Why didn't the motorcycle-enthusiast's group also go after the county for the poor sign-age? as it seems to be a contributing factor, or at least 'Bob' should sue them.
my sister's neighbor's story
- Thread starter farmkid
- Start date
I'm not sure Bob has a case against the people for putting up signs improperly. His injuries were too distant and not really foreseeable. The family of the motorcyclist might have a case, provided you can sue the county.
I'm not sure he did cause the death of another person. As I said originally, this is the story as it was related to me. If it is as it was told, it was not his fault. In other words, he did not make a mistake, so therefore he did not cause the death. You could just as easily make the argument that the death was the fault of the victim because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't know all the details, but from what I have heard, Bob didn't break any laws and was exercising caution due to the poor road conditions. Whether he exercised enough caution or not, I suppose, is the question, and the answer determines whether or not it's his fault.
I wasn't asking a legal question at all. If I remember right, you are a lawyer, so you naturally think of everything in a legal framework. I was asking a moral question, regardless of the law.
Would the motorcyclist have died had your friend not been there? That's the question you have to answer. It likely won't be a definite "yes" or "no," but I think you would be hard-pressed to claim he didn't contribute to the man's death, even if he wasn't the proximal cause.
^^^ What I was going to say almost verbatim.
Um, why do you hate freedom of speech?
If he was sued by the family he would have a cause of action against them.
In lawschool, yeah. The moral analysis was most of my post, but I did it from a different point of reference. I took the prosecutor's point of view. Clearly there are people who agree with the prosecutor that there was a crime. Some of them were on the jury. The rest of the jury still might have though there was a crime, they just might not have thought the Prosecutor proved his case sufficiently. From this point of view, should the prosecutor have to be punished for doing his job even if the consequence is something bad for someone else?
Cause of action against the county? What would it be?
Well it would depend. Was the county doing the work on the road? Or was it an independent party?
Either way, he may have a claim for indemnification of some kind if they were negligent. Some sort of active/passive action in which if the defendant is found negligent all or most of the damages are the resdponsibility of the other party.
Ooh right, good point. I was treating it as some kind of direct negligence in harming him (where I didn't think the negligence could be regarded as the proximate cause). I still don't quite think it's an active/passive situation since he would have had to commit the tort directly. But I at least see where you're going with it.
What did this group of motorcycle enthusiasts do other than voice their opinion that someone they consider a criminal should be prosecuted? How could that ever be illegal, immoral or wrong in any other reasonable way?
Depends on who "he" is. lol
Yeah, these pronouns are getting a bit confusing.
If it had been a mechanic who screwed up and cut his breaks and he's only liable because he had a duty to ensure his car was functioning properly, then I could see it being an active/passive thing and the driver could get it all back from the mechanic were he sued. However, the signs thing is a bit different in my mind. He still drove the car and was not fully aware of his surroundings even if, but for the signs not being there, the accident would not have occurred.
If it had been a mechanic who screwed up and cut his breaks and he's only liable because he had a duty to ensure his car was functioning properly, then I could see it being an active/passive thing and the driver could get it all back from the mechanic were he sued. However, the signs thing is a bit different in my mind. He still drove the car and was not fully aware of his surroundings even if, but for the signs not being there, the accident would not have occurred.
Similar threads
