how would you defend this case
- thanks for your responses.. just for fun here are a few more responses to the
case for your perusal..
Research the so-called law to see how it was enacted and challenge it. Look
at your criminal statutes in your State and then turn to the Motor Vehicle
Statues, one will find that all Motor Vehicle statutes are independent from
the State criminal charges.
This is a complex area where it was purposely designed to mislead, control
and take your money.
For openers, it's an open and shut case, but there is one problem, no
this is a civil case where Mark wants money for being a quadrepeligic..
Subject: Re: How would you defend this case
In a message dated 4/10/2004 4:36:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, writes:
What an absolutely fascinating case! This is tragic for both Mr.
Smith and Bob. Mr. Smith faces a life confined to a wheelchair
being cared for by others. Young Bob has to live with the knowledge
that his extremely poor judgement (legally drunk, no headlights,
speeding) contributed to this devastating outcome. It is easy to
say that because Bob was drunk, he has no defense. That is
certainly my gut response on this one. However, the law is
profoundly more objective than my gut - fortunately for young Bob.
Your question, Amy, is what defense does Bob have? I think he may
have a few.
Mr. Smith was at a stop sign making a left hand turn onto a street
for which traffic was not impeded by a traffic signal (at least at
the particular intersection where their paths crossed). Mr. Smith
is obliged to yield the right of way to through traffic. He further
has an obligation to exercise caution when entering the intersection
and to be aware of surrounding traffic. Asserting that he did not
see Bob is simply not viable to mitigate the fact that in exercising
his privilege to drive he failed to adequately yield the right of
way and that he did not demonstrate due caution when entering a
roadway with through traffic. Because Mr. Smith was entering
traffic from a position of caution (the stop sign), he had the
primary responsibility to be aware of oncoming traffic. People
speed and drive without their headlights whether they're drunk or
not and I imagine the risk for each of those is greater late at
night when the flow of traffic is unimpeded by other vehicles. The
risk is also greater (I would imagine) that one would encounter a
drunk driver late at night. Further, witnesses observed Bob so it
is clear that Mr. Smith's vision should not have been impaired by
darkness, other vehicles, or environmental impediments (trees along
the side of the road, another large vehicle blocking his view,
etc.). Whether the law in the state in which this event occurred
recognizes comparative or contributory negligence, it is evident
that Mr. Smith bears some responsibility in the events as they
occurred. The defense may assert that Mr. Smith was fatigued - he'd
undergone eye surgery on the day before the accident and he was
driving home from work late at night after a long day. He worked on
a psych ward at a hospital - was it busy that day, did an event
occur that may have made him more fatigued after this particular
shift, how did he sleep following his surgery, were they adequately
staffed at the hospital? There are times when we have all been
fatigued while driving - not particularly sleepy per se but kind of
driving on auto-pilot. We get from one place to the other without
really being aware of each thing we did in order to get there.
Perhaps this decrease in awareness (if present) would have been
sufficient for Mr. Smith to have been driving consciously but not
Perhaps the defense would be well-served not to focus too much on
Bob's statements - that he flashed his headlights and hit the
brakes. Doing so returns the focus to Bob's failures in the outcome
of this event - flashing headlights that were observed to be non
continuously lit may cast doubt on whether in fact the headlights
were on at all (can you only flash your headlights if they're in the
on position?) and hitting the brakes - would time have been
sufficient to avoid the accident had Bob's speed not been excessive
or if his response time were not decreased by his ingestion of
Bob is far from innocent in this matter. But that is not the
question. The question is whether his case is defensible. And, in
fact, despite my gut feeling that but for the fact that Bob was
drunk, driving without headlights, and speeding the accident would
not have occurred; he is not exclusively responsible for this tragic
outcome, criminally or civilly. He is guilty of drunk driving,
driving without headlights, and speeding but; Mr. Smith is guilty of
failure to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic and failing to
exercise due caution when entering a roadway from a stop sign.
What a devastating tragedy! Whatever the outcome in this case,
lives have been destroyed. Mr. Smith has been sentenced to live out
the remainder of his life in a nursing home with others providing
for his most personal needs and Bob, at 23, (whether he's found
guilty or innocent, negligent or not) will surely suffer the anguish
of knowing that he bore some responsibility in altering the quality
of life of another human being.
Subject: How would you defend this case
Which are we defending, Bob or Mark Smith? Personally, I don't see a
successful way to defend Bob if it's him we're representing.
Obviously, good ol' Bob is in a world of hurt.
Legally drunk-I've been there. Driving without
headlights-I've been there, too. Witnesses all seem to
be agin him. Oh, yeah, he's a liar, too, as the
witnesses say he was driving without headlights, so
how could he have flashed them?
(better yet, how could the witnesses see him?)
Defend? If I were his lawyer, I think I'd go out in
search of a vampire who has been accused of being a
bloodsucker before I'd take this case to defend.
Now, if you let me represent the poor slob in the
wheelchair (by the way, I've known several
quadraplegics and not one has any use of any
limb-seems this guy may be a partial quad) I'd jump on
that one for sure. Trial lawyers love the biggies they
can win hands down, don't they?
(How much would you award)
I would really be curious to know how good ol' Perry
would get this idiot with a driver's license off the
hook so he can go try to kill somebody else.
PS:Maybe he could use the laser surgery to show Mark
was impaired and had no business being out there alone
Just a thought.
(thought of that, but folks can drive 20 minutes after laser surgery, plus it
was only one eye, results of laser surgery are immediate.. that's the kicker)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Thanks for the inquirey............how ever I'm specialized in Securities,
Investment, Insurance fraud andsome of the fun to go with it.
This aapears to ge a civil/criminal multitude of actions.
If you still think I can help..............cal 310-287-0464
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]