Hey Perry Mason I dont think the fact that this happened in Florida, will affect the responsibility of Lane or the preponderance of the evidence. It may affect the assets that can be used to pay the judgment. Remember OJ moved to Florida so his pension and house could not be touched
It's called contributory negligence, and it occurs when one violates a statute (your wife is thinking about going to law school, shouldn't you know this??) and if Lane's team can prove that a cause of the accident was the other guy's drunkeness, well, he's got a case, depending on how a court will interpret the rule in that state. Ain't no f'n Perry Mason about it. This is purely a civil matter of course and don't you dare patronize me again. The difference between you and me is I've got the book in my lap. Your wife talks about going to law school and I'm in it. You make up pet names for a bike you talk about buying and I'm riding it. No wonder people give you such a hard time. Why don't you post a link or something....
Oh, and why isn't Iraq fixed yet? I mean Nancy MUST have a plan right? Now that's bait.
Calm down. I don't support Lane's position. That's my disclaimer. I'm just saying if he can present any evidence that if Driver X contributed to the crash (perhaps by being intoxicated??) then he would have a defense. Quit blaming me....
If one violates a statute (such as, it is illegal to drive drunk), then one is automatically contributoriy negiligent, depending on how that particular court interprets that rule of law(see, it's ambiguous, one never knows until one actually goes before a court how the court will rule). Courts will take into account ALL of the circumstances surrounding the crash, so it depends on whether the guy on the motorcycle's intoxication was a part of the cause of the crash. You don't like it, blame the legislature. (Again, this only relates to the civil liability of Lane. Criminally, he is eff u c k e d).
It should not have any bearing on the case...it will be or should be decided soley on Billy's actions.... He screwed up and now his lawyers are doing their job...even if it is underhanded to play this card, it is their job to try it.
So, someone who is potted gets creamed by someone who is REALLY potted. There's a very bitter irony here. There's also a huge difference in drunkeness between .133 and .192.
Once again we see that DUI fatalities are almost always caused by people who have already been convicted of DUIs before and have suspended or even revoked licenses. Time to stop incarcerating people for victimless crimes and use the space for the Billy Lanes of the world.
I met him here in Atlanta a few years ago. Pretty down to earth type of guy (at least back then). 1- When found guilty he should do time. 2- Although I think the maximum sentence in this case may be a little harsh I do think that they should sentence him to a reasonable sentence. Then when the family of the fallen rider sues him he should pay restitution for their loss. Now, before people go off on what I have said- The jury gets to decide how this plays out. Fact is Billy is pretty well off at this point and the family lost a source of income that cannot be replaced. It is Billy's responsibility to make things right with that family.
How is the maximum sentence harsh? it's not his first or even second DUI, he was way over the legal limit, passed a number of cars on a double yellow and killed someone in the process. The max. in this case is getting off light. A reasonable alternative would be life without parole, even better would be a short drop and a sudden stop.
It's a given that he will do this again and it's even money he will kill someone else in the process at some point. Repeat DUI's do not stop drinking and driving, they get out of whatever punishment they recieve and go right back to the pattern.
Hmmm my wife says slim and none on your argument, Perry. Unless they were jousting or playing chicken but that doesn't sound like it. But she says that plaintiffs attorney will say hey at any time Lane could of driven away i.e walked away. What law school are you in?
In the case of Lane vs the State it serves the state to jail Lane but it will do no good for the family if he serves a maximum sentence. Jail him for what ever is recommended by the DA and let him out to pay this family for his crime. If he sits in jail too long Choppers, Inc would close and disolve. You can Chapter 11 or 7 and Billy still will own a house but all other assets will be gone. Make him do 5-10 and probation him for 10-20. Make him use the assets of Choppers (by working) to pay this family. I'm not saying that 1-5 is acceptable. But don't make the mistake of giving him 15-20. If that happens the vic(s) family will see nothing. If he were poor as dirt and the family had no chance at restitution then 10-20 is just. But Lane earns and makes money and should now use it to make right with this family.
Unfortunately while he's working and earning money to make restitution he'll also be drinking and driving again. If the overwhelming majority of drunk drivers are repeat offenders and Lane has already shown himself to be a repeat offender, it's imoral to allow him back on the streets with the almost sure knowledge that he'll do this again.
Restitution won't bring the dead to life, locking his ass up as with all repeat drunk drivers will keep him from killing anyone else through his own selfishness. He can make restitution with the money he makes stamping out license plates.
Will it be mom and the kids in the minivan next time?..
Oh sarnali. You're so mean. I'll bet that Billy's learned his lesson this time. He's a good boy. He just fell in with the wrong crowd and made some mistakes. He had a bad childhhood. His daddy didn't love him. His brain chemicals made him do it. Only a lad... you really can't blame him... only a lad... society made him...