I didn't mean for this to get so serious, but I didn't read anything about something like this happening previously. The incident led to testing to see if he had a brain tumor, which he did. No one said anything about the insanity defense, as far as I know. Insanity defense is usually when you murder someone or attempt and then claim you didn't know what you were doing, is my understanding. But it's still intentional at the time. Most people don't INTENTIONALLY hit someone with a car, so I don't think the insanity defense would apply. I was only commenting on the $50 ticket part--I don't care how much of a brain tumor you have. I find it hard to believe you would be that oblivious to someone landing on your windshield, even if you didn't realize you hit him.
--- In [email protected], "David Patch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Seems to me that a medical explanation could be an affirmative defense > in a case like this against criminal or motor vehicle charges, since it > would eliminate the element of willfulness or recklessness. Insanity > defenses result in people being confined for treatment, not as > punishment. In the case of a brain tumor, the standard treatment is > different from that for mental illness. > > The person struck by Novak's car could still make a reasonable claim > for injury compensation against Novak or his insurance policy. And if > such an incident occurred involving someone who knew he was prone to > blacking out or otherwise losing situational awareness, but neglected > to obtain treatment, than that would constitute recklessness. >
