Negligent Homicide

[Irish mist]

So which "theory" is it ? Was Mr. Thompson not keeping a proper lookout, or was he speeding ? Seems like the state is throwing pasta against the wall here to see if it sticks ! I've read a little bit about this case. There was no alcohol involved, and from what I can tell Mr. Thompson is a responsible businessman & airline pilot. Heavy rain & fog......seems like an accident to me unless the state has some facts, and not some "theory".

In any case following the Blizzard trial I don't envy Mr. Thompson. With the public outraged over her sentence the courts might be looking to make an example of someone.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Irish mist

So which "theory" is it ? Was Mr. Thompson not keeping a proper lookout, or was he speeding ? Seems like the state is throwing pasta against the wall here to see if it sticks ! I've read a little bit about this case. There was no alcohol involved, and from what I can tell Mr. Thompson is a responsible businessman & airline pilot. Heavy rain & fog......seems like an accident to me unless the state has some facts, and not some "theory".

In any case following the Blizzard trial I don't envy Mr. Thompson. With the public outraged over her sentence the courts might be looking to make an example of someone.

Now that I've read it, and the news article isn't very forthcoming, but my take on it (in accord with FLL) is based on this key sentence:

"...At the time of the crash, Lt. Terrence Kinneen of Troop D said Howard lost control of her car which left the highway, went into the median and struck a tree on the driver's side..."

That she "lost control of her car" should tell us that her car was in motion (and not stopped on the highway).

What likely happened is that Thompson was traveling faster—perhaps "way" much faster—than Howard, and struck her car from behind under conditions too fast for the allowed speed. (In agreement with FLL).

Under "rear-ender" conditions, it's possible to lose control even at slow speeds, but it's conceivable that the impact threw Howard from the driver's position. Adding: Without seatbelts, it's not easy to steer from the passenger footwell.

In automobile racing, this can be used to a racer's advantage.

It's seen often-enough in NASCAR, but "punting another car into the bushes" is frowned upon in road racing. "Punting" accelerates the leading car (the "puntee") into loss of control. The advantage goes to the "punter", whose car is automatically slowed adequately to make the corner.

Recently in Formula 1, a team manager advised a driver to "take out" another driver using this technique— —over a radio monitored by race officials .

Very "ungentlemanly", but automobile racing championships—worth million$—have been won in this way.

Of course, the State is too cheap to pay for an expert with knowledge of the dynamics of auto crashes but Attorney Moir needs only to shake out one "expert" who can tell the best story for the defense.

"The Truth" in our legal system does not appear "in the middle"—some have been fooled into that belief. Our system was designed for profit.

[fatlazyless]

Driving down Route 93 tonight at about 8:05-pm, which was about sunset or so, and still light out, a large black, young adult moose was walking fast down the middle of the highway for a hundred yards before exiting. Heading south, just south of Exit 27, I was alone on the road with no other vehicles nearby so I slowed to a crawl and turned on my 4-way flashers and kept an eye on the moose just up ahead and the rear view mirror as well, watching for drivers unaware and a possible rear ender into me. A Chevy Suburban slows to a stop in the left hand lane just next to me, gets very close like 20' from the moose, and someone on the passenger side sticks his head out the window and starts yelling at the big moose. By the way, he looked a lot like former Governor John Sununu. Moose soon runs off into the woods, probably annoyed or scared of the person yelling at it to move along or whatever. Traffic resumes....no problems...end of story.

My question: Had someone hit me from behind while I am moving forward at about 5-mph following the moose for one hundred yards, w/ 4-way flashers on and waiting for it to be safe to pass the moose, would that be covered by my comprehensive coverage, or by the car striking me from behind? Is a moose an extenuating circumstance?

[Hermit Cover]

Yes! (And I'm also curious about John Sunumoose)

[upthesaukee]

is also know as OTC coverage, Other Than Collision. Collision coverage would be your vehicle colliding with another vehicle or object (such as a tree, rock, wall, bridge, etc). If you do have collision coverage, you can put a claim in for your damage through your insurance company, and they will subrogate (go after) the other guy's insurance company to recover the money. If there is a question as to comparative negligence (you are partly to blame), your company may withhold your deductible until they get reimbursement.
If you do not have collision, you may go directly after the other insurance company.
In either case, you most likely will not be charged any points on your license. However, too many not at fault accidents, and your company may take a really close look at continuing coverage for you (whole different thread, not appropriate for this forum).

[Skip]

Today's article sheds much more light on this collision. Apparently the defendant's on board vehicle computer shows a speed of 83 MPH at time of impact, and that the vehicle travelled an additional 1/10 th of a mile after the collision and air bag deployment.

Obviously a speed of 83 MPH at anytime, but particularly when heavy weather and limited visibility was present, is damning evidence against the defendant.

Using data from on board vehicular computers is an interesting and rapidly growing means of obtaining evidence in cases like these.

And as can be expected, the attorney representing the defendant will attack the data that was collected.

The full story can be read HERE.

[VtSteve]

Moir stated no evidence of speed other than the download. But the 83 mph vehicle came to a stop some 500 plus feet from the scene of the accident, after making contact with the car. Skidmarks and witnesses should add to the scene a bit.

(my Garmin unit in my boat shows a top speed of 254 mph this year).

No decimal point either

[Skip]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

...(my Garmin unit in my boat shows a top speed of 254 mph this year).

No decimal point either

Just so folks don't get confused, these computers obtain their data from onboard sensors, including the sensors that control air bag deployment. They are notGPS based.

And I am sure that the State will introduce physical and possibly witness accounts that, according to their investigastion, corroborate the evidence obtained by the computer download.

Point?

There is usually much more to the story then the brief synopsis presented, especially in the initial coverage, of many news media accounts of interesting events.

[NoBozo]

Lets assume for the sake of speculation, that the car had a Runaway Gas Pedal like the Toyota Prious recently in the news. ...AND a couple of other makes from Detroit not nearly as publicized as the Toyota's.

Would this case still be a crime..? NB

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Lets assume for the sake of speculation, that the car had a Runaway Gas Pedal like the Toyota Prious recently in the news. ...AND a couple of other makes from Detroit not nearly as publicized as the Toyota's.

Would this case still be a crime..? NB

Haven't heard much of that lately. Nor the gazillions of other make's recalls either. I guess most people have found the brake, except in this case.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...Skidmarks and witnesses should add to the scene a bit..."

Witnesses can give contradictory and unreliable testimony.

With the relatively-new automobile braking "ABS" pulsing-systems, skidmarks are history.