My dad hangs a jury

[gabosaurus]

Anyone remember the play and subsequent movie "12 Angry Men"? That is immediately what I thought of after talking to my dad tonight about the jury he was on this week.
The family of a young motorcycle driver were suing an older man for wrongful death. At least they were suing his insurance company. The older guy's car broke down and he left it on the outside shoulder. The motorcycle guy hit the back of the car and died on the spot.
There were a lot of gory pictures and tear jerking testimony from the family, who had hired a very high dollar lawyer. The older guy had never been to court and didn't quite know how to handle it.
The jury wanted to hang the older guy on the spot. My dad pointed out that driver was not wearing a helmet, was driving at a very high rate of speed and had been seen passing traffic on the shoulder before the accident. He felt the driver was at fault.

One other juror agreed with my dad. The others did not. It ended up a hung jury. When announced as such, the driver's mother started screaming at the jury and judge and had to be removed.
My sister has already requested movie rights. :D

[PostmodernProphet]

???....don't they have contributory negligence in your state?.....for example, where one party is decided to be 59% at fault and another 41%?

[Noir]

only 2 jurors were against and the jury was hung?!

[Immanuel]

From the details that Gabby gives to the accident, I would have been right there beside her dad. Sounds like a crock of shit to file a suit against a man who's car had broken down. Even in today's age, cars still do that.

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

From the details that Gabby gives to the accident, I would have been right there beside her dad. Sounds like a crock of shit to file a suit against a man who's car had broken down. Even in today's age, cars still do that.

Immie

Would you feel differently if the car was broken down in a regular lane instead of the shoulder? This is a pet peeve of mine. I think most times (not always) people know that thery are running out of gas/have a flat/ the car is about to stall/trouble lights come on, etc., in time to pull over. Yet they refuse to pull over, and then the car dies in the middle of traffic.

[Kathianne]

only 2 jurors were against and the jury was hung?!
Has to be unanimous, if even one disagrees and no consensus is reached, the jury is hung.

[Immanuel]

Would you feel differently if the car was broken down in a regular lane instead of the shoulder? This is a pet peeve of mine. I think most times (not always) people know that thery are running out of gas/have a flat/ the car is about to stall/trouble lights come on, etc., in time to pull over. Yet they refuse to pull over, and then the car dies in the middle of traffic.

No, I would not. People's cars quit all the time. Sometimes (but rarely unless it is stop and go traffic or at a traffic light/stop sign) in the middle of a lane. When a car quits and is moving, it is still possible to get it to the side of the road. And believe me, I have no mercy for anyone who ties up traffic on MY road! :D Just ask all the CSX engineers I have saluted! And my goodness, don't you dare drive in the fast lane twenty miles (make that 5 mph below) an hour below the speed limit! Or don't get on MY road with a damned cell phone in your hand! Get the picture? :D

But it does happen. Sometimes a car dies and there is nothing that the young woman with two children can do but get out of the car and to safety. It happens.

Even without the information that the motorcyclist was seen passing cars on the shoulder of the road, it is apparent that the guy on the bike wasn't paying attention and even though I am not a biker, I know that bikes are dangerous and the rider has to pay more attention than normal. From the info in to OP, the biker was 100% at fault in this case.

Immie

[darin]

Generally I'd agree w/ Gabby's Dad, based on the limited info - EXCEPT I'd NEVER put stockin "...had been seen driving at a high rate of speed and passing other cars" because it's irrelevant to the guy hitting the car on the shoulder.

I HATE "eyewitness" testimony especially in traffic deals.

I know of a guy - have met him several times - who was charged with reckless driving for helping a crash victim.


I headed north on 405 around Noon. I'm just cruising in the left lane going with the flow of traffic. Before reaching the exit the car in front of me begins slowing down. As I approach a clearing in the right lane I check my mirror and then head-check to the right and begin to merge over into the right.

I'm now fully in the right lane of three (far left being the carpool lane). I slowly begin to merge back into the left lane in front of the car I was just following. As i'm moving left (I had not even crossed the white dashed line yet), I see a flash to my right... keep in mind, i'm not even fully out of the right lane yet. To avoid the speeding car I quickly swerve into the left lane. A CRX continues past on my right (VERY QUICKLY) with his right tires on the shoulder and his left tires in the lane I was just in. I notice as he is moving past me (from the shoulder) the back end of his car begins to come around on his right side sending him spinning counter clockwise.

I hit my brakes hard as he comes sliding across the front end of my bike. His vehicle must have been less than 5 feet from me (seemed like Much less at the time). I continue to brake hard to avoid hitting his out of controll car. After shooting across the left lane and the carpool lane his vehicle then he slams into the middle barricade . His fiberglass hood broke into several large pieces and were flying past me. His bumper was also torn from the car upon impact with the barricade blocking the carpool lane. After hitting the center barricade so hard it sent the vehicle back in front of me going from left across all three lanes. I had to avoid the debris his car left in the road as well. I'm still slowing down, again trying to avoid the spinning car and then hear tires squeeling from behind me. I then realize my bike stops much faster than a car so just as the CRX slides clear of the left lane I get back on the throttle and go around the left side of the CRX. After safely getting clear of the accident and slowing down I pull onto the shoulder of the highway about fifty yards ahead of the scene of the accident.

I quickly got off my bike removed my helmet and begin walking towards the accident to make sure nobody's hurt. As I look back I see the car that was directly behind me in the left lane (silver BMW) made it through without a problem but as I walked further he drove off! One of the cars behind us hit the CRX hard enough that it was immobile and blocking the right lane of traffic. The CRX stopped sideways facing west on the mound of dirt between the on-ramp and freeway. As I get closer I see others w/ cellphones calling for help and thankfully everyone appears free of any injury. The CRX seems totalled with almost every panel dented up. Once I get to the scene of the accident there's already a bunch of witnesses on out of their cars helping out. As soon as i'm within ear shot I hear one of the witnesses accuse me of "street-racing" ?Another witness arrives on the scene who was already in the process of calling the police as she witnessed the CRX driving recklessly before the accident by weaving through traffic for a ways until he began passing me and crashed. After the witnesses talked amongst themselves for a short perior of time their stories changed and now all of them claimed that I was racing with the CRX. I plea my case to them calmly and rationally telling them the first time I was even aware of the CRX was when he was spinning out of controll in front of me.

The officer arrives on the scene about 15 minutes later and begins to talk to the witnesses. I stand aside and wait my turn to speak. He approached us both and immediately starts accusing us both of racing. I can't blame him as that was the story he heard and according to one of the witnesses the CRX had been driving recklessly for quite a ways. Once he asked me what happened I begin to tell my side of the story and not even four words into it he interupts me and tells me "You're a liar" He then asks me "why were you racing", again I begin to answer but again he cuts me off and tells me to "stop lying". He replies "so tell me why you were going 95 mph"

I calmly reply "I was traveling in the left lane for quite some time traveling with the flow of traffic and begin to merge right...."

He cuts me off again "so then why do I have three people saying you were both racing and going 95"

I answer "They must have seen the CRX going 95 and racing through traffic"

Immediately he responds "you're under arrest for reckless driving. Get against the car"

The officer then proceeds to pat me down, cuff me, read my rights and put me in the back of his car. I wait for awhile while he talks some more with the driver of the CRX (who was un-insured, and just got a no-insurance ticket two days prior to the accident) The tow trucks arrive and begin clearing the cars. He finally gets back in the car and lets me explain exactly what happened. After three more attempts to tell my story for the first time i'm able to finish. As the officer gets out of the car he tells me that he's still convinced I was "street racing". After the officer filled out some more paperwork and letting me "think about starting to tell the truth" he comes back and I tell him "I don't know what else to tell you, this is what happened" He comes to the back of the car and tells me "here's the deal. You are now "un-arrested" and can go home. But once I review the written statements of the witnesses don't be surprised if you get a ticket in the mail." I walk to my bike and ride home.

Considering I never saw the CRX until it was spinning out of controll in front of me I can only guess the witnesses saw him "racing" through traffic. When the CRX was passing me the driver lost controll and the witnesses made the assumption that I was racing as well because when the driver of the CRX lost controll of his vehicle happened to be the same time I was being passed.

[manu1959]

???....don't they have contributory negligence in your state?.....for example, where one party is decided to be 59% at fault and another 41%?

california is a no fault state...

[manu1959]

Generally I'd agree w/ Gabby's Dad, based on the limited info - EXCEPT I'd NEVER put stockin "...had been seen driving at a high rate of speed and passing other cars" because it's irrelevant to the guy hitting the car on the shoulder.

I HATE "eyewitness" testimony especially in traffic deals.

I know of a guy - have met him several times - who was charged with reckless driving for helping a crash victim.

let me see if i have this correct a crx..a honda...that starts to rattle apart at 70 mph 9i had one) caught and passed a motorcycle.....what was your buddy riding a moped....

[Yurt]

california is a no fault state...

no, cali is a pure comparative fault state, so pmp's contrib neg would apply/same thing

[Yurt]

Anyone remember the play and subsequent movie "12 Angry Men"? That is immediately what I thought of after talking to my dad tonight about the jury he was on this week.
The family of a young motorcycle driver were suing an older man for wrongful death. At least they were suing his insurance company. The older guy's car broke down and he left it on the outside shoulder. The motorcycle guy hit the back of the car and died on the spot.
There were a lot of gory pictures and tear jerking testimony from the family, who had hired a very high dollar lawyer. The older guy had never been to court and didn't quite know how to handle it.
The jury wanted to hang the older guy on the spot. My dad pointed out that driver was not wearing a helmet, was driving at a very high rate of speed and had been seen passing traffic on the shoulder before the accident. He felt the driver was at fault.

One other juror agreed with my dad. The others did not. It ended up a hung jury. When announced as such, the driver's mother started screaming at the jury and judge and had to be removed.
My sister has already requested movie rights. :D

are you sure more did not agree with your dad? in ca a civil case can get a verdict with 3/4 of the jury

[gabosaurus]

I don't think it was a civil case. I think it was for criminal negligence. Or something like that.

[diuretic]

Has to be civil gab, you used the word "sue" that implies an action in tort.

No juries in my state for civil matters, some states in Australia do have them though.

I have to agree with your father too. I'm not sure of some of the terms used "outside shoulder" and what have you. But if the car has broken down and the driver has taken care to make sure it's off the carriageway (my term for the bit vehicles actually use) and has done what he can do to - as much as practicable - minimise the danger of the stationary vehicle then I have to ask why he should be found negligent. I know in some countries in Europe you have to carry reflective triangular signs which you put behind and in front of the vehicle (we don't have that law because the cops would forever be taking reports about thieves stealing the signs) but that's probably not required in your state.

[avatar4321]

My question is how can anyone blame the old guy for this? Seems to me to be entirely the motorcyclists fault. Where the hell are you supposed to leave a car that's broken down if not on the shoulder, in the middle of traffic???? The kid shouldnt have been in the shoulder to begin with.

I cant for the life of me figure out what this older guy supposedly did or why anyone could find him responsible.

[Immanuel]

My question is how can anyone blame the old guy for this? Seems to me to be entirely the motorcyclists fault. Where the hell are you supposed to leave a car that's broken down if not on the shoulder, in the middle of traffic???? The kid shouldnt have been in the shoulder to begin with.

I cant for the life of me figure out what this older guy supposedly did or why anyone could find him responsible.

I don't mean to throw sticks at lawyers, but my guess is that some ambulance chaser convinced the family to file suit to see just how much the insurance company would settle for. Probably told them that insurance companies would prefer to settle rather than take their chances in court. The insurance company probably called his bluff.

Immie

[KitchenKitten99]

Anyone remember the play and subsequent movie "12 Angry Men"? That is immediately what I thought of after talking to my dad tonight about the jury he was on this week.
The family of a young motorcycle driver were suing an older man for wrongful death. At least they were suing his insurance company. The older guy's car broke down and he left it on the outside shoulder. The motorcycle guy hit the back of the car and died on the spot.
There were a lot of gory pictures and tear jerking testimony from the family, who had hired a very high dollar lawyer. The older guy had never been to court and didn't quite know how to handle it.
The jury wanted to hang the older guy on the spot. My dad pointed out that driver was not wearing a helmet, was driving at a very high rate of speed and had been seen passing traffic on the shoulder before the accident. He felt the driver was at fault.

One other juror agreed with my dad. The others did not. It ended up a hung jury. When announced as such, the driver's mother started screaming at the jury and judge and had to be removed.
My sister has already requested movie rights. :D

I agree with your dad, too Gabby.

I worked for a major insurance company doing claims processing. Basically if your car or toy (sled, ATV, boat, etc) was either totalled or stolen and not recovered, I processed the titles for those claims for the Metro Area.

I pretty much would have to read the claim, to make sure we have settled completely and what happened to the vehicle and what damage there was to determine where we send it-to auction or sell to parts yard.

Anyhow, in reading through the claims, I pretty much got an inside view into how the fault is determined and how accident reconstructions happen, how police reports come into play, etc.

I agree that there wasn't a reason for the biker to be on the shoulder. How did he come to hit the car? Was it at night? If that was the case, he was then over-running his headlights and that would indicate speeding.

If he hit the parked car from behind, it is usually viewed as the same as a rear-end collision. Doesn't matter if the car is stopped or not. Fault lies with driver of the car/vehicle that struck the other.

The shoulder, in most places, is also known as the 'breakdown lane'. This space is specifically designated for people to stop safely to repair a tire or call for a tow. If the old man had been changing a tire at the time of the accident, would this still be viewed as his fault? Either way, the car was immobile at the time, and was not immediately able to move.

Sad part is the scumbag lawyer (redundant, i know) preyed upon a grieving family for monetary gain by convincing them that this 'accident' was somehow the fault of someone else who wasn't even there. Pathetic.