Auto accident, other driver ran red light

[Zigner]

Stalk? No. The forum simply says when new posts have been made and I review them.

So, when can we expect your admission?

 

[ecmst12]

Lawyers never admit when they're wrong. It's bad for business.

 

[Adam G]

Lawyers never admit when they're wrong. It's bad for business.

Interesting. I got this PM the other day from one of the old timers here:

This is an internet forum, where your years in law school and passing the bar mean nothing when compared to someone's post count, and most of those with high post counts will NEVER admit they are wrong.

The bottom line is that OP usually needs an attorney, particularly to determine if s/he has a valid cause of action, where on this board, it's always the poster's fault.

 

[ecmst12]

The OP is not ALWAYS at fault. FREQUENTLY, that is the case, but the reason for that is because people post here because they've been told they are at fault but they don't understand why, or they disagree, and are looking for support to their position. But most of the time, they were CORRECTLY assessed at fault in the first place. If they'd been found NOT at fault, they generally have no reason to post here (at least regarding the topic of liability).

 

[Adam G]

The OP is not ALWAYS at fault. FREQUENTLY, that is the case, but the reason for that is because people post here because they've been told they are at fault but they don't understand why, or they disagree, and are looking for support to their position. But most of the time, they were CORRECTLY assessed at fault in the first place. If they'd been found NOT at fault, they generally have no reason to post here (at least regarding the topic of liability).

I haven't been here long, so I can't opine on the kinds of people who start threads here. I just found your previous post ironic, given the PM I had just received.

 

[latigo]

The OP is not ALWAYS at fault. FREQUENTLY, that is the case, but the reason for that is because people post here because they've been told they are at fault but they don't understand why, or they disagree, and are looking for support to their position. But most of the time, they were CORRECTLY assessed at fault in the first place. If they'd been found NOT at fault, they generally have no reason to post here (at least regarding the topic of liability).

Do you suppose that if someone were to print that off, shred it and toss the little paper ribbons in a lava lamp that it would eventually appear to make sense?

But the nice thing about it is that you can start at any point in the paragraph, chose any direction, and come up with the same result.

That and the lava lamp might be how song writer Jim Ed Brown came up with these (in)famous lyrics:

“I was looking back to see if you were looking back to see if I was looking back to see if you were looking back at me.”

 

[Adam G]

It’s a mere piece of paper and “you cannot cross-examine a piece of paper”. *

________________


[*] North Carolina Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Chairman Senate Special Committee investigating Watergate, in rejecting the Nixon staff’s proposal that subpoenaed White House witnesses submit prepared written statements in lieu of testifying before the committee under oath.

Unrelated to this thread, but did you hear that Illinois now allows testimony from the dead under certain circumstances? Mildly interesting from a law school hypothetical perspective.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/illinois-appellate-court-gives-go-ahead-for-some-hearsay-evidence-in-drew-peterson-case/2012/04/12/gIQApvCRDT_story.html

 

[latigo]

Unrelated to this thread, but did you hear that Illinois now allows testimony from the dead under certain circumstances? Mildly interesting from a law school hypothetical perspective.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/illinois-appellate-court-gives-go-ahead-for-some-hearsay-evidence-in-drew-peterson-case/2012/04/12/gIQApvCRDT_story.html

That evidence ruling in Peterson is not unheard of. Depending on the nature of the deceased’s statements, which have not yet been revealed, the Illinois court could have applied one or both of these sections from the Illinois Rules of Evidence as exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule.

“Rule 803 (3) Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition. A statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition, such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health, . . . “

"Rule 804 (2) Statement Under Belief of Impending Death. In a prosecution for homicide, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant’s death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death."

(Each of which are comparable if not identical to the UNIFORM RULES OF EVIDENCE ACT)

But the question always looms as to the reliability of the witness that is purporting to relate those declarations. Very sensitive area fraught with potential and incurable prejudice to the accused.

If I were to make a bet and knowing what little is known, it would not be with the state’s ability to sustain that ruling through the eventual appeal. That is of course if Peterson is convicted.

 

[Adam G]

The state legislature passed an entire new exception to the state hearsay rule just for this case:

http://www.shaneylaw.com/Articles/Drew-Peterson-s-Case-has-Impact-on-Illinois-s-Hearsay-Evidence-Rule.shtml