toxicology test

[nykizzle]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Would a toxicology normally be ran on a Teen Driver if its night time and Him another friend Ran a Stop Sign not wearing their seat belts causing their deaths and injuring 3 people in the other car. One of the boys was a Donner would they have at least done a toxicology on him??

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Would a toxicology normally be ran on a Teen Driver if its night time and Him another friend Ran a Stop Sign not wearing their seat belts causing their deaths and injuring 3 people in the other car. One of the boys was a Donner would they have at least done a toxicology on him??

STOP creating new threads and keep all your related questions in one thread, please.

 

[nykizzle]

sorry

STOP creating new threads and keep all your related questions in one thread, please.

sorry

 

[nykizzle]

SORRY

 

[nykizzle]

Man i felt like i kinda got my head bit of. sheesh. haha And they didn't even answer my question. They answered my OTHER question though not what i wanted to hear . lol

 

[CdwJava]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Would a toxicology normally be ran on a Teen Driver if its night time and Him another friend Ran a Stop Sign not wearing their seat belts causing their deaths and injuring 3 people in the other car. One of the boys was a Donner would they have at least done a toxicology on him??

What's a "Donner?" Did you mean "donor?"

If the teen driver was killed, then tox would generally be done as part of the autopsy. If the driver was arrested, then tox might be done only if impairment was suspected. if the driver was hospitalized, then there would probably be a tox screen done at the hospital.

Things don't look too good for your cousin ... how would a tox (or lack of one) help?

 

[nykizzle]

toxicology

well they tested my cousin.. he passed. they ran a stop sign not wearing their seat belts that resulted in their death. They are holding my cousin because he allegedly was speeding with a right of way. if those kids were drinking would that not prove them even more neg then him?

if it were the kids that were speeding with a right of way and they broadsided my cousin because he ran a stop sign and died... who's fault would that be?

 

[sandyclaus]

well they tested my cousin.. he passed. they ran a stop sign not wearing their seat belts that resulted in their death. They are holding my cousin because he allegedly was speeding with a right of way. if those kids were drinking would that not prove them even more neg then him?

if it were the kids that were speeding with a right of way and they broadsided my cousin because he ran a stop sign and died... who's fault would that be?

You're apparently not getting this.

Yes, the other party ran a stop sign. NO, they didn't have their seat belts on. Yes, that certainly contributed to the accident.

But had your cousin NOT been speeding in excess of 90 MPH, he could have foreseen the traffic hazard, had better control of his vehicle, and had enough advance time and notice to avoid an accident. Or he might not have even BEEN at the stop sign when the other party ran through it.

But your cousin was going almost twice the speed limit. Which brought him to the exact point at which the accident occurred with not enough response time or control of his vehicle to avoid it. That means he contributed to the accident that caused the deaths of the other vehicle's occupants.

 

[FlyingRon]

Do you not understands what you're up against. We are not litigating a civil suit here where percentage of fault may have made a difference.

Shepherd was driving unlawfully (speeding, unlicensed), dangerously (speeding) and killed someone. That's enough to convict of vehicular manslaughter.
In fact, it's enough to convict of voluntary (regular) manslaughter.

 

[sandyclaus]

Do you not understands what you're up against. We are not litigating a civil suit here where percentage of fault may have made a difference.

Shepherd was driving unlawfully (speeding, unlicensed), dangerously (speeding) and killed someone. That's enough to convict of vehicular manslaughter.
In fact, it's enough to convict of voluntary (regular) manslaughter.

She's looking for someone to give her the answer she wants, not the answer she doesn't want to hear.

She is still hung up on this whole "right-of-way" thing, thinking that just because her cousin had the right-of-way, that's the end-all-be-all to the whole question of his having any responsibility for the accident and the resulting death of the other driver. As long as she's stuck on that concept, nothing else will make any sense to her - because she's just not hearing anything beyond that.

 

[CdwJava]

if those kids were drinking would that not prove them even more neg then him?

No. Being impaired does not automatically equal fault. Apparently the state feels it has enough evidence to show that your cousin's actions caused the death of one or both of those people.

if it were the kids that were speeding with a right of way and they broadsided my cousin because he ran a stop sign and died... who's fault would that be?

That depends upon a number of facts not mentioned in your rather simplistic outline of the scenario. Ultimately it will be up to a jury to decide if the defendant is at fault.

 

[CdwJava]

We have a couple of issues in this incident. In such a crash, the party typically assigned the primary collision factor will be the person who ran the stop sign. However, in addition to the party most responsible for the collision, we also have the issue of a death. To evaluate the death the state has to show not that the defendant CAUSED the collision, but that he was committing an offense or driving in such a way that it caused the death of another, not necessarily that it caused the collision. I listed the elements that the state must prove in the other thread - causing the collision is not one of them.

In this scenario, it is likely that if the other party ran the stop sign the other party is responsible for the collision. Not being at fault for a collision does not mean one is not responsible for the death via manslaughter. I think the state may have a tough time meeting the elements of this case only because of the fourth element where they have to show that the excessive speed caused the death of the other parties. As I have stated, proving that 55 MPH would have saved their lives and 90 caused their deaths is probably going to be a tough thing to do.

 

[nykizzle]

toxicology

Thank you CdfJava, that's fair enough... exactly my point... study's show that even at 55 mph would have been fatal being broadsided on the driver side door. He or his passengers were wearing seat belts. Anyhow Mrs. SanyClaus seems so short and moody. do you not get allot of questions or feed back on here or something? Sorry to be questioning your answers.

That being said If two teens are out in the country at night driving on a provisional license no seat belts and running a stop sign... i would think they or the driver would have had a toxicology test done... cause IF he was intoxicated would that not prove him to be more wreckless in the situation? or because my cousin and his passengers lived that makes them more at fault?? im going to add that the boys father is a correctional officer.

 

[CdwJava]

Thank you CdfJava, that's fair enough... exactly my point... study's show that even at 55 mph would have been fatal being broadsided on the driver side door. He or his passengers were wearing seat belts.

It might be difficult to prove, but it is not impossible to prove. And there may be more to the state's case that has been in the media or posted by you here or on the internet.

That being said If two teens are out in the country at night driving on a provisional license no seat belts and running a stop sign... i would think they or the driver would have had a toxicology test done...

If killed, it is almost certain that a tox screen was done during the autopsy. But, the dead driver's impairment would not necessarily be relevant here. Your cousin was driving in a manner that exhibited a similar lack of due care for the safety of others and he was apparently sober.

cause IF he was intoxicated would that not prove him to be more wreckless in the situation?

One can be impaired and not be at fault in a collision.

Though yu say that the collision report assigned fault to the deceased driver, correct? If so, that is going to play against the state's case as well.

Do you have the collision report? If so, in the upper left portion of page 2 there should be a code section for the Primary Collision Factor (PCF), what IS that code section? And, which of the twp parties was assigned that fault?

or because my cousin and his passengers lived that makes them more at fault??

Apparently it is the state's contention that his excessive speed makes your cousin at fault for the other kid's deaths, even if not for the collision on the whole.

im going to add that the boys father is a correctional officer.

Which boy? The deceased? That doesn't make any real difference unless the boy's father was present as a witness, victim, or suspect.

 

[nykizzle]

It says the primary cause is the car that ran the stop sign. what we need to do is PROVE he wasn't go 90 mph. Because he wasn't. He had two female passengers with him who said he was never above 65-70. 90 mph ? 90 ? that is INSANELY FAST INSANELY and i know those two girls would have been "FREAKED". there is more detail about how they came up with the 90 mph. this prob isn't the right "thread" and i don't want to be reprimanded here lol

But there was NO toxicology done on either of the boys.