RV driver in fatal Tennessee accident pleads guilty

[rgatijnet1]

As some of you remember there was an accident that happened in Nashville, Tennessee where a Class A pulling a trailer hit and killed a police officer that was directing traffic. There was quite a bit of discussion on this forum about who was at fault.
The driver of the Class A has plead guilty to Reckless Homicide, a felony, and was placed on two years probation. The charge of fail to yield resulting in a death was dismissed.
There is still a civil lawsuit against the driver by the family of the officer that was killed. Obviously there are no winners in this incident. Be careful out there as your life can be destroyed in an instant. Driver pleads guilty

[rgatijnet1]

mike brez wrote:

sandblast wrote:
So, Mike Brez
Yes, with his apparent disregard for others he deserves to lose all that he worked for.
He appears from evidence to be just another road bully.

Well that's what what I meant He should lose everything including his freedom. Maybe poorly writen by me on how it came across.

Personally for me, no matter what the driver of the RV loses, it is minor compared to what the 25year old victim lost.

[mike_brez]

sandblast wrote:
So, Mike Brez
Yes, with his apparent disregard for others he deserves to lose all that he worked for.
He appears from evidence to be just another road bully.

Well that's what what I meant He should lose everything including his freedom. Maybe poorly writen by me on how it came across.

[BobGed]

msmith1199 wrote:
The Double Jeopardy clause does not apply at all here. It was never intended to prohibit a civil case if there was also a criminal case. I've never even heard anybody argue that double jeopardy should preclude a civil case if there was also a criminal case. That is until now.

Correct. Just ask O.J. Simpson how it worked out for him. 😉

[msmith1199]

dodge guy wrote:
This was gone over a few weeks ago! It was an accident! Everything showed that the scene wasn't clearly marked before the blind curve. From where the picture showed the MH stopped you can see he was on the brakes or he would've been farther passed the work truck and police car. And finally there was no intent! It was an accident. Everyone can say all they want (even me) but we weren't there and can only go by the facts posted by the court.

I'm sure some of you would sing a different tune if it was you in that situation. And don't say that won't happen! Eventually something always happens!

It was an accident caused by severe negligence. There was no blind curve. This happened on the interstate, there was a curve, but drivers can see plenty far enough ahead. It wasn't clearly marked because they were just setting up and emergency workers and highway workers were just getting on scene. In fact there was a sign that the motorhome driver passed two minutes before the crash, indicating a lane was closed ahead. He admits he saw that sign, yet wasn't prepared to stop? Basically he was going too fast for the traffic conditions and his negligence caused the accident. That is why he is going to serve two years probation and he's going to be found liable in the civil case, if it hasn't already settled.

[PF_PM]

Terrible situation for all. There is a certain amount of risk involved in taking on that kind of employment though. I wonder why , and I've seen first hand where patrol had their car stopped in a lane of traffic and the officers walking around the hiway when the vehicle they've stopped is completely off the road on the shoulder.

I do think though the driver of the MH could have done more to avoid the situation.. we all need to be prepared and keep an eye out all around us.

Going through Salt Lake City a few years ago, headed south we ran into a snow storm. There was about 2-3 inches of slush built up .. pretty well everyone was driving at around 45 mph. The car in front of me hit the back of the car in front of him and pulled over to the right off the lane. The forward car stopped in the lane and driver got out. I swerved to the left and dammed near hit him getting out of his car. Just pure luck no one was beside me otherwise I'd have hit them. Things can happen so fast and the reaction you have may or may not be the right one. For me, I was lucky that day.. 'cause if I'd have hit the guy it would have been my fault !

[dodge_guy]

This was gone over a few weeks ago! It was an accident! Everything showed that the scene wasn't clearly marked before the blind curve. From where the picture showed the MH stopped you can see he was on the brakes or he would've been farther passed the work truck and police car. And finally there was no intent! It was an accident. Everyone can say all they want (even me) but we weren't there and can only go by the facts posted by the court.

I'm sure some of you would sing a different tune if it was you in that situation. And don't say that won't happen! Eventually something always happens!

[msmith1199]

The driver of the motorhome is not likely to lose everything. I don't know the status of this civil case but something called "The Fireman's Rule" will come into play in the civil case. That is a rule that prohibits or severely restricts emergency workers (police, firemen, paramedics, etc..) from collecting damages from people who injure them in their course of their employment.

[msmith1199]

jwmII wrote:
A reminder of the greed in this country. We're gonna gitcha anyway we can and since we can't stick you in jail for the rest of your life we're gonna break you financially and take everything you have worked all your life for by ignoring the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. constitution. We are bottom feeders, We are called Lawyers and we've found sneaky little ways to do this. Never mind that there was a horrible tragedy and loss to families. Now we're gonna rub it and get all we can out of it. What a great system. A big pond with scum all over it.

The Double Jeopardy clause does not apply at all here. It was never intended to prohibit a civil case if there was also a criminal case. I've never even heard anybody argue that double jeopardy should preclude a civil case if there was also a criminal case. That is until now.

[Rice]

mike brez wrote:

Rice wrote:

jwmII wrote:
A reminder of the greed in this country. We're gonna gitcha anyway we can and since we can't stick you in jail for the rest of your life we're gonna break you financially and take everything you have worked all your life for by ignoring the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. constitution. We are bottom feeders, We are called Lawyers and we've found sneaky little ways to do this. Never mind that there was a horrible tragedy and loss to families. Now we're gonna rub it in and get all we can out of it. What a great system. A big pond with scum all over it.

At least lawyers, whom you hold in such low regard, actually understand what double jeopardy is, and know that it has nothing to do with civil judgments after a criminal conviction.

The poor guy is going to loose everything he worked his whole life for...You can not be serious.

Where in my comment that you quoted did you find any opinion on what should happen to the poor guy? I didn't even read the story. But I do know what double jeopardy is, unlike SOME people.

[sandblast]

So, Mike Brez
Yes, with his apparent disregard for others he deserves to lose all that he worked for.
He appears from evidence to be just another road bully.

[mike_brez]

Rice wrote:

jwmII wrote:
A reminder of the greed in this country. We're gonna gitcha anyway we can and since we can't stick you in jail for the rest of your life we're gonna break you financially and take everything you have worked all your life for by ignoring the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. constitution. We are bottom feeders, We are called Lawyers and we've found sneaky little ways to do this. Never mind that there was a horrible tragedy and loss to families. Now we're gonna rub it in and get all we can out of it. What a great system. A big pond with scum all over it.

At least lawyers, whom you hold in such low regard, actually understand what double jeopardy is, and know that it has nothing to do with civil judgments after a criminal conviction.

The poor guy is going to loose everything he worked his whole life for...You can not be serious.

[rgatijnet1]

I am sure that the sentence by the judge was thoroughly discussed with the victims family. Since the driver had no previous problems, and because of his age, it makes sense to the Taxpayers of Tennessee to not be burdened with the cost of incarceration and medical care for the driver. I am sure that there was also knowledge of the civil suit and that it would be better for the victim's family if he was not in jail during the civil trial.
I had a considerable amount of construction equipment stolen many years ago. Naturally I wanted the criminals thrown in jail. After talking with the State Attorney, it was explained that it was in my best interest, and the State's, if they stayed out of jail and reimbursed me for the value of items stolen. It took four years but I did get my money, which I may not have gotten if they were in jail.
For information only...do not go to court and plead "innocent" of stealing something and then, after being found guilty, tell the judge you will return the items that your stole. Their attorney started to make this proposal and the judge cut him off and reminded him about what perjury means. They had to reimburse me in cash, period.

[Rice]

jwmII wrote:
A reminder of the greed in this country. We're gonna gitcha anyway we can and since we can't stick you in jail for the rest of your life we're gonna break you financially and take everything you have worked all your life for by ignoring the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. constitution. We are bottom feeders, We are called Lawyers and we've found sneaky little ways to do this. Never mind that there was a horrible tragedy and loss to families. Now we're gonna rub it in and get all we can out of it. What a great system. A big pond with scum all over it.

At least lawyers, whom you hold in such low regard, actually understand what double jeopardy is, and know that it has nothing to do with civil judgments after a criminal conviction.

[J-Rooster]

Thanks for the follow up Ronnie! Since this guy plead guilty, a wrongful death lawsuit will ensue by the family. The motorhome driver will lose everything that he worked for all his life in lawsuits and liens. Really sad ending for all.

[topflite51]

soren wrote:


I'm surprised by the slap in the wrist punishment, and have no issues with the driver ending up essentially destitute, having taken a life needlessly, and ending up with what is, in reality, a joke of a sentence.

Have to agree with this. Two year probation - Why bother? There should have been jail time!