Idiot got what he was looking for.. a confrontation with Stewart. Just not the kind he expected.
This should be open and shut. If Stewart does not say he intentionally hit the guy who should have never been out of his car, then nothing will come of it EVEN if it does go to court.
Any kind of charge of involuntary manslaughter will be dropped if it is believed to be a complete accident and considering circumstances. Stewart draws a lot of water round these parts, so to speak, and if they could not definitively prove it was premeditated or malicious, nothing will stick at all.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-13-2014).]
Thirteen seconds after his car came to a stop, Ward got out of his car and scrambled down the track. The car Stewart was following closely swerved to the left at the last second to miss Ward, who was wearing a black helmet and firesuit to match his car.
Stewart is so good he's planning murders in a fraction of a second.
There are stupid and dangerous activities people do all the time. It's stupid to drive around an oval track at 200mph with 30 cars all butts and elbows together. Darwin took Dale's life too.
OK, so, I guess we're in agreement. The kid should have stayed in his car.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
OK, so, I guess we're in agreement. The kid should have stayed in his car.
Yeah! And cause a 15 car pile up so you can break your leg and almost causing a 19-year girl to become a paraplegic. Tony Stewart did that too in a Sprint car.
But he apologized for being too aggressive on the track during that race. So all is good.
What Roger seems to forget is that in a civil court, it isn't about proving guilt of the crime, it is about proving responsibility and with Stewart having as much money as he does, I see a civil lawsuit (or settlement - out of court). Just how it works, as the lawyers are lining up. I would sue... why not? Because it wouldn't be right? That is up to the court to decide, so why not take a chance.
You have to prove some kind of personal responsibility of something criminal. If the organization and police say he didnt, they dont have anything to stand on. Sure they can sue, I can sue you if I want for emotional distress.... Actually winning anything is another matter. Stewart like I said may be generous and give them a settlement on his own. If it was me, and they did file a suit...that would cancel out my being generous.
" 2) another driver several cars behind Stewart claims to have seen the entire thing and says "... Tony did everything in his power to turn down away from Kevin to avoid him" THIS is the BEST witness...he was there and could see the whole thing like I said before.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 08-14-2014).]
You have to prove some kind of personal responsibility of something criminal. If the organization and police say he didnt, they dont have anything to stand on.
Wrong, and it's been proven wrong countless times. Remind me to never seek any kind of legal advice from you. Liability and damages are the key words in civil cases--not criminal wrongdoing. Civil cases go forward all the time ending in judgments awarded to the plaintiff with absolutely no criminal code violations, no statutes violated, and no tickets or citations issued. You can even be found not guilty of a criminal act, and still end up paying a plaintiff in a related civil suit. It happens every week in any civil court in the country.
Agreed. A criminal case would have no bearing on the outcome of any civil case. They're two different animals. Evidence is treated, dismissed, and/or admitted differently in the two cases. But the civil case would still have to prove intent, negligence or both to determine liability. I'm not a lawyer. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Idiot got what he was looking for.. a confrontation with Stewart. Just not the kind he expected.
This should be open and shut. If Stewart does not say he intentionally hit the guy who should have never been out of his car, then nothing will come of it EVEN if it does go to court.
Any kind of charge of involuntary manslaughter will be dropped if it is believed to be a complete accident and considering circumstances. Stewart draws a lot of water round these parts, so to speak, and if they could not definitively prove it was premeditated or malicious, nothing will stick at all.
Stuarts part can be considered an accident, the other guy walked out into a functioning racetrack intentionally.
Wrong, and it's been proven wrong countless times. Remind me to never seek any kind of legal advice from you. Liability and damages are the key words in civil cases--not criminal wrongdoing. Civil cases go forward all the time ending in judgments awarded to the plaintiff with absolutely no criminal code violations, no statutes violated, and no tickets or citations issued. You can even be found not guilty of a criminal act, and still end up paying a plaintiff in a related civil suit. It happens every week in any civil court in the country.
But hes not liable for anything. Hes not responsible for doing anything other than accidently hitting an idiot running out on the track. Hes no more responsible than you are. If what you say is true, they could sue you for his death. My brother walked out into the street and was hit by a car and injured. We couldnt sue the driver...he was just driving down the street minding his own business when my brother did the stupid act that got him hit. In fact my dad paid to fix the damage to the car. Sure we could have sued, but why....it would never win and just cost money to trie...even if the judge didnt throw it out immediately.
There are lawyers for the defense as well as the prosecutor. So there are always 2 sides. I think you will find in the end im with those on the winning side that say there will be no charges or awards. If Im wrong, so be it. Many great lawyers have lost cases. Anthony got off completely scott free when there was a vast amount of overwhelming evidence, even if most was circumstantial. Ive heard many lawyers, prosecutors and police say most times circumstantial is better than eyewitnesses. Theres been no wrongful death or other suits against Jodi Arias who SAID she killed her ex bf AND found guilty of it. I think a lot of people just yell sue sue to hear it.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 08-14-2014).]
But hes not liable for anything. Hes not responsible for doing anything other than accidently hitting an idiot running out on the track. Hes no more responsible than you are. If what you say is true, they could sue you for his death. My brother walked out into the street and was hit by a car and injured. We couldnt sue the driver...he was just driving down the street minding his own business when my brother did the stupid act that got him hit. In fact my dad paid to fix the damage to the car. Sure we could have sued, but why....it would never win and just cost money to trie...even if the judge didnt throw it out immediately.
There are lawyers for the defense as well as the prosecutor. So there are always 2 sides. I think you will find in the end im with those on the winning side that say there will be no charges or awards. If Im wrong, so be it. Many great lawyers have lost cases. Anthony got off completely scott free when there was a vast amount of overwhelming evidence, even if most was circumstantial. Ive heard many lawyers, prosecutors and police say most times circumstantial is better than eyewitnesses. Theres been no wrongful death or other suits against Jodi Arias who SAID she killed her ex bf AND found guilty of it. I think a lot of people just yell sue sue to hear it.
You are correct--they COULD sue me for wrongful death and loss of income as well as other damages and injuries (legal term--injury--not physical or medical type injury) but since I was not involved, they would never be able to find an attorney to take the case or a judge to hear the case. If I WERE involved, it would be relatively easy to find both. Unlike a criminal case, there is no constitutional presumption of innocence and civil cases don't result in a guilty/not guilty verdict--they just find for plaintiff and or against defendant. The defendant HAS to prove he is not responsible for the injurous action that the plaintiff has alleged. I've been a juror on several civil cases, and in each, the plaintiffs lawyers go first, presenting their case--this would be the Ward side. In Texas, at this point, if there is even a shred of evidence to support their claim , the judge then allows the case to go forward to the defendant's (Stewart's side) of things, and it is up to defendant's attornies to refute the claims of plaintiff. Of the 4 civil trials I was a juror on over the years, only once did the judge declare the plaintiff's attorneys didn't show cause for the case to continue. They don't have to prove "guilt" or responsibility--they just have to convince a jury that the defendant didn't do everything possible to avoid 'damage' to the "injured" party. It is completely different than a criminal trial, because the case doesn't hinge on statute law. It hinges on "case" law, meaning civil cases that have been heard in the past--recent or long ago, and in this case, it doesn't even have to have precedent set by another race car civil case--any precedent will work that is similar in nature.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-15-2014).]
Originally posted by Wichita: The invisible track rule finally is posted, postmortem rule though.
From the link,
"As we have demonstrated in our history that we are willing to react quickly to different incidents ... this morning we are formalizing one of ... our at-track regulations," Pemberton said.
It was already a "at track regulation" before this ever happened. So it was a rule before this ever happened now wasn't it !
" -they just have to convince a jury that the defendant didn't do everything possible to avoid 'damage' to the "injured" party "
...and there you are...the reason they wont win a thing....just like I said...unless officials or police find otherwise. I think Stewart should sue Wards race team/owner for not controlling their driver, for emotional distress, and loss of potential income from sitting out 2 races and possibly not being eligible for the Championship...$10 million sounds about right.
Ill believe that when Tony says it. According to his team, they will just let him drive his #14 car when he feels able to. You would think if he was quitting, he would let his own team partners and team know it first before telling it to some other retired drivers. Maybe not, we'll see.
" -they just have to convince a jury that the defendant didn't do everything possible to avoid 'damage' to the "injured" party "
...and there you are...the reason they wont win a thing....just like I said...unless officials or police find otherwise. I think Stewart should sue Wards race team/owner for not controlling their driver, for emotional distress, and loss of potential income from sitting out 2 races and possibly not being eligible for the Championship...$10 million sounds about right.
(track/sanctioning body) Officials and police will have very little or nothing to do with it, unles the race sanctioning body is named in the suit. "Expert" testimony from both sides would play a major part as well as both the driver that said Stewart did all he could to avoid hitting War, which will most likely be countered by the driver that said he no difficulty seeing Ward on the track and avoiding him, as well as the other drivers that got by Ward without contact. It's all in perception, the mindset of the jury, what the judge allows and doesn't allow, and who presents the most convincing case.. And yes, Stewart and/or his team can indeed counter-sue, tho that would likely be a public relations and corporate sponsor nightmare.. Ward's survivors aren't limited to suing just Stewart either. They can sue the track owner, the officials, the sanctioning body and/or anyone else involved, tho they would most likely go after the one who has plenty of $$ but not so much $$$$ that they can afford to fight it for years and years. One of the civil trials I was juror on was a construction worker (roofer) vs a General Contractor that was overseeing construction of a new Echerd's Drug store. The worker's attorentys wouldn't sue the roofing contractor because it was a small local outfit will few assets and the company had already fulfilled all legal obligations regarding the guy's injuries. They didn't want to sue Echerds because even tho they had plenty of assets, they could use those considerable assets to fight the case--besides--Eclerds had none of their people on site. So, they went after the Gen Contractor that was a Houston based Co, that DID have a full time rep on site during the construction. The guy lost the case--he simply didn't convince the judge that the Gen Contractor was liable and it never came to us--judge threw it out right after the plaintiff attorneies had completed their presentation of evidence and the defense never had t present any of their evidence or witnesses. (the fact that the worker was indeed seriously injured was never in contention or doubt)
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-17-2014).]
