or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 235

post #3511 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Not only can you get in that the parking is illegal, in every state I'm familiar with you either get a peremptory instruction (for the non-lawyers out there, that means you automatically win on the question of negligence; i.e., the jury doesn't get to decide whether the parking was negligent or not) or you get a jury instruction that says the jury is supposed to consider the statute and (IIRC) that it's presumptively negligent.

And I don't know if you've checked the limits on your insurance lately but most people don't have $1 million in coverage.

No. This is pretty characteristic of transactional lawyers who think they know how to try cases because they were required to take Civil Procedure and Torts during their first year of law school.
post #3512 of 6081
Fucking thank you, LD. The value of your Secret Santa gift just doubled.
post #3513 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

No. This is pretty characteristic of transactional lawyers who think they know how to try cases because they were required to take Civil Procedure and Torts during their first year of law school.

If you're quibbling with whether it's technically a peremptory instruction, that's what we call it here. Otherwise I am not sure what point you're trying to make since your post is nothing but empty posturing. If you'd like to share some of that extensive litigation experience, by all means do.
post #3514 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Still waiting for that case that parking the "wrong direction" in a legitimate parking space is negligence per se.

EDIT - Also, Chapter 75 is the criminal code for driving. Not applicable to a civil suit.

Check out Chapter 67, not quite as broad.

Negligence per se includes violations of criminal statutes when the statute is intended to protect public safety. That's elementary, black letter stuff. Don't know what else to say in response.
post #3515 of 6081
to lawyerdad:

If you're saying that it would, in a real case, probably be a summary judgment, directed verdict, whatever. Sure. But it doesn't matter. That's irrelevant to the point I was making.
post #3516 of 6081
Still waiting for a case where parking in the wrong direction in a legitimate parking space is negligence per se.
post #3517 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Negligence per se includes violations of criminal statutes when the statute is intended to protect public safety. That's elementary, black letter stuff. Don't know what else to say in response.

No, maybe in the 1930s like that case you posted, but criminal actions, especially criminal actions that are never charged or don't result in a conviction, are never admitted in civil cases.

EDIT - Even then, the conviction is not allowed as evidence.
post #3518 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

No, maybe in the 1930s like that case you posted, but criminal actions, especially criminal actions that are never charged or don't result in a conviction, are never admitted in civil cases.

I don't even know where to begin. That's just plain wrong. If you are convicted of a crime in a negligence per se case, not only does it come in, it's res judicata. You can't even argue that you didn't do it.

There's no rule otherwise prohibiting criminal conduct from coming in just because it wasn't charged. That's a jury argument and not a very good one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Still waiting for a case where parking in the wrong direction in a legitimate parking space is negligence per se.

I already gave you one. Your response has been incoherent. I did not quote from the headnotes. I quoted from the body of the opinion and you gave no meaningful response:
Quote:
Under Section 6310-26, General Code, it is unlawful to park an automobile or truck facing in a direction other than the direction of travel on that *2323 side of the highway. The bread truck was therefore parked in violation of a statute enacted for the public safety, and in so parking its truck the Sherlock Baking Company was guilty of negligence per se.

Does that not mean what it says?
post #3519 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I don't even know where to begin. That's just plain wrong. If you are convicted of a crime in a negligence per se case, not only does it come in, it's res judicata. You can't even argue that you didn't do it.

There's no rule otherwise prohibiting criminal conduct from coming in just because it wasn't charged. That's a jury argument and not a very good one.
I already gave you one. Your response has been incoherent. I did not quote from the headnotes. I quoted from the body of the opinion and you gave no meaningful response:
Does that not mean what it says?

What planet did you go to law school on?

Again, you clearly didn't read the case. Still waiting for that case.

EDIT - I doubt they had any reflectors on either end in 1930, so your case is totally inapplicable to this query.
post #3520 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post


Maybe don't drive drunk.


If people took your advice, you would have less opportunity to get drunk.

post #3521 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


If people took your advice, you would have less opportunity to get drunk.

He'll be fine. There's shortage of divorces and kid-touchers.
post #3522 of 6081

Also, I always enjoy reading these arguments between lawyers.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


He'll be fine. There's no shortage of divorces and kid-touchers.

 

I mean what you know.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Maybe any case that concludes "parking the wrong way" is per se negligence. It's not. It's probably not even illegal in most places.

EDIT - Just did a Lexis search, no such cases turn up. But I did find this on the forums of community.lawyers.com. So maybe you're on to something. Forums are always 100% accurate, right?


http://community.lawyers.com/forums/t/101792/485292.aspx


It pains me every time you mention using Lexis.

post #3523 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Also, I always enjoy reading these arguments between lawyers.

I have absolutely no idea who is right, but it's always fun reading discussions like this.
post #3524 of 6081
Just so I'm clear here...this exchange is to defend the thought having a loaded gun, rammed into your head gangsta style by a police officer, is an appropriate response to possibly parking illegally outside of your own dwelling?
post #3525 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I mean what you know.



It pains me every time you mention using Lexis.

You Westlaw bastard. Fucking offer me a discount! I was with you guys for 10 years and then you get all cunty and start charging me for in-case-links-that-are-out-of-state.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?