Girl, Dad Charged in Fatal Crash; Out-of-Control Car Killed Young Mom

Philedelphia Daily News ^ | 05/26/05 | David Gambacorta

[Nov3]

You are truly the new face of FR.

[JIM O]

Traffic laws do apply in a parking lot, and on public property. A person is responsible if you do faulty electric work and practically anything else if you do it without a license especially if it results in death.

[beezdotcom]

A person is responsible if you do faulty electric work and practically anything else if you do it without a license especially if it results in death.

Guess what - they're also liable if they do faulty work WITH a license.

[acad1228]

Traffic laws do apply in a parking lot, and on public property. A person is responsible if you do faulty electric work and practically anything else if you do it without a license especially if it results in death.

Only if someone is, as in this case, injured or killed. In such instannces the responsible party (i.e. the father)can be charged with endangerment or neglegent homocide for failing to control the situation. If the girl had kept the car in the lot and accidently hit an unoccupied car, her father or his insurance company would be responsible for damages, but she would have commited no crime.

[JIM O]

If so, then the lack of a permit could be shown to be irrelevant to the crime, and not a contributing factor.

That argument would lead to illegal aliens can drive without a license or insurance as long as they are old enough.

[m1-lightning]

"With vehicles, there are no accidents; someone is always negligent."

Untrue. Driving to fast is negligence. Swerving to avoid a deer and hitting another car is an accident.

Negligence would imply lack of care or concern. If the father had no care or concern for the safety of pedestrians, then why did he choose a parking lot for the location?

[kx9088]

Isn't the intent in this case the same? Wether or not the object that she hit was inanimate or something breathing (ie. human, dog, cat, etc.)?

[acad1228]

Isn't the intent in this case the same? Wether or not the object that she hit was inanimate or something breathing (ie. human, dog, cat, etc.)?

Not really. Your car, cat, dog, or pink flamingo lawn ornament are considered property. Different laws apply.

Speaking of intent, this girl's intent was to learn to drive. her father's intent was to teach. No harm was intended. She lost control of the car and he failed to retain control if the situation. He is civilly and criminally liable for this young mother's death.

[griffin]

Ok...so to get a learner's permit, isn't a written test only required. After the permit is obtained, then you get behind the wheel. SO exactly HOW would the permit have prevented this young gal from letting the vehicle go out of control??

A horrible accident to be sure, but I think the DA is going a little overboard.

[hollywood]

I needed a learner's permit to take driver's ed. I also attended this high school. The campus is huge, and the streets surrounding the school are wide, so that must have been one long, out-of-control, scenario.

[griffin]

...including the fact that the BRAKE will STOP an out of control car

I don't think so....rules of the road are tested. Not how to apply the brakes.

[af_vet_1981]

You are truly the new face of FR.

You know Lynne Abraham is guilty.

We just have to find someone to file the charges.

Since she is The People's DA I figured she could do it herself ...

[CSM]

"Swerving to avoid a deer and hitting another car is an accident."

Nope it is just plain stupid and negligent. Your saying that putting more human life at risk to keep from hitting the deer is an acceptable reason to crash a car. I disagree.

[m1-lightning]

"I feel sorry for the kid, but they should throw the book at the dad. He willingly created a potentially lethal situation, and it killed someone."

I disagree. My father put me behind the wheel in a parking lot before I got my driver's license and taught me how to drive on ice... in that situation, the brake does not stop the car and you just have to learn to feel the car to get it to stop the best that you can.

Had I lost control a struck someone then we would have been in a similar situation. However, I didn't hit anyone and because of the training my father gave me that the state doesn't give to other drivers, I have avoided many accidents in the winter, one of which could have been fatal had my wife been driving because she has little experience behind the wheel on ice.

[hollywood]

I'm telling PETA you said that. ;)

[griffin]

" if they had followed the law, this would not have happened..."

That's right. I have never heard of a state licensed driver loosing control of a vehicle.

[beezdotcom]

If so, then the lack of a permit could be shown to be irrelevant to the crime, and not a contributing factor.

That argument would lead to illegal aliens can drive without a license or insurance as long as they are old enough.

Uh, NO.

It is still illegal to drive without a permit, and the penalty for that infraction should be applied without regard to any other activities. It is illegal to be here "illegally", and the penalty for THAT infraction should be applied without regard to any other activities.

Since the girl did not meet the permit age requirements, you could certainly argue that, since the state dictates age as a component of driver competence, the father should have known that she was not competent to drive - which is where the criminal negligence charge makes sense. My point was (became) the hypothetical situation where, if she was 100% eligible for the permit, no increase in knowledge or skills but an extra piece of paper would somehow save her and her father from further criminal liability. That makes little sense to me. The permit, as it is implemented right now (go look at the requirements), does not certify or confer additional competence, at least at any level that would have applied here. Thus, if the girl had been of age, I think the lack of the permit (while still a punishable offense) would have less bearing on the overall charge of negligence.

Let's look at the reverse. Suppose a guy who shows you his electrician's license comes and wires your house, and does a fine job. An inspector comes later and says "That guy's license was faked; you have to rip all this out and get a licensed guy to do it." You ask, "is there a problem with the wiring?" He says, "No, it's a fine job, but the license is the only thing that matters." Would THAT make sense?

It reminds me a little bit of the comedian who makes fun of the airlines warning against the seat backs having to be raised on takeoff and landing. He leans forward an inch and says "LIVE." Then he leans back an inch and says "DIE." ...forward... "LIVE." ...backward... "DIE." ...

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

I was making a statement that a lot of people cannot drive, at the most they can only aim a car.

[kx9088]

I agree that what the father did was wrong, but to put him in jail for something that he (and many other parents in the country) thought would be a simple "...lightly press on the gas pedal, drive in a few circles, ok now stop, put it in park and switch seats..." type of deal.

But what really annoys me about this situation is the way Abraham is going all pit-bull over it. There are for more pressing matters going on in the city that need her attention, this is something that should just be a citation and appearence in traffic court.

[beezdotcom]

Nope it is just plain stupid and negligent. Your saying that putting more human life at risk to keep from hitting the deer is an acceptable reason to crash a car. I disagree.

Think again:


..