions cause incidents.
<MADDOG>
07-26-2013, 18:11
Dry barrel hydrants....
Multiple reasons why.
Bailey Guns
07-26-2013, 19:14
Our society is way too litigious.
I'm with you on that all the way.
The kid certainly wasn't trying to hurt anybody. You guys are all acting like you didn't drive like idiots, I.e racing, display of power, taking corners too fast..when you were younger. Sometime shit happens. Do you really want to ruin a life because three accidents happened. 1 kid crashes. 2 lines fall, but don't trip the breakers on the transformer. 3 would be rescuers step in charged water.
ac·ci·dent
/ˈaksidənt/
Noun
An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
A crash involving road or other vehicles, typically one that causes serious damage or injury.
Synonyms
mishap - chance - casualty - misadventure - fortuity
You're right. He most likely wasn't trying to hurt anyone. However, any reasonable person would conclude his RECKLESS DRIVING showed a disregard for the safety of others. Reasonable people understand the kid was knowingly NEGLIGENT in the operation of his car. Reasonable people understand his NEGLIGENCE and RECKLESS DRIVING lead to this series of events that were almost certainly avoidable had he been operating his car with due care and regard for the safety of others. Even his attorney didn't deny the kid was DRIVING RECKLESSLY.
And not everyone drove/drives like a moron. This kid was:
an accident waiting to happen
1. a potentially disastrous situation, typically caused by negligent or faulty procedures.
2. a person certain to cause trouble.
Wow things like this can get under my skin...
Why is it BS? He crashed his car which caused the deaths of two people. Sure it is somewhat indirect but I see it no different than if he hit them with his car.
It's very different. If the phone pole fell on a pedestrian, then your opinion would be more fitting. Let me catch up on the rest of the posts.
His actions took two lives.
There is no such thing as an accident, actions cause incidents.
No, his actions caused property damage. The women's actions cost two people their lives.
Jeez. One more reason to not get out and help any more. I'll worry about me.
Okay, caught up on the thread. Whether the kids actions that caused the accident were illegal or not have exactly ZERO bearing on the women's deaths. The fire example is the best scenario posted thus far, and the same that I was going to post. On the same note, the intentions of the women have zero bearing on their deaths, or his liability. What if the women were passengers in a car he almost hit and were running in to finish him off because they were consumed with rage? It doesn't matter. They assumed the risk by approaching the situation. NO ONE but them had the duty to assess if it was safe to approach or not. Their failure to do so turned out to be a detriment to themselves.
What if he crashed because he was avoiding a kid in the street? Doesn't matter. Woman run in and they still die.
What if he had a stroke while driving and was in otherwise perfect condition with no past history of debilitating medical conditions? Doesn't matter, the woman still get electrocuted. *In this situation he wouldn't be held liable at all and no property damage would have been paid to the city either.
What if another car pulled out in front of him and he swerved to avoid and hit the pole, but never made contact with the car that pulled out in front of him and it fled the scene so there was no proof it was there (phantom vehicle)? Doesn't matter.
centrarchidae
07-26-2013, 22:34
What if he crashed because he was avoiding a kid in the street? Doesn't matter. Woman run in and they still die.
What if he had a stroke while driving and was in otherwise perfect condition with no past history of debilitating medical conditions? Doesn't matter, the woman still get electrocuted. *In this situation he wouldn't be held liable at all and no property damage would have been paid to the city either.
What if another car pulled out in front of him and he swerved to avoid and hit the pole, but never made contact with the car that pulled out in front of him and it fled the scene so there was no proof it was there (phantom vehicle)? Doesn't matter.
It does matter. In your three hypotheticals, the driver didn't screw up. He just had a horrible but unforeseeable accident.
That's not the case at hand. In the case at hand, if the driver wasn't driving recklessly, then those women would be alive.
Incorrect, those women were alive until they made the decision to enter the crash scene. His actions or intentions are completely irrelevant as the situation of the power lines laying in the water is the same. It makes no difference to the women what his intentions were. Further, not everyone that arrived on scene was killed. It was unfortunate that it took a couple of bodies to visually warn people of the danger, but with the amount of people at the scene, compared to the amount that were actually killed, illustrates that there were options and choices. Those who chose to stay clear, lived. This driver didn't force anyone's actions that day.
Only Bailey guns has even mentioned that there is a clear visible difference between a burning car and electrified water. Bailey opined that people don't run into flames, but we all know that's not true as many first responders would do so, and so would some regular passersby. Anyway, the difference between a burning car and electrified water is moot, because both would exist, in this case, within the scope of a car accident. A reasonable and prudent person knows that an accident scene is an inherently an unsafe situation, whether danger is immediately visible or not.
I want to mention that I don't intend to sound heartless, as I feel for those ladies. That is a terrible way to go and I'm sure I would have gone the same way. However, when discussing liability, you have to remove emotions to correctly asses liability and negligence.
Bailey Guns
07-26-2013, 23:23
Obviously it's pointless to continue to try to point out his reckless actions were the proximate cause of the women being killed. Comparing Joe Citizen attempting to render aid to trained, professional first responders rendering aid doesn't make sense, either. All I can say is the law sees it differently than you do.
If the driver had crashed because he was avoiding a child or because he had a medical issue his behavior wouldn't be considered reckless, therefore there would be no elements of willful or knowingly, thus no criminal culpability. So those analogies just don't work.
You are letting your emotions get in the way of your assessment of the situation. After the car comes to rest, and after the lines drop into the water, the chain of events has ended. Any new persons to the situation after the end of the chain of events begin their own, new chain of events. Same as if another vehicle wrecked into the back of this kid's car. It doesn't matter who is responsible for the first chain of events, when a second chain starts.
Aloha_Shooter
07-27-2013, 01:55
No he's not Irving. He's reading the situation the same way the law does and several of us do. The whole situation -- and therefore legal culpability -- begins and ends with his willful reckless actions. It's the reason a burglar is considered liable if a homeowner has a heart attack and dies during the robbery. The fact he didn't INTEND to cause their deaths is why it's manslaughter instead of murder.
muddywings
07-27-2013, 06:25
Didn't read all the responses but I'll go with--it's a good charge (really bad choice of words there).
I think I saw someone point out good Samaritan law earlier. From how I understand (so I'm saying I could be wrong) good Samaritan laws protects the person giving aid from being sued, ie: I give CPR to a guy who collapses but he dies anyway. The guy's family can't sue me because I didn't revive him.
HOWEVER, "duty to rescue" laws which CA has, protects victims. ie: a person who isn't drunk get's into an accident (say it's a deer hit or something) and they cut their head bad and are bleeding. If you don't go to the "rescue" you can be sued for failing to render aid where you could have, ie: apply direct pressure to a wound. (again, from my basic understanding of the law)
So, since CA has a duty to rescue, the women had an obligation to help. That doesn't negate the need to be aware of your surroundings and be careful yourself but I doubt these people were rescue experts. (basically, I think they could have avoided any litigation by not helping by saying, 'hey, there were downed power lines, I didn't think I could help without getting electrocuted)
What this incident, the Zimmerman trial, and the naked rape victim on your porch scenario taught me is don't worry about being a good samaritan and mind your own business....good luck everybody!!
edit: having a hard time finding the statute for CA but it might only involve calling the police for larger crimes ie: murder, rape etc. Not actually rendering aid.
No he's not Irving. He's reading the situation the same way the law does and several of us do. The whole situation -- and therefore legal culpability -- begins and ends with his willful reckless actions. It's the reason a burglar is considered liable if a homeowner has a heart attack and dies during the robbery. The fact he didn't INTEND to cause their deaths is why it's manslaughter instead of murder.
What law? Post it. This is nothing like the example with a burglar, because the act of the burglary makes the entire house the "scene;" and the occupants if the home would have already been in the "scene."
These ladies were external to the car accident until they assumed the risk to enter it. In order to use a burglary scenario that is similar, your house would have to be being bulglarized, and your neighbor would rush in to help, and then trip over the tv the burglar left on the floor or something. Neighbor outside, completely safe, assumes risk to enter scene of active burglary, gets injured. All the neighbor had to do was stay out.
Bailey Guns
07-27-2013, 18:19
Causation is not a specific law. It's legal theory that attaches criminal liability to an act or omission. It's used all the time.
I think Proximate Cause is more often used in civil tort cases but is applied in criminal law. You can also look up the Substantial Factor test.
Black's Law Dictionary defines the "substantial-factor test" as "[t]he principle that causation exists when the defendant's conduct is an important or significant contributor to the plaintiff's injuries."
Obviously, I'm not a lawyer and there's no doubt an attorney can explain it much better than I can. But I've been around it enough to have a very basic understanding of how it's applied. Again...a jury still has to be convinced the kid is guilty. That's easier said than done in a criminal case. The civil case is where this kid is really gonna get hammered, in my amateur opinion.
OtterbatHellcat
07-27-2013, 19:28
Damn...
I've read a lot of opinions in this thread.
I think Irving is on top of this....my 2 cents.
At least this once, my posts in this thread are coming from more than just my opinion.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.