http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=7083808
It's time these fender-bender killers be brought to justice!
Man gets rear-ended and dies of heart attack. Family wants manslaughter charges!
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=7083808
It's time these fender-bender killers be brought to justice!
Originally Posted by proud gonzo
I think they are reaching on this one.
Hm. He's certainly civilly liable under the eggshell plaintiff rule. Defendant must take the plaintiff as he finds him.
Need to take a look at the Texas homicide statute.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
Probably can't get the conviction here.
Texas Penal Code § 19 defines both manslaughter and negligent homicide and appends two different standards of mens rea. Under manslaughter, it's recklessly causes the death of another. Under negligent, it's criminally negligently causes the death of another.
Negligence assumes a reasonable man standard. The mens rea of negligence should be applied to both components of actus reus: negligently causes and negligently death of another.
I think you're going to have a hard time convincing a jury that a reasonable man would know that the result of the fender-bender would be a death.
I guess the prosecutor could generalize the fender-bender to the class of all wrecks and argue that the result of driving negligently is reasonably the death of another.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
I always try to hit teh young punks.
Don't beat yourself up over this. It's not your fault. Dammit, that dude was old. That's what old people do. They die.
If thats all took to get him to kick...His next good bowel movement more than likely would have done it.....
Hey... maybe T BOONE can pony up and start a Stilleater newspaper... but the players would probably just use it to roll the weed.
I implied the eggshell plaintiff rule, but did not mention it by name...lost me some points there.
If I am right, then religious fundamentalists will not go to Heaven, because there is no Heaven. If THEY are right, then they will not go to Heaven, because they are hypocrites.
-Isaac Asimov
Death Panel? Anyone.
I wish this board had a Death Panel sometimes...
If I am right, then religious fundamentalists will not go to Heaven, because there is no Heaven. If THEY are right, then they will not go to Heaven, because they are hypocrites.
-Isaac Asimov
Heh. You said "rear-ended."
CONSARNIT, VeeJay... you beat me to it.
Seriously? You lost points because you couldn't come up with specific name "eggshell plaintiff" when you correctly cited a case applying it and correctly applied it to the facts?I implied the eggshell plaintiff rule, but did not mention it by name...lost me some points there.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
Sadly
If I am right, then religious fundamentalists will not go to Heaven, because there is no Heaven. If THEY are right, then they will not go to Heaven, because they are hypocrites.
-Isaac Asimov
First off, nothing is certain here. This is not even close to being a sure thing and causation is a big problem for the plaintiff. This extortion attempt will work, if, and only if, the plaintiff can adequately link the heart failure to the wreck. I'm quite certain there are plenty of cardiologists who will opine the guy was a dead man walking at the time of the accident and the wreck had nothing to do with it.
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever they can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser; in fees, expenses and waste of time." -- Abraham Lincoln, (1809-1865) Lawyer and President who saved the United States.
"Without opportunities on the part of the poor to obtain expert legal advice, it is idle to talk of equality before the law"-- Justice Chas. Evans Hughes
Are not we all?I'm quite certain there are plenty of cardiologists who will opine the guy was a dead man walking
I thought nothing was certain?
You are correct. I should have said "Assuming that the heart attack resulted from the crash, he is certainly civilly liable under the eggshell plaintiff rule."
I was more speaking to the defense that the heart attack was an unexpected result of a crash while assuming that the shock and surprise of the crash is what caused his ticker to go kerflooey.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
Stoopid noob lawyers.I thought nothing was certain?
You are correct. I should have said "Assuming that the heart attack resulted from the crash, he is certainly civilly liable under the eggshell plaintiff rule."
I was more speaking to the defense that the heart attack was an unexpected result of a crash while assuming that the shock and surprise of the crash is what caused his ticker to go kerflooey.
"Yea, and the shins of the wicked were smote."-Lil 22:18
and behold I looked in the sky, and saw a rider on a pale horse, the rider's name was death, and Lil Sooner followed after,....Revalations
Let this be a lesson to you...what with finals approaching. Think. Then write. Answer the question presented in terms of each element of the crime or tort. That way, you won't lose points. "IRAC"I thought nothing was certain?
You are correct. I should have said "Assuming that the heart attack resulted from the crash, he is certainly civilly liable under the eggshell plaintiff rule."
I was more speaking to the defense that the heart attack was an unexpected result of a crash while assuming that the shock and surprise of the crash is what caused his ticker to go kerflooey.
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever they can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser; in fees, expenses and waste of time." -- Abraham Lincoln, (1809-1865) Lawyer and President who saved the United States.
"Without opportunities on the part of the poor to obtain expert legal advice, it is idle to talk of equality before the law"-- Justice Chas. Evans Hughes
Great. Now we need a politics forum AND a lawyerin' forum.
Posting Permissions
