It seems to me we're talking about two different things here.

Is a trial by a jury of your peers reasonable? To which I say what would you prefer? I think I've had enough lawmaking by people who are supposed to be elite and smart, and so far we've more problems than ever before. And I'm speaking of DC

And you're giving specifics, but not all of them. What about things that ameliorate the situation? It's a one-sided representation. Everybody makes mistakes. When they do, they should be punished, but how much they should be punished is the question. We need all opinions to decide that sort of thing. It can't just be a judge, because they can certainly be biased. I can't be the prosecutor. It can't be the defendant's attorney. Those are the three most qualified people in a trial. That leaves ordinary people. But I think ordinary people have opinions that are important. Do all opinions have to be educated to be important? I'm not as sure as everyone else is that we shouldn't have "common" people on juries. Who says they're all dolts?

Though, so many people try to get out of jury duty, it's probably not composed correctly. Maybe if we had opinions of every type of person, it would be more balanced?

Thanks for the comment.

I'm not sure your example is completely realistic. In civil trials, the standard of proof is normally very low - a preponderance of evidence/more likely than not. Also described as 51% likely. The finding is not about the guilt of the defendant, but the likelihood that the scenario presented reasonably suggests the defendant's voluntary action or inaction resulted in harm or injury. A tortious act.

Also, what a "reasonable person" would do under particular circumstances can be fuzzy, subject to differing views. Which is why concepts like likelihood and standards of proof factor in, rather than a simply binary Yes or No. Nothing is ever quite so certain or clear, especially when human testimony is involved. Think of the telephone game - multiple individuals can see or hear the same thing and take away different views of what they perceived.

It has been pointed out by those who study this field that our jury selection system seems fair in theory, but in practice, as rob alluded to, the selection process can wind up favoring people who are often ignorant about news and other public affairs, and haven't been able to get out of serving - also favoring those who can afford to take off work and seniors who are retired. That's not necessarily reflecting a wide cross section of the populace.

there is also jury nullification, defined as when jurors, based on their own sense of justice, refuse to follow the law and acquit a defendant even when the evidence presented seems to point to an incontrovertible verdict of guilty. it happens more often than you would think. o.j. simpson, casey anthony are good examples.

there's also what's called a "directed verdict" wherein the defense makes a motion at the end of the state's case in chief for the judge to declare a verdict of "not guilty" because the state failed to prove their case. the jury never gets to the point of deliberation. it's rare but it does happen.

judges can immediately overturn a guilty verdict in a criminal case and find the defendant not guilty, more or less ignoring the verdict reached by the jury. however, the reverse cannot be done.

this case was a little over one year ago. at a bench trial (no jury), the judge found the defendant guilty of sexual assault and sentenced him to 4 years in prison. within a very short period of time, he entered an order reversing his own conviction and finding the defendant not guilty. his reasoning was that the time spent in custody (148 days) was "punishment enough". it's one of the worst miscarriages of justice i have ever seen. the community was outraged. he was taken off the criminal docket and relegated to small claims court for a period of time. he is, however, back in criminal court. he is the judge who recently presided over the so called "game show murder trial" where the defendant was found guilty by a jury of murdering his wife.

https://khqa.com/news/local/adams-county-judges-reversal-of-rape-conviction-draws-anger

https://abc7chicago.com/tim-bliefnick-trial-becky-family-feud-contestant-kills-wife-quincy-il/13325814/

Yes, I realize that everyone has opinions of juries and judges and impartiality, etc., etc., etc., but can't anyone read the scenario I posted and answer the question as to whether or not you would find the defendant guilty of negligence? The question is not that difficult.

I feel like theres a trick question that I'm not seeing. Intuitively, running a red light is negligent and I don't see where any of the definitions conflict with that. Am I a dingdong?

edit - realizing I confused the cause. Not running a red light, but rather allowing oneself to be distracted.

Not having much in the way of facts and unsure why a civil lawsuit for damages is using the guilty or not guilty language, but I think I would find that the insurance company should pay the claims. Being distracted by a dog is not negligence...it could be a child running into your path...you have to check to see, thus you are distracted.

The "guilty" language threw me off, too, but since she said "guilty of negligence" as opposed to a crime, I went with it.

The driver admitted he wasn't paying attention to where he was going. Being distracted does not negate your responsibility to steer properly. If he swerved to avoid a dog that might be different. Details are light but probably irrelevant to the point trying to be made.

I would argue that a dog appearing on the left, whether you swerved or not, could be startling enough to cause inattention...because it could take your brain a second to register that it's a dog not a child or other person and, hopefully, not running into your car. That's certainly long enough to steer into a parked car.

Being judged by 12 yahoos off the street is a terrifying thing to behold! I dont know what the alternatives could be. I have little confidence in humanity in that regard, or any regard, for that matter. What adds an even more unsettling aspect to it is the reality that most of them resent having to be there in the first place. I sat on a jury one time and felt a bit odd to be casting judgment. There was logic on both sides of the issue.

I believe in checks and balances.

I'd rather a group of 12 people unknown to me, review and ponder any evidence shown, and make a judgement, than one person (the judge) having all the power.

I've lived in communities where "the good old boys" system kept voting in police chiefs, sheriffs, judges, and it can be terrible if you're not part of the clique (just like high school).

My county FINALLY got rid of a prosecuting attorney who was so corrupt ... he made condescending, derogatory comments near a "hot mike" that was being recorded, and then that recording was blasted all over social media. That guy was a skunk, and in power for several years before he was ousted.

Of the two options ... jury making the decision or judge making the decision ... I'd definitely go with the jury.

Back to OP's scenario and question. I don't know and I guess it depends on what the dog was doing. Was he just a cute dog or perhaps an unusual breed that the driver took a peek at OR was it an off-leash dog that caught the driver's attention because he was about to run into the street. I would probably swerve into a parked car to avoid hitting a dog or a kid chasing a ball or someone on a bike. I'm not always looking straight ahead when driving but rather always making sure I know what's going on around me. Just in case.

Yesterday we were driving down a 4-lane very busy street and this woman darted out from a construction zone in the middle of the block to run across the street. She got stuck in the middle of the 4 lanes. She's damn lucky I didn't read about a killed pedestrian on the 6:00 news. But what would the result be if she had caused a rear-ender that resulted in damages and she didn't stick around.

Too much is being made of the dog. It was a parenthetical example, clearly not the point of her question.

The dog is the distraction and so what then is the definition of a distraction that would be acceptable in a scenario such as this. Or is the reason for swerving into a parked car irrelevant.

My assumption is that Lindsey sees a conflict in the definitions of "reasonable man". My idea of reasonable in this case is that a driver maintains a safe course. Since no obstacle was noted, my thought is that the man was negligent in failing to do so. Whether he was looking at a dog or a short skirt or a flashing billboard.

Keeping an eye on the dog is something a normal person would do since hitting the dog would not only injure the dog but also potentially cause the very accident that happened. And then there is the detail that this man's very good insurance should cover people in his car regardless of what caused the accident. They have been injured in his covered car.

If you can't concentrate on where you're going while dealing with distractions, then you should seriously reconsider whether driving is the right activity for you. I agree with the insurance question, but again doubt it is a critical part of the question, either. Hopefully Lindsey comes back to clarify a few things.

Lindsey's driver was negligent. His negligence caused injuries to his passengers. If his insurance covers this error, they should pay for the passengers' injuries.

(Aren't the passengers actually suing the driver?)

"Too much is being made of the dog. It was a parenthetical example, clearly not the point of her question." EXACTLY!

I shouldn't have used a dog in the example! Seems folks are thinking the dog was running around in the roadway, potentially becoming a hazard/victim, rather than thinking that perhaps the dog was sitting or sleeping on the porch of a house and the driver thought it was a cute dog. So, IGNORE THE DARN DOG! Perhaps a better example would have been this:

• The driver, with one or more passengers in the vehicle, is driving down a narrow street with vehicles parked on both sides. The driver is concerned with and preoccupied with the potential of colliding with one of the parked vehicles on his left, so he is looking out his side window at those vehicles to make sure he doesn't hit one and by doing so, he oversteers to the right, and runs into one of the parked vehicles on the right, injuring himself and his passenger(s).
• OR, the driver, with one or more passengers in the vehicle, is driving through a narrow alleyway. The driver is concerned with hitting some trash cans that are on the left (driver's) side of the alley, so he is looking out of his side window and concentrating on the trash cans, and doesn't realize that he is steered too much to the right, and he runs into a concrete block wall, injuring himself and his passenger(s).

Basically, it doesn't matter WHAT it is that takes the driver's attention away from the direction in which the vehicle is headed. HE ISN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO WHERE THE CAR IS GOING AND IT ISN'T HEADED STRAIGHT FORWARD, AS IT SHOULD BE.

Also, in a nutshell, the basic premise of "reasonable man" is - Given the same set of circumstances, what would a reasonable man have done in the same situation. (And we can substitute "woman" for "man" if you prefer, but the driver in this instance is a man.)

SO, if you were a member of the jury in this personal injury case, and were given the "reasonable man" jury instruction, would you say the driver was negligent, or not negligent?

Without negligence there is no liability, and without liability the defendant driver would not be responsible for payment to the injured plaintiff(s). The insurance company's part is to pay any monetary damages that might be assessed to the driver.

We're still talking about the thing I said originally. Everyone makes mistakes, and we're only hearing one side of it. You sound like the prosecution. What would the defendant's attorney say? What other mitigating factors are there? And I also said we all make mistakes. When he makes a mistake, he is negligent, and at fault. But at what level? So what are you asking?

How much should he be punished is my question? Was the car right parked properly? Was it an oversized vehicle? Was the lighting okay there? Did somebody yell from some window, hey look out! At the exact moment he was trying to go around the vehicle? There are just so many factors, and everything is different, each and every time. So what is it you're trying to get?

Should people be punished? Or is it who gets to decide what level of punishment? What you're presenting, is very black and white to you, but really is not to me.

rob333 you're reading too much into it. The only details you need to make a decision have already been presented. No one yelled from any window. All cars were normal size and were parked properly, and that doesn't matter anyway because there's another example with an alley and trash cans and property walls. When you are on a jury, you need to consider only the facts that are presented during the trial - not what might have also happened, because if those factors were relevant they would have been presented at trial.

And, yes, it IS very black and white. A driver was not paying attention to where his vehicle was headed and because of that, he ran into a solid, immovable object and he and his passenger(s) were injured. Was he negligent for not paying attention to the direction in which his car was headed?

I would say he was negligent. Despite the extenuating circumstances, he did not maintain control of the vehicle he was driving. If he thought it was a close call he perhaps could have asked one of his passengers to get out and help guide him through the narrow passage. One of the first things I was taught is to always know where your fenders are. If you don’t you are at a disadvantage.

I guess I also have a much more extreme view of negligent. Negligent might be reaching for a cell phone or lit cigarette that had fallen to the floor, or a dog loose in the car that the driver needs to grab. Or having a car that is in such disrepair that the equipment fails (like bald tires) or fixing your hair or make up while driving, or maybe even eating or drinking something and steering with your knees for a moment. I've seen people driving and reading books!! I might find any one of those things negligent, but misjudging the movement of the car to the right while I'm navigating on a narrow street with obstructions on the left? That is not negligent to me, but an accident, for which the insurance company should pay up.

Your fussing at me 😉 but you're not answering my question.

What is it we're supposed to decide here? If you can say it in a sentence.

rob333 - should the driver have avoided running into the object on the right side?

Maybe this will make things a bit easier to understand, to answer the original question. So forget the dog, forget the narrow roadway, forget the narrow alleyway.

Below is a photo of the access point to a parking structure. Vehicles enter via the right-hand lane, and exit via the lane you see on the left. There is a concrete "island" between the two lanes. The far right-hand side, which is not shown in this photo, is a solid wall, extending deep into the parking structure. There are no other vehicles entering or exiting the structure, and there are no pedestrians or animals.

The driver enters via the right-hand lane, but he is concerned that he will run into that center structure, so his attention is devoted to that. As soon as he clears that center structure, he accelerates to proceed. However, he is not paying attention to where he is headed and is still steered a bit too far to the right. He runs into the wall, injuring himself and his passenger(s). Given the same set of circumstances, would a reasonable person have run into the wall, or avoided the wall?

So you can't tell us in one sentence?

Yes, I already did, just above the post with the photo -

"rob333 - should the driver have avoided running into the object on the right side?"

I don't think it has to do with reason. Skill maybe? Perception maybe? Paranoia maybe? If the driver wasn't doing something else that was negligent (like my examples above), I would say they weren't negligent. I don't believe navigating between two barriers and misjudging one side is negligence. He can be a perfectly reasonable person and still misnavigate and have an accident. That's why they're called accidents. Not deliberate, not negligent, just an accident.

An accident.

Though, I don't know that I got that was the question. People are so ready to assign blame, but sometimes things just happen. Maybe they were avoidable, maybe they weren't? But now we're back at my point. There are some things that offset what happens. It isn't black and white. Well, almost never.

So, basically, most folks here think that if they or a loved one are ever injured in a vehicle, that it's just an "accident" and no one is to blame so no penalty should be assessed to the driver and no monetary damages should be awarded to the injured passengers.

rob333, with respect to your statement, "There are some things that offset what happens. It isn't black and white. Well, almost never." - Does that apply to the scenario I posted with the photo of the entry to the parking garage? No other vehicles, no pedestrians, no animals, etc. Just the one car entering the parking garage and runs into a solid wall.

"So, basically, most folks here think that if they or a loved one are ever injured in a vehicle, that it's just an "accident" and no one is to blame so no penalty should be assessed to the driver and no monetary damages should be awarded to the injured passengers."

I certainly didn't say that. If the driver was being negligent (and I gave several examples) then he would be to blame and the victims should be compensated. If the insurance doesn't cover negligence, then the victims go after his assets.

Misjudging distance or some other possible thing doesn't mean he was negligent. His insurance should certainly pay for damages to the passengers, because it was simply an accident.

Aren't the passengers actually suing the driver? Of course, they might not have done so had he not had generous coverage!

Anyway, I'm wondering how this would progress. Passengers sue At Fault Driver. Insurance refuses to cover Driver *because* he was negligent?

If this was a real event, how was it resolved?

I'm saying you're presenting it the way you want to present it. I don't know that you're giving me the "true" presentation. Even if it is your truth, that doesn't make it what it is.

In the news today: A woman sent to jail for 20 years for killing all four of her children, they later found out that they had genetic disorders. She hadn't murdered them! She was in jail for 20 years because of everyone's perception. Perception does not make reality. Her diary was a big piece of the prosecution. And the view has now changed because of the genetic disorders. It is not black and white, because we all see things from different angles.

"In relation to her diaries, Bathurst said the 'evidence suggests they were the writings of a grieving and possibly depressed mother, blaming herself for the death of each child, as distinct from admissions that she murdered or otherwise harmed them'.”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/04/australia/australia-kathleen-folbigg-attorney-general-hnk-intl/index.html

A lot of this discussion has gone sideways with well intended misunderstandings.

1) If there is liability because of what is found to be negligence (it's something to assess as a causal factor, not to find someone "guilty" of, strictly speaking), that would be the liability of the driver. Car insurance politices have third party liability coverage. Failing that, an umbrella policy could be involved. Whether an insurance company does or doesn't wish to cover a loss, it is the liability of the driver.

2) Civil and criminal law and procedures are very different. Using an aspect of one to illustrate an example for the other is not normally a valid thing.

3) The "accident" discussion above isn't useful or relevant, as I see it. Negligence can be the result of a deliberate act or an unintended one, one that results even if caution is used or if not, the result of an act itself or the failure to act. None of which really matter.

I'm not a lawyer, these are among my understandings (maybe not all accurately remembered now that I'm retired) from events I was involved in dealing with when advising clients.

The criminal example was to show the difference between perception and reality. ONLY. Facts are facts until they aren't. And prosecuting someone in civil or criminal courts needs that to be weighed in all facets. Guilt/innocence/punishment. Anything more, is something you've added. My meaning was clear, so take me at my word.

There are always two sides to a story, but many many ways to interpret both sides.

It's irrelevant to the conversation concerning a hypothetical civil dispute. What was clear was the misunderstanding that led to your suggesting there is much or indeed any common ground.

Wow, this has gone off the rails. It really should be a simple question to answer. Please refer to the photo I posted, above, of the parking garage entrance. No other vehicles around, no pedestrians, no animals, no bad weather, etc. Driver with passengers enters the structure, with his attention on the center island to ensure he doesn't run into it. Once he knows he has cleared that structure, he accelerates to proceed into the structure but is oversteered to the right, doesn't correct the direction of his vehicle, and runs into the solid wall on the right-hand side, causing injuries to the occupants of the vehicle, and severe damage to the vehicle. At trial, he admits under oath that he wasn't paying attention to where his car was headed. So, given the "reasonable man theory" - in the same situation given the same set of circumstances, what would a reasonable man have done - would you, as a jury member, vote that the driver was negligent or not negligent? Would you think that the driver has a "duty" to pay attention and be in control of the vehicle and not crash into solid, immovable objects?

And how is the above scenario showing any bias? They are undisputed facts introduced at trial through testimony.

Not negligent would be my vote.

Under what circumstances could it be that passengers in a person's private car would sue him/her for damages? The construction you're trying to shoehorn for a result isn't how something like this would go.

I don't think your insistence of a "reasonable person" assessment would be the direction it would go. If, hypothetically, a person's friends, co-workers, or who knows what were to sue to recover uncompensated damages (an unrealistic premise), there's little to talk about concerning whether the driver's conduct caused the injuries. Under normal circumstances, riding in a car doesn't lead to injuries or damages.

Stuff like this, if it were to exist at all, wouldn't be likely to be litigated. The dollar values of injuries in a low speed impact wouldn't typically amount to much. Plaintiff injury lawyers work on a contingency fee basis and there wouldn't be enough fee potential for one to be interested.

It becomes even a little more complicated, one would have to prove more than ordinary negligence if insurance was refusing to cover, a jury would have to be convinced it was gross neglect....

Washington State is one of these (or was at one time, I haven't had reason to check on it)

' Approximately half the states have automobile guest statutes, which typically provide that an automobile guest cannot recover damages against a host driver for injuries caused by the host's ordinary negligence. A host driver is liable only if his conduct involves "gross negligence," "recklessness," "willful misconduct," intoxication, or some equivalent. The statutes thus provide that the duty of care a host driver owes to guest passengers is less than the ordinary duty of care owed to paying passengers '

My point is nothing is undisputed.

So, I have some narrow roads around me with parking on both sides. I have contruction around which is narrowing the road ways as well and I've been thinking about this thread while driving through them . The only way I could drive into something on the right side of a narrow road is to do it on purpose. Unless, a dog ran in front of me and I wanted to avoid it. :) But I wouldn't hit the dog because when a road has narrowed I'm driving a little more slowly anyway because I'm paying attention.

Same with the parking lot scenario upthread. I could only hit the right hand wall if I did it on purpose UNLESS there are extenuating circumstances.