Is This Justice?

[Tank]

Ponder this . . . thirty years ago, I represented a truck driver who killed a young boy. The driver was making a right turn on a red light at a city intersection. He had made a full stop and was looking to his left, to make sure no traffic was coming. None was. He began making his right turn. (It is legal to make a right turn on a red light in California, provided you make a full stop first and that no traffic is coming from your left.)

As he was making his right turn, there was a small boy coming at him on a bicycle. The boy was going against traffic, in violation of existing laws which required bicycle riders to go with traffic when riding on a street. The driver was still looking to his left (for oncoming traffic) as he started his right turn.

The kid rode right under the front, right wheel of the big rig and was killed instantly. The truck was not going faster than 5 mph at the time.

The driver was prosecuted for vehiclar manslaughter, convicted and required to do one year in the county jail.

Do you see that as justice? I don't. I see it as a tragic, almost unavoidable accident involving a truck driver performing a totally legal turning maneuver, and a boy coming from out of nowhere, going against traffic in violation of the vehicle code.

Vehicular manslaughter statutes should be stricken from our criminal justice system. You simply don't send people to jail or state prison because of accidents.

When your brakes are smoking for miles and people are warning you to whats about to happen, it ain't no accident.

And for this other case you lost 30 years ago, sounds like the truck driver didn't look every way before making his turn, probably in a hurry like the other guy.

 

[George Costanza]

i'm kind of surprised by your assessment. mens rea doesn't require that you *intend* to have an accident. it requires that you allow your braks to be so dangerous that you can't stop a truck. a reasonable person could anticipate that failure to stop driving on bad brakes could lead to a dangerous situation. and if it does, in fact, lead to a dangerous situation, then there is intent.

Sounds to me your are talking more about gross negligence than intent. In CA, if a driver causes a vehicular death involving gross negligence, the driver is guilty of vehicular manslaughter. I'm not saying that isn't the law - I am just saying that I DISAGREE with such a law.

It isn't a question of gross negligence justifying an inference of criminal intent - that is not how the California courts seek to justify imprisoning someone for a crime lacking criminal intent. Rather, vehicular manslaughter is seen as an exception to the requirement of criminal intent for conviction of a criminal act. The idea is that, so long as there is a vehicular death that resulted from gross negligence, that in and of itself is sufficient.

In California, prosecutors almost univerally file vehicular manslaughter charges whenever a death results from a traffic collision, without any regard for the facts of the case. I swear, if someone died as the result of their plowing into the rear end of a car that was stopped for a red light, some mad dog DA would charge the driver of the stopped car with vehicular manslaughter here in California. I exaggerate somewhat, of course - but not all that much. Read my post on this thread about the case I handled for the truck driver who was making the right turn.

I just have real trouble with statutes that seek to impose criminal sanctions on people for actions which do not involve criminal intent. Yes, people can do really stupid things that have horrible consequences. And yes, there is such a thing as gross negligence - but it is still NEGLIGENCE, any way you want to slice it.

Obviously, you have a different tolerance level that I when it comes to laws that impose criminal sanctions for negligent conduct.

if the person ACTUALLY intended a death, it wouldn't be manslaughter, it would be homicide.

Of course.

also, his attempt to stop the accident AFTER his brakes failed is irrelevant if he ignored the fact that his brakes were worn and should have known they were worn and dangerous.

Correct.

don't worty, though... he'll be out in less than 4 years.... which is more than we can say for Angel Posca and his little girl.

Now, now . . . your right wing is showing . . .

 

[George Costanza]

Where do you get this stuff georgie? Do you expect us to make a legal decision based on two or three lines you submit in a post? Hopefully the criminal justice system still works and jurors get a little bit more information when they decide a case.

I think I said somewhere that yes, there is probably more to this case than appears in the OP or the linked article. If not, I say it now.

But that's not the point. It really doesn't matter how negligent the driver was - it is still NEGLIGENCE. First year law students rapidly learn the difference between negligent acts and intentional acts and the way the law treats each of them. Criminal sanctions are reserved for criminal acts. Negligent acts are not criminal and should not be punished criminally.

Absent some indication that the driver in this case intended to kill the two victims of this crash, there is no justification for imposing criminal sanctions on him. Civil sanctions, yes - financial damages to the survivors for their loss, probably even punitive damages if he continued to drive down a steep grade when he knew his brakes were shot.

But I am very opposed to criminal sanctions for negligenct acts, regardless of how egregious those acts might have been.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

i'm kind of surprised by your assessment. mens rea doesn't require that you *intend* to have an accident. it requires that you allow your braks to be so dangerous that you can't stop a truck. a reasonable person could anticipate that failure to stop driving on bad brakes could lead to a dangerous situation. and if it does, in fact, lead to a dangerous situation, then there is intent.

Sounds to me your are talking more about gross negligence than intent. In CA, if a driver causes a vehicular death involving gross negligence, the driver is guilty of vehicular manslaughter. I'm not saying that isn't the law - I am just saying that I DISAGREE with such a law.

It isn't a question of gross negligence justifying an inference of criminal intent - that is not how the California courts seek to justify imprisoning someone for a crime lacking criminal intent. Rather, vehicular manslaughter is seen as an exception to the requirement of criminal intent for conviction of a criminal act. The idea is that, so long as there is a vehicular death that resulted from gross negligence, that in and of itself is sufficient.

In California, prosecutors almost univerally file vehicular manslaughter charges whenever a death results from a traffic collision, without any regard for the facts of the case. I swear, if someone died as the result of their plowing into the rear end of a car that was stopped for a red light, some mad dog DA would charge the driver of the stopped car with vehicular manslaughter here in California. I exaggerate somewhat, of course - but not all that much. Read my post on this thread about the case I handled for the truck driver who was making the right turn.

I just have real trouble with statutes that seek to impose criminal sanctions on people for actions which do not involve criminal intent. Yes, people can do really stupid things that have horrible consequences. And yes, there is such a thing as gross negligence - but it is still NEGLIGENCE, any way you want to slice it.

Obviously, you have a different tolerance level that I when it comes to laws that impose criminal sanctions for negligent conduct.

if the person ACTUALLY intended a death, it wouldn't be manslaughter, it would be homicide.

Of course.

also, his attempt to stop the accident AFTER his brakes failed is irrelevant if he ignored the fact that his brakes were worn and should have known they were worn and dangerous.

Correct.

don't worty, though... he'll be out in less than 4 years.... which is more than we can say for Angel Posca and his little girl.

Now, now . . . your right wing is showing . . .

Ya cause we all know Jillian is a right wing fanatic right?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Where do you get this stuff georgie? Do you expect us to make a legal decision based on two or three lines you submit in a post? Hopefully the criminal justice system still works and jurors get a little bit more information when they decide a case.

I think I said somewhere that yes, there is probably more to this case than appears in the OP or the linked article. If not, I say it now.

But that's not the point. It really doesn't matter how negligent the driver was - it is still NEGLIGENCE. First year law students rapidly learn the difference between negligent acts and intentional acts and the way the law treats each of them. Criminal sanctions are reserved for criminal acts. Negligent acts are not criminal and should not be punished criminally.

Absent some indication that the driver in this case intended to kill the two victims of this crash, there is no justification for imposing criminal sanctions on him. Civil sanctions, yes - financial damages to the survivors for their loss, probably even punitive damages if he continued to drive down a steep grade when he knew his brakes were shot.

But I am very opposed to criminal sanctions for negligenct acts, regardless of how egregious those acts might have been.

So, a drunk driver plowing into somebody isn't criminal negligence?

And, please tell us all how the driver who KNOWINGLY drove with bad brakes, while KNOWING he was driving what amounts to a weapon that can harm and kill, is any different from a drunk idiot CRIMINALLY taking the wheel and killing somebody?

 

[George Costanza]

alll true. but george isn't a crappy lawyer. i've had enough conversations with him where i know how smart he is. i think he just feels badly for the driver. his heart's in the right place.

Thanks for the kind words - but it isn't that I feel badly for the driver at all. This was a terrible, terrible accident with a horrible result and it was clearly the fault of the driver.

It isn't a matter of sympathy for this driver. Rather, it is a matter of my knowledge that this law is routinely abused by prosecutors in this state at the expense of basically good, inncoent people who have simply had the misfortune of causing an auto accident where someone else dies.

How would you like it if your mother was driving to the store, had some kind of a "senior moment," killed someone and was then prosecuted and sent to state prison for a number of years? Belive me, it could happen. And I think it is just plain wrong.

Sue the hell out of 'em - but don't send them to prison for an act of negligence, regardless of how "gross" it is. Negligence, by definition, cannot be intentional.

 

[jillian]

alll true. but george isn't a crappy lawyer. i've had enough conversations with him where i know how smart he is. i think he just feels badly for the driver. his heart's in the right place.

Thanks for the kind words - but it isn't that I feel badly for the driver at all. This was a terrible, terrible accident with a horrible result and it was clearly the fault of the driver.

It isn't a matter of sympathy for this driver. Rather, it is a matter of my knowledge that this law is routinely abused by prosecutors in this state at the expense of basically good, inncoent people who have simply had the misfortune of causing an auto accident where someone else dies.

How would you like it if your mother was driving to the store, had some kind of a "senior moment," killed someone and was then prosecuted and sent to state prison for a number of years? Belive me, it could happen. And I think it is just plain wrong.

Sue the hell out of 'em - but don't send them to prison for an act of negligence, regardless of how "gross" it is. Negligence, by definition, cannot be intentional.

i don't know about in california. but i'm pretty sure in ny, acting with reckless disregard for the safety of others isn't just a liability issue... it's a culpability issue.

again... if it were intentional, it would have been homicide. but he absolutely acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others.

oh...and i'd like to think if my mom were driving and her brakes were on fire, she'd pull over and call a tow truck... which is what this professional driver should have done when he started having to water his brakes.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Unfuckingbelievable!

 

[Zander]

I have driven that route, he shouldn't have taken that route with a big rig. The only possible reason is to save time (it is quicker than going around). Therefore, at least IMHO and the opinion of the judge, the driver was negligent and stupid. The punishment seems to fit the crime. Even though it was an accident, he is still responsible for killing two people.

 

[William Joyce]

I understand the reluctance to apply the criminal law to situations where nobody had any specific design on an evil result.

But when people die, as they did here, it's different.

And I don't have too much of a problem with that. A large civil judgment... I don't know. It rings kind of hollow. It's not like there aren't protections: prosecutors have to come up with damning factors that take the case out of the civil realm and into the criminal realm.

The criminal law is sprinkled liberally with mens rea-light stuff: reckless endangerment (shooting a gun into the air in a city), child endangerment (leaving a 2-year-old at home all night so you can go party), killing someone accidentally while drunk driving. Again, none of this stuff is too controversial.

 

[Sunshine]

alll true. but george isn't a crappy lawyer. i've had enough conversations with him where i know how smart he is. i think he just feels badly for the driver. his heart's in the right place.

Thanks for the kind words - but it isn't that I feel badly for the driver at all. This was a terrible, terrible accident with a horrible result and it was clearly the fault of the driver.

It isn't a matter of sympathy for this driver. Rather, it is a matter of my knowledge that this law is routinely abused by prosecutors in this state at the expense of basically good, inncoent people who have simply had the misfortune of causing an auto accident where someone else dies.

How would you like it if your mother was driving to the store, had some kind of a "senior moment," killed someone and was then prosecuted and sent to state prison for a number of years? Belive me, it could happen. And I think it is just plain wrong.

Sue the hell out of 'em - but don't send them to prison for an act of negligence, regardless of how "gross" it is. Negligence, by definition, cannot be intentional.

You have to be kidding. Ignoring strong warnings to take another route is not 'misfortune.' This guy deliberately chose to take a route he had been told by the authorities was not appropriate and he did it anyway. Clearly, he had no thought for those lives he took and now he has time to comtemplate that. I have NO sympathy for him. ZIP. NADA. NONE!~

Ignoring warnings often figures into both criminal and civil cases. The one that has gotten a really bad rap is the McDonald's/hot coffee case. That woman settled and even though she was awarded a fortune was only seeking to have her expenses paid. BUT, the health inspector had cited that particular location 3 times for having the water in that particular coffee make too hot and those warnings went unheeded. Clearly, there was no thought or caring by McDonald's for those patrons, and IMNSHO, they SHOULD have been taken to the cleaners.

As long as people like you call acts by people like this 'misfortune' then eventually everyone will become scoff laws as well.

 

[George Costanza]

And, please tell us all how the driver who KNOWINGLY drove with bad brakes, while KNOWING he was driving what amounts to a weapon that can harm and kill, is any different from a drunk idiot CRIMINALLY taking the wheel and killing somebody?

Good question. I don't think there is any difference. If anything, it would seem that our truck driver here was even more of a threat to others than a drunk driver, given the size of his truck, the steep grade and the condition of his brakes. Damn good question.

My objection is to the vehicular manslaughter laws in general, because I know that many times, they are used against people they should not be used against, even though a death may have resulted from a car accident. I guess there are cases where the degree of negligence is so gross that it does justify the full brunt of the vehicular manslaughter laws. This would appear to be one of those cases.

Well done, sir! You have posed a question that has caused me to rethink this issue and hopefully approach it in the future with a more realistic attitude.

 

[freedombecki]

I am hearing that the road is likely unfit for big rigs. If that truly is the case, there should be a prohibition of big rigs from using the road and a sign telling them to use alternative routes. If that be the true source of this "crime" the culpable party is the highway department of the state in which this travesty occurred.

Any way you look at it, nobody won.

 

[midcan5]

There is a great deal of assumption and knowledge above that I seem to have missed.

The first thing I thought of on reading this was were there runaway ramps? Seems there weren't.

"Meanwhile, Caltrans said today it is considering a temporary ban on trucks on the portion of Angeles Crest Highway where the big rig was traveling. It also said it will soon install new safety signs.

Doug Failing, Caltrans District 7 manager, said the La Cañada section of the road -- also known as state Highway 2 -- used to have a runaway truck lane for vehicles going too fast as they approach Foothill Boulevard. But in the last few years, the agency landscaped around the lane, and it is no longer used as a runaway truck lane.

Caltrans has been talking about finding a new location for a runaway lane, perhaps further north on Angeles Crest in county unincorporated territory." ALIPAC Forums-viewtopic-TRUCK DRIVER, MARCOS COSTA, RUMORED NOT TO SPEAK ENGLISH

 

[Harry Dresden]

Ponder this . . . thirty years ago, I represented a truck driver who killed a young boy. The driver was making a right turn on a red light at a city intersection. He had made a full stop and was looking to his left, to make sure no traffic was coming. None was. He began making his right turn. (It is legal to make a right turn on a red light in California, provided you make a full stop first and that no traffic is coming from your left.)

As he was making his right turn, there was a small boy coming at him on a bicycle. The boy was going against traffic, in violation of existing laws which required bicycle riders to go with traffic when riding on a street. The driver was still looking to his left (for oncoming traffic) as he started his right turn.

The kid rode right under the front, right wheel of the big rig and was killed instantly. The truck was not going faster than 5 mph at the time.

The driver was prosecuted for vehiclar manslaughter, convicted and required to do one year in the county jail.

Do you see that as justice? I don't. I see it as a tragic, almost unavoidable accident involving a truck driver performing a totally legal turning maneuver, and a boy coming from out of nowhere, going against traffic in violation of the vehicle code.

Vehicular manslaughter statutes should be stricken from our criminal justice system. You simply don't send people to jail or state prison because of accidents.

George come on.....a kid coming out of nowhere is somewhat different then a guy knowing his brakes on his big rig are failing, are heating up so bad he is pouring water on them and then decides to go down the hill anyway.........one was pure accident the other was Negligent and pretty stupid....by the way......how old was this kid?....

 

[Sunshine]

I am hearing that the road is likely unfit for big rigs. If that truly is the case, there should be a prohibition of big rigs from using the road and a sign telling them to use alternative routes. If that be the true source of this "crime" the culpable party is the highway department of the state in which this travesty occurred.

Any way you look at it, nobody won.

If you read the article, you will see that he was warned by the authorities not to go that route.

 

[freedombecki]

There is a great deal of assumption and knowledge above that I seem to have missed.

The first thing I thought of on reading this was were there runaway ramps? Seems there weren't.

"Meanwhile, Caltrans said today it is considering a temporary ban on trucks on the portion of Angeles Crest Highway where the big rig was traveling. It also said it will soon install new safety signs.

Doug Failing, Caltrans District 7 manager, said the La Cañada section of the road -- also known as state Highway 2 -- used to have a runaway truck lane for vehicles going too fast as they approach Foothill Boulevard. But in the last few years, the agency landscaped around the lane, and it is no longer used as a runaway truck lane.

Caltrans has been talking about finding a new location for a runaway lane, perhaps further north on Angeles Crest in county unincorporated territory." ALIPAC Forums-viewtopic-TRUCK DRIVER, MARCOS COSTA, RUMORED NOT TO SPEAK ENGLISH

Thanks, Midcan. I once worked for a highway department regional engineer. One of the staffers was a professional engineer who investigated traffic fatalities to see whether anything about state highway property played a role in the fatality. If it did, he was required to make a truthful recommendation and fix the problem.

If the consensus is that an improvement could be made to avoid tragedy with regard to runaway trucks, that could be fixed. However, if the road is so dangerous large trucks cannot negotiate the trip without risk, it should indeed be closed to all large trucks until sufficient safeguards are in place for a truck to safely get off the road and halt safely.

Perhaps George Costanza's gut feeling was on the money. Sending a man to jail will not change the severity of danger of this highway to those who use it. Closure to trucks will.

 

[freedombecki]

I am hearing that the road is likely unfit for big rigs. If that truly is the case, there should be a prohibition of big rigs from using the road and a sign telling them to use alternative routes. If that be the true source of this "crime" the culpable party is the highway department of the state in which this travesty occurred.

Any way you look at it, nobody won.

If you read the article, you will see that he was warned by the authorities not to go that route.

When did firefighters replace State Highway laws?

 

[Harry Dresden]

If he's a long haul trucker, once he takes that truck off the companies lot, he is fully responsible for any maintenance issues along the way.

Sounds like the idiot got what he deserved.

Yes - he is civilly responsible for any and all harm that he causes due to maintenance issues or for any other reasons, along the way. That is not what this thread is about. This thread is about imposing criminal responsibility for what is, or should be, a civil matter.

George if the guy had no idea his breaks were going to fail.....i would agree with you.....but this guy kinda had a big clue they were failing.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

alll true. but george isn't a crappy lawyer. i've had enough conversations with him where i know how smart he is. i think he just feels badly for the driver. his heart's in the right place.

Thanks for the kind words - but it isn't that I feel badly for the driver at all. This was a terrible, terrible accident with a horrible result and it was clearly the fault of the driver.

It isn't a matter of sympathy for this driver. Rather, it is a matter of my knowledge that this law is routinely abused by prosecutors in this state at the expense of basically good, inncoent people who have simply had the misfortune of causing an auto accident where someone else dies.

How would you like it if your mother was driving to the store, had some kind of a "senior moment," killed someone and was then prosecuted and sent to state prison for a number of years? Belive me, it could happen. And I think it is just plain wrong.

Sue the hell out of 'em - but don't send them to prison for an act of negligence, regardless of how "gross" it is. Negligence, by definition, cannot be intentional.

As a professional driver he had to KNOW that with his brakes smoking to continue would result in an accident. That makes it intent. He failed to do his job. He failed to correct the brake problem and made half hearted attempts.

Once he was aware of his smoking brakes it no longer was JUST an accident. He willfully CHOSE to drive a rig he KNEW or reasonably should have known was going to become an out of control mass of destruction.