On Nov 29, 2007 4:30 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We have a charge here called "driving without due care and attention" which > covers that sort of thing. I'm rather amazed that a cop would say that > drifting into the shoulder and hitting someone doesn't involve a certain > amount of negligence, since this is the way precedents get set, and > negligence is the cause of virtually 100% of collisions. Now, in your neck > of the woods, a person can probably use that in their favour if they "drift > onto the shoulder" and take out a state trooper who is cutting someone a > ticket.
My recollection from my days in law is that negligence is defined as "not taking due care", "due care" being defined as that standard of care which would be expected of "the reasonable man" (now the reasonable person). It seems to me that the actions of the driver in the case mentioned by Christian fall squarely within the legal definition of negligence. It may not have been criminally actionable (although I can't imagine why not) but it was certainly a civil wrong. I'm sure that even without being charged, she could/should have been sued. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
