Massimo Carrera (4 Viewers)

[Zlatan]

Maybe, but the case law, at least in the US is not in his favor. Rule of thumb, try not to hit pedestrians with your car.

Exactly, pedestrians are always protected more by the law.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Enron]

Exactly, pedestrians are always protected more by the law.

This accident happened to occur in a work zone, located in a particularly congested area.

 

[ALC]

Exactly, pedestrians are always protected more by the law.

Nah, if you walk into the street anywhere other than an intersection and with a red light, it's your fault. Pedestrians aren't protected more as far as I know.

 

[Enron]

Nah, if you walk into the street anywhere other than an intersection and with a red light, it's your fault. Pedestrians aren't protected more as far as I know.

Don't know much then do you?

Hint: Due care.

 

[Hust]

Off topic. ^

 

[Enron]

Off topic. ^

I'll allow it.

 

[Hust]

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Don't know bout the lawyer, but you can definitely get jail time for accidents. Because it's not just abouw what you did or didn't do, its also about what you should or shouldnt have done.

yes as displayed by aaron's email, by liability is determined by degree of negligence and a good lawyer will show that your negligence is minimal

Maybe, but the case law, at least in the US is not in his favor. Rule of thumb, try not to hit pedestrians with your car.

good lawyer

 

[Bianconero_Aus]

Nah, if you walk into the street anywhere other than an intersection and with a red light, it's your fault. Pedestrians aren't protected more as far as I know.

Not in Australia mate. Some fucked up laws with regards to this.

 

[Zlatan]

To make a parallel with civil law, specifically tort law, a car is classified as a" "dangerous thing " meaning that it has the potential of causing damage to others. And as a dangerous thing you have stricter tort liability for it than for other things.

 

[Enron]

yes as displayed by aaron's email, by liability is determined by degree of negligence and a good lawyer will show that your negligence is minimal

Negligence isn't really the first determinate in a criminal proceeding, it's way down the line and probably only applicable in conditions where there is not a death. Which is usually done by a process of elimination. A death by automobile almost always results in a degree of homicide. In a civil case you argue negligence, if indeed the cause of the accident is a negligent driver, then the driver is therefore liable for damages done to the victim and his family. From that point on you're dealing strictly with percentage. Degrees of liability and what not.

So your comment that "a good lawyer" is the answer to this sort of case is correct in that a better attorney generally leaves with a better outcome. But it is also extremely naive, smacking of someone who has read a few too many Grisham novels and has spent minimal time in a contemporary rural courtroom.

There are many issues out of an attorney's hand. In this case, the truck driver was not a local, the construction worker was. That reason alone was probably why he got the maximum sentence in the criminal case.

---------- Post Merged at 00:26 ----------

To make a parallel with civil law, specifically tort law, a car is classified as a" "dangerous thing " meaning that it has the potential of causing damage to others. And as a dangerous thing you have stricter tort liability for it than for other things.

Some case law equates it to driving a big weapon around.

 

[ALC]

that's ridiculous. the driver could be totally innocent

 

[Salvo]

I know a guy who lives in Sicily, he was driving on a dark rural road and and an elderly couple both dressed in black crossed the road, he did not see them due to the lighting being very poor. He got off.

 

[Enron]

that's ridiculous. the driver could be totally innocent

Oh I agree. But they ruled that since he was in a work zone in the middle of the day he should have been more alert.

I know a guy who lives in Sicily, he was driving on a dark rural road and and an elderly couple both dressed in black crossed the road, he did not see them due to the lighting being very poor. He got off.

Every case is different. In the US, most state laws state that vehicles have due cause to yield to pedestrians. I know very little about European law.

Oh and did he kill them?

 

[Salvo]

Yes he did. Here in Australia it is your duty to avoid any obstacles that may present themselves on the road but every case varies.

Then again I also know a guy in Sicily who was arrested and sentence to 20 years in jail for having 40kg of Coke and a farm full of weed, he only served a year and after that was merely under house arrest.

 

[Enron]

Yes he did. Here in Australia it is your duty to avoid any obstacles that may present themselves on the road but every case varies.

It was probably deemed unavoidable or something like that. It's good to hear the law can make exceptions every now and then.

 

[Salvo]

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Negligence isn't really the first determinate in a criminal proceeding, it's way down the line and probably only applicable in conditions where there is not a death. Which is usually done by a process of elimination. A death by automobile almost always results in a degree of homicide. In a civil case you argue negligence, if indeed the cause of the accident is a negligent driver, then the driver is therefore liable for damages done to the victim and his family. From that point on you're dealing strictly with percentage. Degrees of liability and what not.

So your comment that "a good lawyer" is the answer to this sort of case is correct in that a better attorney generally leaves with a better outcome. But it is also extremely naive, smacking of someone who has read a few too many Grisham novels and has spent minimal time in a contemporary rural courtroom.

There are many issues out of an attorney's hand. In this case, the truck driver was not a local, the construction worker was. That reason alone was probably why he got the maximum sentence in the criminal case.

---------- Post Merged at 00:26 ----------



Some case law equates it to driving a big weapon around.

so wait you are not talking letter of the law then, you are taking into account external elements such as jury bias. In the cases like these it's all about establishing a degree of negligence or reckless behavior. Thats why if you run over and kill a highway crosser you dont even go to the station.

 

[baggio]

Should have made his subs earlier. Didn't like the fact that Vucinic and Pirlo were made to slug it out for the whole 90 with Shaktar around the corner. in fact, he should've kept the tempo going with new players inserted into the game, before we switched off and gave Roma more possession.

 

[Raz]

Should have made his subs earlier. Didn't like the fact that Vucinic and Pirlo were made to slug it out for the whole 90 with Shaktar around the corner. in fact, he should've kept the tempo going with new players inserted into the game, before we switched off and gave Roma more possession.

Let's not overestimet this rotation thing. It's not like the 30 mins would change the world for the players next game.