Posted on 05/26/2005 9:09:09 AM PDT by m1-lightning
Flowers and a melancholy note from grieving family members wilted in the rain on a telephone poll at the corner of Nesper Street and Ryan Avenue in Mayfair yesterday, just a few yards from where a young mother was fatally injured last month.
Sarah McGinley, 18, was pinned by an out-of-control car on her fiance's front lawn on April 17, just seconds after she tossed her 1-year-old daughter to safety. She died from her injuries a few hours later.
Yesterday morning, the District Attorney's Office announced it was filing charges against the driver, Megan Miller, 15, and her father, Richard Miller, 46.
With her father alongside her, Megan Miller was practicing driving in the parking lot of Abraham Lincoln High School when the car crashed through a fence, sped across an intersection and soared up the lawn, hitting McGinley. Miller did not have a learner's permit or a driver's license.
The teen is charged with being involved in an accident involving death or personal injury while not being properly licensed, and will be tried in juvenile court.
Her father is being charged with involuntary manslaughter and homicide by vehicle. He could face up to 12 years in prison, said D.A. spokeswoman Cathie Aboo-kire.
Both father and daughter surrendered to the police accident-investigation division yesterday afternoon, said the family's attorney, Fortunato Perri Jr.
"It is an impossibly difficult time for them," Perri said. "They have nothing but grief for McGinley's family."
The Millers are expected to have separate preliminary hearings within the next week, Perri said.
In both cases, "I think the judge will evaluate the situation and see it's nothing more than an accident. She lost control of the vehicle and was unable to stop what happened. It's a shame," he said.
Local criminal-defense attorney A. Charles Peruto said he believes that juvenile court will be kind to Megan Miller. "The most likely outcome is that they will defer adjudication. They'll leave her in limbo until she's 18 and then wipe her record clean," Peruto said.
The reason, he said, is that as a "young, nonindependent person," she was just following her father's instructions to practice driving.
District Attorney Lynne Abraham viewed the Millers' accident different from Peruto. She cited Pennsylvania law stating that drivers must obtain learner's permits before they can possess a driver's license. "Then and only then may you get behind the wheel of a lethal vehicle and drive the car," she said.
Abraham also faulted Richard Miller for allowing his daughter to drive his 1999 Mercury Grand Marquis, even though they were in a deserted parking lot. If Miller had denied his daughter a driving lesson, "that would have prevented a young mother from dying, and a child from being orphaned for her entire life."
McGinley's daughter, Victoria Wagner, is being cared for by her fiance and his parents.
Good God, just how do you learn that? Your dad takes you out and shows you. My dad did it on farm roads, Some dads did it in empty parking lots like this guy. Both are reasonable. There was an accident and there will be civil recourse but no one did anything criminal here.
Wrong again. Swerving to avoid debris, a deer, or anything in the road, does not give you the right to run into someone else. In other words, you may feel you are in the right, but you are not, and will be liable for any damages you cause by running into someone else in your maneuver to avoid hitting something.
Example: You're going down the highway and notice traffic is stopped in front of you. If you change lanes to avoid rear ending the stopped traffic in front of you, and you change lanes into someone else, you are not in the right, you are at fault and you will be held liable.
Where did you get your JD?
No not for the new face of FR where everyone but the poster is an idiot, criminal, and facing eternal damnation.
Does that give you the right to kill someone else by negligently swerving into someone else's lane?
There is no law anywhere in this country that would allow you to do that, and not be liable.
If prosecution of negligence was more aggressive, my bet is our society will become a true police state. When will speeding become 'attempted manslaughter'? Roughly 60% of drivers break the speed limit on a regular basis. All you need is a person to ride their bike out in front of one of them and 60% of America will be behind bars for negligent driving.
It happened to a resident here 3 years ago and she got 1 year in prison. The byciclist had no reflectors, was wearing dark colored clothing and was riding his bike on the highway at night. The lady that hit him, did not see him, but was cited for driving too fast for conditions and recieved 1 year for manslaughter. So are you ready to start procecuting every speeder out there?
Always trying to find negligence is the liberal way of thinking. It's already to the point that when someone trips over a branch and breaks their arm, they want to sue the one who planted the tree, sue the one responsible for cleaning the area, and sue the one that owns the property the tree is on.
If you want vehicle insurance rates to go down, try having a more extensive training program for driver's licenses rather than putting all of America in prison for mistakes.
This is what I love about FR. For practically any story from anywhere, we get info from someone with some first hand knowledge.
How astute. This forum has become a site for a bunch of Dimwits who believe everyone but themselves is either stupid, a criminal, or heading for everlasting damnation. Hence when a father takes his daughter to an empty parking lot to teach her the basics of operating a motor vehicle and a tragic unforeseeable accident occurs these same dimwits say the father and daughter are stupid dimwits who are criminals. The eternal damnation thing is in the works when they find out the father and daughter are Catholic.
Geeesh it was an accident and there is nothing left but for a civil court to ram it to the father as he is in the end civilly liable but he is not a freaking criminal.
This site is not a shadow of what it was in 98-99.
Uh yeah, that's a failure to stop. It's different than avoiding deer. Ever heard of following to closely... i.e. tailgating? It's your responsibility to stop when traffic in front of you stops. It's a whole different situation when someone or something moves in front of you from the side of the road. There is not enough time to stop or slow down. Failing to attempt to avoid such an accident can be negligence.
I'm curious if a child walks out into the road and you do not attempt avoid the child would you tell the police you hit him because you didn't want to take the chance of hitting another car by swerving?
I forgot to address that part. If your car is in someone else's lane for almost ANY reason you will be found liable. You would however have a claim against the deer (or its parents if it was a minor). Just pursue that one in court.
the University of Virginia.
"If prosecution of negligence was more aggressive, my bet is our society will become a true police state. "
Let me clarify. I think all acts of negligence resulting in actual damage to a person or property needs to be prosecuted equally and all of those negligent drivers need to be held accountable for their actions. As it stands right now we only prosecute aggresively those cases involving alcohol, even when there is no damage to a person or property. How legitimate is a DUI law that results in the loss of driving privilege for the potential damage, when actual negligent acts go unpunished even after damage is caused to another person or property?
"Always trying to find negligence is the liberal way of thinking. It's already to the point that when someone trips over a branch and breaks their arm, they want to sue the one who planted the tree, sue the one responsible for cleaning the area, and sue the one that owns the property the tree is on."
I'm not always trying to find negligence, I am trying to hold negligent persons responsible for their actions. Per my clarification above, if someone is negligent and causes damage to another person, they should be held responsible for that negligent act. If that were the case, people would take driving a lot more seriously, the law would be used appropriately (instead of being a revenue generating mechanism) and we would see those responsible for damage being punished.
No, but that's a moot point, because the odds are very good that I wouldn't be found negligent in the situation I described.
Actually you are very wrong. If you caused the collision, you caused the collision, regardless if you feel you were negligent or not. The party that sustains damages or injuries is not going to care what the reason was for running into them. If you cause a collision, and are found to be the cause, you will be at fault, you and your insurance company will be found liable. Now if you swerved to avoid hitting a cow and changed lanes causing an accident, you will be found liable, for damages or injuries, however, you can try to go after who ever owned the cow for failing to secure their animal. Believe it or not, if you swerved to avoid hitting a child in a crosswalk, and caused an accident with another vehicle, you again would be found liable for damages.
No, people in Driver's Ed class DO have a learner's permit before they get behind the wheel. They complete the basic first module of education in the class and sit for a written exam on rules of the road. They only get behind the wheel for instruction after passing the first test and obtaining a state permit.
If you swearve to avoid a child in a crosswalk, and you cause injuries or damages to someone else, you will be found liable. See 115.
In a PRIVATE parking lot ? On PRIVATE property ? I don't think so.
Now once they crossed into PUBLIC property, the street, then it was an illegal act.
No.
Do you feel equally bad for the father and daughter as well as the victim?
No.
the car crashed through a fence, sped across an intersection and soared up the lawn,
And dad never thought to pull the EMERGENCY BRAKE?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.