Don't be too hard on the victims, be they calorically challenged or family of
sniper victims who appear to be intellectually challenged. In both cases,
there is somewhere a lawyer who took the case and encouraged the plaintiffs,
probably thinking that a small part of a big settlement was better than
nothing on a case he or she really shouldn't expect to win.
Years ago Bob took a college business law course, which turned out to be the
"hobby" of a noted criminal defense lawyer. From time to time he fielded
questions such as "how can you defend people that you know to be guilty of
awful things." The message that came back was that as a defense lawyer, you
do not have to make sure the defendant is presented as innocent when he
isn't, but you do have to defend the law against setting of precedents that
are detriment to the law as a living thing and that deny the defendant his or
her right to a fair trial. He cited the case of a guy who had admittedly
driven the car in a robbery where a security guard was shot to death. Carlo
argued that his client could not be charged with first degree (capital)
murder because he never actually saw the victim, and was not responsible for
his death. He was convicted of other charges which meant that he will be in
prison for a long time yet to come, but he isn't living on Death Row, as the
guy with the gun is. Carlo must be rolling in his grave at some of these
recent court decisions.
Problem here is that it is expensive to appear in court and fight a lawsuit,
even a spurious one. And if you think you know the law, forget it. Court
isn't like Perry Mason and if it were, the name of the "real perp" would be
suppressed. For companies like McDonalds, settling the coffee spill thing
was cheaper than fighting it in court, but it established a precedent of
their "accepting responsibility" when they probably didn't have to.
We don't need legislation to keep people from using cell phones, doing
makeup, eating, or talking with their hands when driving a car. What we do
need is vehicle codes that are enforced in these areas as inattention. While
picking up a cell phone and conducting a brief conversation while driving
isn't necessarily harmful, we've all been behind the (probably lawyer) who
consults files, waves his hands, and shouts into the phone while weaving his
or her way down the street in traffic, supposedly not hurting anything. And
poeple who are paying more attention to anything than driving are a menace,
no matter what it is that is claiming the attention. The vehicle code
addresses inattention and distraction, and cops know the numbers as well as
they know 502 (DWI in California). They just don't use them. Or maybe the
lawyers know they can fix them????
I just can't believe people can drive that badly without being caught.
Wonder what happens if you indicate on the accident report that the other
driver was using a cell phone while driving and slammed the brakes on
suddenly for no apparent reason. I think you are still responsible.
Annice & Bob
1960 Bugeye (Mk. IV in disguise) "The Sprite"
1966 Sprite Mk. III (Still in Boxes) "Trevor"
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/spridgets
|