Is This Justice?

[Intense]

How about this . . . .

In most states, the concept of contributory negligence has been replaced by the doctrine of comparative negligence. I know you know the difference, but for those who do not: under a contributory negligence theory, if the plaintiff contributed in any way to the accident, he/she would be barred from any recovery. With comparative negligence, that is no longer the case. In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, the fault of both the plaintiff and the defendant is assigned a percentage and is compared. If the plaintiff was 10% at fault and the defendant 90%, then the plaintiff's recovery and the defendant's liability is apportioned accordingly.

I think the bad condition of this particular road clearly contributed to this accident. For example, if the truck had been driving along a flat stretch of straight line, desert freeway, it is much more likely this would never have happened. I am sure the steepenss of the grade was a contributing factor here combined with a lot of other things about the road.

I don't think Becki is saying the truck driver is without fault. I think all she is doing is pointing out that there might be another factor here that contributed to the accident. As you well know, in any, major personal injury case involving a vehicle collision, if there is anything at all wrong with the road, the road department will be joined as a party defendant on the theory that whatever was wrong with the road contributed in some way to the accident.

Now - the extent to which the road contributed to the accident in this case is another matter. It may have been very slight. It may have been nonexistent. And the company's decision to route this driver on that particular road certainly plays a part in the whole picture. That's not the point of my discussion here. The point of my discussion is that, I think Becki's contribution to this topic is legitimate and valid and I think that she does not deserve the treatment she has been getting on this thread.

Hey, Trucking is highly Dangerous, therefore, highly Regulated. Who's advocating right now for giving Illegal's a free pass on Licensing and Insurance, in California? To what end? This Driver either did not have the skill and experience needed to be behind that wheel, or the care, either way it is negligence. Nothing on you or Becky, just on the kind of world you are trying to open Pandora's box to.

WTF do "illegals" have to do with this thread? I have been away from it and have not read all of the posts - is some moron deflecting the issue of the OP? It would appear so. How do you know the driver in this case didn't have the skill or experience to operate a big rig? Are you just assuming this because there was an accident? And, once again, what does being an illegal have to do with anything?

I find it ironic that California is currently considering legislation to give a free pass to those without proper Licensing and Insurance, and something like this pops up. Either the Driver was Licensed and should have known better, or He was not qualified to be in the rig in the first place. If you checked out my first post in the thread, I did lay out my position for you George, I stand by it. Road Safety should not be a Political Football. There are plenty of bad roads to choose from. Driver responsibility is the bottom line no matter where you find yourself. Privilege and exception, exemption, a corrupting force no matter the hand, George.

 

[Intense]

12 Most Dangerous Roads in America

12 Most Dangerous Roads in America | Auto in the News
---------------------------------------------------------

By Josh Mankiewicz
Dateline NBC
updated 6/7/2005 115 PM ET

Print
Font:

It may be the riskiest thing you do, and if you're like most people, you do it every day: get in your car, get on the road and take your chances.

To identify the most dangerous roads in America, Dateline analyzed five years of federal crash data. We added up the fatalities, county by county, road by road, during that period. Of course roads vary by how long and how busy they are, but for our survey we decided to stick to total fatalities. We found roads with high numbers of deaths, then we visited those deadly roads, some of them near you.

Dangerous roads - Dateline NBC - msnbc.com
-----------------------------------------------------------

Top 5 Most Dangerous U.S. Highways

The Daily Beast analyzed data the National Highway Safety Administration collected between 2004 and 2008 and published a list of the 100 deadliest interstates in the United States based on the number of fatal accidents that happened in individual states. Here are the top five from that list:

• #1: Interstate 95 in Florida
In-state miles: 382.15
Fatal accidents: 662
Fatal accidents per mile: 1.73
Total fatalities: 765

• #2: Interstate 76 in New Jersey
In-state miles: 3.04
Fatal accidents: 5
Fatal accidents per mile: 1.64
Total fatalities: 6

• #3: Interstate 4 in Florida
In-state miles: 132.39
Fatal accidents: 209
Fatal accidents per mile: 1.58
Total fatalities: 234

• #4: Interstate 15 in California
In-state miles: 287.26
Fatal accidents: 437
Fatal accidents per mile: 1.52
Total fatalities: 506

• #5: Interstate 10 in California
In-state miles: 242.54
Fatal accidents: 341
Fatal accidents per mile: 1.41
Total fatalities: 387


America's Deadliest Roads - CBS News

 

[Intense]

How about this . . . .

In most states, the concept of contributory negligence has been replaced by the doctrine of comparative negligence. I know you know the difference, but for those who do not: under a contributory negligence theory, if the plaintiff contributed in any way to the accident, he/she would be barred from any recovery. With comparative negligence, that is no longer the case. In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, the fault of both the plaintiff and the defendant is assigned a percentage and is compared. If the plaintiff was 10% at fault and the defendant 90%, then the plaintiff's recovery and the defendant's liability is apportioned accordingly.

I think the bad condition of this particular road clearly contributed to this accident. For example, if the truck had been driving along a flat stretch of straight line, desert freeway, it is much more likely this would never have happened. I am sure the steepenss of the grade was a contributing factor here combined with a lot of other things about the road.

I don't think Becki is saying the truck driver is without fault. I think all she is doing is pointing out that there might be another factor here that contributed to the accident. As you well know, in any, major personal injury case involving a vehicle collision, if there is anything at all wrong with the road, the road department will be joined as a party defendant on the theory that whatever was wrong with the road contributed in some way to the accident.

Now - the extent to which the road contributed to the accident in this case is another matter. It may have been very slight. It may have been nonexistent. And the company's decision to route this driver on that particular road certainly plays a part in the whole picture. That's not the point of my discussion here. The point of my discussion is that, I think Becki's contribution to this topic is legitimate and valid and I think that she does not deserve the treatment she has been getting on this thread.

Hey, Trucking is highly Dangerous, therefore, highly Regulated. Who's advocating right now for giving Illegal's a free pass on Licensing and Insurance, in California? To what end? This Driver either did not have the skill and experience needed to be behind that wheel, or the care, either way it is negligence. Nothing on you or Becky, just on the kind of world you are trying to open Pandora's box to.

WTF do "illegals" have to do with this thread? I have been away from it and have not read all of the posts - is some moron deflecting the issue of the OP? It would appear so. How do you know the driver in this case didn't have the skill or experience to operate a big rig? Are you just assuming this because there was an accident? And, once again, what does being an illegal have to do with anything?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/184626-is-this-justice-5.html#post4131209 My Opening Post.

 

[George Costanza]

Hey, Trucking is highly Dangerous, therefore, highly Regulated. Who's advocating right now for giving Illegal's a free pass on Licensing and Insurance, in California? To what end? This Driver either did not have the skill and experience needed to be behind that wheel, or the care, either way it is negligence. Nothing on you or Becky, just on the kind of world you are trying to open Pandora's box to.

WTF do "illegals" have to do with this thread? I have been away from it and have not read all of the posts - is some moron deflecting the issue of the OP? It would appear so. How do you know the driver in this case didn't have the skill or experience to operate a big rig? Are you just assuming this because there was an accident? And, once again, what does being an illegal have to do with anything?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/184626-is-this-justice-5.html#post4131209 My Opening Post.

All the things you list in your OP on this thread are merely factors to be considered in measuring degrees of NEGLIGENCE. My original point was, it really doesn't matter how much NEGLIGENCE there is, so long as it is NELIGENCE ONLY. Imposing CRIMINAL sanctions for NEGLIGENT conduct is, in my opinion, inappropriate and wrong.

 

[jillian]

WTF do "illegals" have to do with this thread? I have been away from it and have not read all of the posts - is some moron deflecting the issue of the OP? It would appear so. How do you know the driver in this case didn't have the skill or experience to operate a big rig? Are you just assuming this because there was an accident? And, once again, what does being an illegal have to do with anything?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/184626-is-this-justice-5.html#post4131209 My Opening Post.

All the things you list in your OP on this thread are merely factors to be considered in measuring degrees of NEGLIGENCE. My original point was, it really doesn't matter how much NEGLIGENCE there is, so long as it is NELIGENCE ONLY. Imposing CRIMINAL sanctions for NEGLIGENT conduct is, in my opinion, inappropriate and wrong.

and yet the law provides for criminal negligence if ones behavior is so reckless and dangerous to the safety of others, that it becomes culpable.

 

[freedombecki]

Intense, I have no intention of "trying to open" any kind of "Pandora's box" on this issue. That being said, I found this news article from late summer of 2009, and I am quasi-certain it could be the same incident we are discussing here:

"Big Rigs Banned from Angeles Crest Highway after Fatal Crash."

KTLA News 10:43 p.m. PDT, August 6, 2009

LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE -- Five months after a runaway truck killed two people, Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill that permanently bans big rigs from a stretch of the Angeles Crest Highway.

On April 1st, a big rig lost its brakes and slammed into several cars and a bookstore in La Canada Flintridge, killing a father and daughter and injuring 12 others.

Following the crash, the state imposed a temporary ban on commercial trucks from travelling the highway.

Several other runaway truck accidents have occurred on the Angeles Crest Highway, causing many to believe the road just isn't equipped to handle the big rigs safely.

"There was never a reason for big rigs to use this narrow, steep road that ended in our quiet town,'' said Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D- La Canada Flintridge), who authored the bill.

Knowing that we now have a formal and lasting truck ban will put our citizens at ease and is the first step to ensuring we never experience the pain and fear caused by a runaway truck," Portatino commented.

The new law bans vehicles with three or more axles or weighing more than 9,000 pounds from State Route 2 between La Canada-Flintridge and County Route N2, and also allows for fines that start at $1,000.

That was implemented 2 years ago by their city council and seems it works for them. If someone linked to this article last night, I did not see it. I also have seen no updates other than what was posted here.

Thank you for posting Dangerous Roads here. My family moved to Southern Cal and lived there for 5 years starting the year after I graduated from high school. Even back then, driving there was no fun for me. There was smog that caused allergies, fog that caused traffic pileups from time to time everywhere, and too many traffic accidents to count on the highways and biways of Southern California, just due to too many people on the roads at any given time. I am sorry the accident happened. It apparently triggered passage of a state law to stop trucks from using the road. The way real estate goes up in overpopulated areas, they may never be able to correct the grade on that road unless it is one day deemed also too dangerous for regular cars.

The trouble with not doing something right in the construction of safe roads used for the public travel, is that it may never be corrected and be ever a source of regularly-occuring fatalities.

 

[George Costanza]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/184626-is-this-justice-5.html#post4131209 My Opening Post.

All the things you list in your OP on this thread are merely factors to be considered in measuring degrees of NEGLIGENCE. My original point was, it really doesn't matter how much NEGLIGENCE there is, so long as it is NELIGENCE ONLY. Imposing CRIMINAL sanctions for NEGLIGENT conduct is, in my opinion, inappropriate and wrong.

and yet the law provides for criminal negligence if ones behavior is so reckless and dangerous to the safety of others, that it becomes culpable.

Of course. And, as I have been saying from the start, I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

 

[jillian]

All the things you list in your OP on this thread are merely factors to be considered in measuring degrees of NEGLIGENCE. My original point was, it really doesn't matter how much NEGLIGENCE there is, so long as it is NELIGENCE ONLY. Imposing CRIMINAL sanctions for NEGLIGENT conduct is, in my opinion, inappropriate and wrong.

and yet the law provides for criminal negligence if ones behavior is so reckless and dangerous to the safety of others, that it becomes culpable.

Of course. And, as I have been saying from the start, I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

i know. and ultimately, it comes down to philosophy. i'm ok with it. it's not like the guy had no notice that the brakes were shot. i think brakes being on fire is a pretty good clue that one should go no further.

 

[signelect]

We have lost our ability to take personal responsibily for our actions, it is far easier to blame others. Two punks in Houston hit and killed a woman and two children, they were street racing. They got probation, is that justice? If the husband decides to kill these two I want to be on that jury.

 

[Lovebears65]

I think if that was your daughter that was killed you would want justice served

 

[George Costanza]

and yet the law provides for criminal negligence if ones behavior is so reckless and dangerous to the safety of others, that it becomes culpable.

Of course. And, as I have been saying from the start, I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

i know. and ultimately, it comes down to philosophy. i'm ok with it.

Exactly. Thank you.

it's not like the guy had no notice that the brakes were shot. i think brakes being on fire is a pretty good clue that one should go no further.

Sure. And to continue on is stupid. But you don't go to state prison for stupid. Or at least you shouldn't go to state prison for stupid - only evil.

I think this thread has about run its course, don't you?

 

[Wicked Jester]

WTF do "illegals" have to do with this thread? I have been away from it and have not read all of the posts - is some moron deflecting the issue of the OP? It would appear so. How do you know the driver in this case didn't have the skill or experience to operate a big rig? Are you just assuming this because there was an accident? And, once again, what does being an illegal have to do with anything?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/184626-is-this-justice-5.html#post4131209 My Opening Post.

All the things you list in your OP on this thread are merely factors to be considered in measuring degrees of NEGLIGENCE. My original point was, it really doesn't matter how much NEGLIGENCE there is, so long as it is NELIGENCE ONLY. Imposing CRIMINAL sanctions for NEGLIGENT conduct is, in my opinion, inappropriate and wrong.

Come on George...The post accident inspection of the truck clearly shows that he was only running on half braking power. Only 5 of the 10 brakes were functioning properly long before he entered that road. 5 of 10 brakes to stop a 25 ton, loaded, double decker car hauler. There is no way in hell that he didn't know he was driving a time bomb.....He knew it before he entered that road, and CHOSE to drive it anyway. He then burned the 5 remaining brakes, and again CHOSE to continue taking tht weapon down that road.

It is no way different then a drunk CHOOSING to get behind the wheel. Or some idiot CHOOSING to load a bullet into a cylinder, spin it, and play russian roullete with somebody elses head.

The criminal negligence displayed by that idiot is appalling.

Bottom line, that road did not tell him to drive that road. It did not tell him to knowingly take an an obviously defective 25 ton WEAPON down that road.

 

[Intense]

WTF do "illegals" have to do with this thread? I have been away from it and have not read all of the posts - is some moron deflecting the issue of the OP? It would appear so. How do you know the driver in this case didn't have the skill or experience to operate a big rig? Are you just assuming this because there was an accident? And, once again, what does being an illegal have to do with anything?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/184626-is-this-justice-5.html#post4131209 My Opening Post.

All the things you list in your OP on this thread are merely factors to be considered in measuring degrees of NEGLIGENCE. My original point was, it really doesn't matter how much NEGLIGENCE there is, so long as it is NELIGENCE ONLY. Imposing CRIMINAL sanctions for NEGLIGENT conduct is, in my opinion, inappropriate and wrong.

Some of those concerns if proven legitimate, involve breaking the Law. That is criminal. If Law's were broken, the Offense is Criminal, not Civil.

 

[LAfrique]

Eight miles or so northeast of Los Angeles, the San Gabriel mountains cut across the San Gabriel Valley, separating the greater Los Angeles Area from the High Desert. Now, there are three or four ways to traverse the San Gabriels if you want to drive up, into Northern California. Sixty years ago, there were only a couple of ways to do it.

One of those ways was (and still is) a steep and winding two-lane road called the Angeles Crest Highway. It is very steep going up, in a northerly direction and it is equally steep going down in a southerly direction from the summit into the town of La Canada-Flintridge.

Two years ago, a truck driver by the name of Marcos Costa, was bringing his big rig down the Angeles Crest, headed for La Canada-Flintridge. Somewhere along the way, the brakes went out on his rig. Marcos was unable to stop the huge truck and it ended up hitting a passenger vehicle occupied by Angel Posca and his 12-year-old daughter. They both died in the crash.

Last week, Marcos Costa was sentenced to seven and one-half years in state prison, following his conviction for vehicular manslaughter and reckless driving. Prior to this accident, Marcos Costa had led an exemplary life, never getting into any kind of trouble.

Whenever I read something like this, I want to throw up. One of the first things that is taught to first year criminal law students is the concept of mens rea. Here is how Wiki defines that term:

Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.

Note the last sentence of that quote - strict liability crimes. Strict liability crimes do not require a guilty mind. All you have to do to be guilty of a strict liability crime is commit the prohibited act. Once again, Wiki:

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.

It should be noted that the vast majority of strict liability crimes do not involve serious offenses or confinement in jail or prison as punishment. Parking tickets are strict liability crimes.

Which brings me to vehicular manslaughter. Any way you want to slice it, a death caused by an automobile accident does not involve mens rea or criminal intent. It is an ACCIDENT. The last thing in the world that Marcos Costa wanted to have happen that day two years ago, was what did happen. Furthermore, once his brakes failed, he was powerless to prevent it and probably did everything he could to stop it from happening.

Yet Marcos now goes off to state prison for seven and one half years. This is not justice.

Of course the deaths were tragic. Of course if Marcos and/or his employer were at fault in any way for the accident, they should be required to pay appropriate damages to the injured family of the people who died by way of a CIVIL action in a CIVIL court.

Think on this - vehicular manslaughter is the only crime I know of where your wife can get in her car, go to the store, and wind up in state prison without ever being allowed to return to the family home until she has served her sentence.

What are we doing here?

p.s. - I am aware that the brakes on the truck failed, which was the primary cause of the accident. I am also aware that that should not have happened and whoever allowed it to happen is at fault for what took place because of their negligence in not keeping the brakes in good shape. That does not mean that this was done with any criminal intent, however and, unless criminal intent is proven, this case belongs only in a civil court, not a criminal court.

Sad, sad, sad. Few days ago in Space City, two youngmen driving drunk who had rammed into a vehicle killing a mother and her two of three children, were simply given probation. And years ago, the daughter of a prominent Texan who killed while drunk driving received mere probation and yet, the likes of Jessica Tata and Marcos Costa never seem to get sympathy.

There is room for justice and reason in the judicial system, but it does not seem to come in the way of the poor and certain groups society has stigmatized as undesirable. If drunks who intentionally get behind the wheel, aware of diminished capability, can get sympathy, I understand not why accidental tragedies by some never get sympathy. It appears Lady Justice is not blind after all.

 

[Intense]

Personally I prefer Impartial Justice to Blind Justice. Sort of a contradiction or oxymoron. Blind Justice. Either something is relevant or it is not. I vote for removing the blind fold and calibrating the scale. .... Unless you are into playing Poker wearing that blind fold.

 

[freedombecki]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/184626-is-this-justice-5.html#post4131209 My Opening Post.

All the things you list in your OP on this thread are merely factors to be considered in measuring degrees of NEGLIGENCE. My original point was, it really doesn't matter how much NEGLIGENCE there is, so long as it is NELIGENCE ONLY. Imposing CRIMINAL sanctions for NEGLIGENT conduct is, in my opinion, inappropriate and wrong.

Come on George...The post accident inspection of the truck clearly shows that he was only running on half braking power. Only 5 of the 10 brakes were functioning properly long before he entered that road. 5 of 10 brakes to stop a 25 ton, loaded, double decker car hauler. There is no way in hell that he didn't know he was driving a time bomb.....He knew it before he entered that road, and CHOSE to drive it anyway. He then burned the 5 remaining brakes, and again CHOSE to continue taking tht weapon down that road.

It is no way different then a drunk CHOOSING to get behind the wheel. Or some idiot CHOOSING to load a bullet into a cylinder, spin it, and play russian roullete with somebody elses head.

The criminal negligence displayed by that idiot is appalling.

Bottom line, that road did not tell him to drive that road. It did not tell him to knowingly take an an obviously defective 25 ton WEAPON down that road.

I guess it goes without saying that one shouldn't take weapons with you on a road land-mined by malfeasance in construction to eschew all advice of engineers who showed mathematical proof ordinary brakes could not withstand the steep grade, when the mathematical probability that something could go wrong is, was, and will be as it is, astronomical, the laws of physics today being the same as they were back when the roller-coaster road was built. Or maybe they skipped the consultation process and paved a willy-nilly path cheap as possible?

 

[westwall]

Of course. And, as I have been saying from the start, I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

Exactly. Thank you.

it's not like the guy had no notice that the brakes were shot. i think brakes being on fire is a pretty good clue that one should go no further.

Sure. And to continue on is stupid. But you don't go to state prison for stupid. Or at least you shouldn't go to state prison for stupid - only evil.

I think this thread has about run its course, don't you?

But George if it was some yahoo shooting his rifle randomly and the bullet hit some poor person 6 miles away and killed them don't you think you would be pushing for a jail term for such reckless behavior? At some point a persons callous disregard for the safety of others trumps any sense of mercy for that behavior...doesn't it?

 

[westwall]

Personally I prefer Impartial Justice to Blind Justice. Sort of a contradiction or oxymoron. Blind Justice. Either something is relevant or it is not. I vote for removing the blind fold and calibrating the scale. .... Unless you are into playing Poker wearing that blind fold.

Have to spread some more around darn it!

 

[Wicked Jester]

All the things you list in your OP on this thread are merely factors to be considered in measuring degrees of NEGLIGENCE. My original point was, it really doesn't matter how much NEGLIGENCE there is, so long as it is NELIGENCE ONLY. Imposing CRIMINAL sanctions for NEGLIGENT conduct is, in my opinion, inappropriate and wrong.

Come on George...The post accident inspection of the truck clearly shows that he was only running on half braking power. Only 5 of the 10 brakes were functioning properly long before he entered that road. 5 of 10 brakes to stop a 25 ton, loaded, double decker car hauler. There is no way in hell that he didn't know he was driving a time bomb.....He knew it before he entered that road, and CHOSE to drive it anyway. He then burned the 5 remaining brakes, and again CHOSE to continue taking tht weapon down that road.

It is no way different then a drunk CHOOSING to get behind the wheel. Or some idiot CHOOSING to load a bullet into a cylinder, spin it, and play russian roullete with somebody elses head.

The criminal negligence displayed by that idiot is appalling.

Bottom line, that road did not tell him to drive that road. It did not tell him to knowingly take an an obviously defective 25 ton WEAPON down that road.

I guess it goes without saying that one shouldn't take weapons with you on a road land-mined by malfeasance in construction to eschew all advice of engineers who showed mathematical proof ordinary brakes could not withstand the steep grade, when the mathematical probability that something could go wrong is, was, and will be as it is, astronomical, the laws of physics today being the same as they were back when the roller-coaster road was built. Or maybe they skipped the consultation process and paved a willy-nilly path cheap as possible?

That in no way erases that drivers criminal culpability. He CHOSE to criminally take that truck out on the highways, full well knowing the most important element to the trucks safety system, the ability to stop it, was fully compromised. He then again CHOSE to continue down that road after he burned up that trucks capability to stop at all.

The man is a criminal felon, and after seeing that post crash inspection report, he got off way too easy.

 

[George Costanza]

Exactly. Thank you.



Sure. And to continue on is stupid. But you don't go to state prison for stupid. Or at least you shouldn't go to state prison for stupid - only evil.

I think this thread has about run its course, don't you?

But George if it was some yahoo shooting his rifle randomly and the bullet hit some poor person 6 miles away and killed them don't you think you would be pushing for a jail term for such reckless behavior? At some point a persons callous disregard for the safety of others trumps any sense of mercy for that behavior...doesn't it?

Yes, I suppose it does. And if you have been reading all the posts on this lengthy and should-be-ended-because-it-has-more-than-run-its-course thread, (which is more than I have done), you would notice that I have backed away from my original position somewhat.

The problem with this strict liability stuff is that it is so often misused by prosecutors. I guess I picked a poor example for the OP. Believe me, people are prosecuted for vehicular manslaugher when they never should be - in simple accident cases where the victim was as much at fault as the defendant.