Drunken driving trial could set precedent

G

greenfreak

New Member
Drunken driving trial could set precedent

By Kevin Drew
CNN.com Law Editor

SALEM, New Jersey (CNN) --Jurors in a New Jersey trial are wrestling with the fate of a man in a drunken driving fatality case that could have nationwide implications on third-party liabilities.

Jurors finished another day of deliberations Thursday afternoon in the trial of Kenneth Powell without reaching a verdict. Powell faces charges of manslaughter, vehicular homicide and aggravated assault in connection with a crash that left his friend and another man dead.

The case is unusual because Powell, 40, was not present at the crash site, and it is a criminal trial rather than a civil trial. If convicted, Powell could face up to 15 years in prison.

The case stems from July 2000, when Powell picked up his friend Michael Pangle, 37 -- both of New Jersey -- from jail after Pangle's drunken driving arrest.

Police had released Pangle to Powell, who took Pangle back to his car. Powell went home and prosecutors say Pangle drank some more before driving again.

Three hours after he had been dropped off at his car, Pangle was involved in a head-on collision that killed him and U.S. Navy Ensign John Elliott, also of New Jersey.

New Jersey prosecutors contend that because Powell did not take Pangle home, he served as an accomplice and is liable for the deadly crash.

Legal analysts say it would be unprecedented if Powell were convicted for drunken driving deaths if he was neither in the car, present at the accident or provided any alcohol.

Many states carry "dram shop" liability laws, which hold alcohol servers responsible for harm that intoxicated or underage patrons cause to other people, or in some cases, to themselves. These laws are established at the state level through common law, legislation, or both.

Suppliers of alcohol, such as bars and clubs, are usually the target of third-party liability civil suits, said Atlanta, Georgia, attorney William Cromwell. They are, Cromwell said, because a defendant's insurance company may have limits on how much can be paid out to victims.

Cromwell said holding third-party individuals accountable in deaths caused by drunken driving might be difficult, and raises the question of how liable third parties might be in a wide range of civil action or criminal scenarios.

"What duty does have a friend have?" Cromwell said. "It seems to me that prosecutors are seeking a lot of control on people's civil liberties."

Argued attorney Warren Dennis: "This case stretches the legal concept of foreseeability. I don't have an obligation to see if a person I pass on the street is a diabetic. There is no duty to take care of others."

At the end of Wednesday, the jury reported it was deadlocked. The judge, however, insisted jurors stay with the case.

"I would ask you to deliberate with a view toward reaching a unanimous verdict," said Superior Court Judge William Forrester.

Elliott, who was 22 at the time of the crash, had graduated from the Naval Academy just two months before his death. His father said he hopes for a guilty verdict in the case against Powell, but wants a message to be sent, regardless of the verdict.

"It would be hard, if there is acquittal, not to take it personally, but we know there is a greater good that will come out of this, regardless of this verdict," said William Elliott.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/08/dui.third.party/index.html
 
next time i want to drive very drunk i will think about it twice.....

ok, is an habit and believe me that after talking to you i'm trying to not do it.
 
Legal analysts say it would be unprecedented if Powell were convicted for drunken driving deaths if he was neither in the car, present at the accident or provided any alcohol
Click to expand...


Uhhhhhh. huh?

Ok, I'm confused. :confuse3:
 
In today's society it seems that it's always someone elses fault. No personal responsibility.
 
I was just talking with Ards about this very article yesterday. It will be a very, very scary thing if this man is convicted.
 
Luis G said:
next time i want to drive very drunk i will think about it twice.....

ok, is an habit and believe me that after talking to you i'm trying to not do it.
Click to expand...

You are playing games with other people's lives you know... Or are you joking?
 
not joking, i drive drunk and slowly, if another car hits me, it's problu his fault, not mine.
 
But Luis, if another car hits you and you're drunk you can (and probably will) still be charged!
 
Luis G said:
not joking, i drive drunk and slowly, if another car hits me, it's problu his fault, not mine.
Click to expand...

No, you should be at fault because you shouldn't have been on the road in the first place. If you weren't on the road, he would not have crashed into you.

Drive carefully... please. You are gambling with lives. And not just your own.

On another note, anyone killing while under the influence of say, heroin, will be charged with murder. Why is it that if you are under the influence of alcohol and driving they never charge you with first degree murder?! ?(
 
Luis G said:
next time i want to drive very drunk i will think about it twice.....

ok, is an habit and believe me that after talking to you i'm trying to not do it.
Click to expand...

To clarify, I honestly didn't go looking for that, I was reading the news at CNN and found a bunch of other stuff that I posted too. You already know how I feel and part of the reason why I feel that way, I'm not going to keep badgering you.
 
I personally think this trial is a sham, but that often doesn't mean much anymore. People have won more ludicrous lawsuits than this.

Do they strive to find the most ignorant jurors possible?


Hey Luis, I have a theory about drinking and driving: if you're going to drive drunk, drive really fast. That way you're on the road for less time, meaning there is less time for something bad to happen. ;)
 
outside looking in said:
I personally think this trial is a sham, but that often doesn't mean much anymore. People have won more ludicrous lawsuits than this.

Do they strive to find the most ignorant jurors possible?


Hey Luis, I have a theory about drinking and driving: if you're going to drive drunk, drive really fast. That way you're on the road for less time, meaning there is less time for something bad to happen. ;)
Click to expand...

The problem is, this isn't a lawsuit. It's a criminal trial. And if the guy is convicted, it will set an incredible precedent in US law. All this guy did was transport his friend from point A to point B and for that he's being charged with manslaughter, vehicular homicide and aggravated assault - for a car accident that he was not involved in.
 
You're right. Ludicrous lawsuits are bad enough, ludicrous criminal trials would set a very scary precedent.

In either case, it's still a sham.
 
outside looking in said:
Hey Luis, I have a theory about drinking and driving: if you're going to drive drunk, drive really fast. That way you're on the road for less time, meaning there is less time for something bad to happen. ;)
Click to expand...

LOL, i thought of that one as well, but after thinking about it i got to this anti-thesis: "since i'm drunk, my reactions are slower, therefore driving faster increases the risk of "me" causing an accident, driving slow will be probly other's fault".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top