Post by IndianSaint on Oct 26, 2019 8:37:44 GMT -5
I’m no lawyer & I understand it’s the defense attorneys job to fight for their client but I really don’t see (legally) how they can attempt to divert “some or all of the blame/responsibly/or even cause to any repair shop (Mavis Tire) for work that may or may not have been completed.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand this tactic/defense and maybe the real lawyers on this forum can enlighten us; but here’s my non-law degree/common sense POV:
1. Limo company did not (as I understand it) have a license or permission to even operate the limo in question because their applications were denied by state.
2. Limo company never complied with said limo requirements of semi annual inspections by the correct govt required entity (even if they were approved in1 above).
3. Motive/negligence/history/etc. everything I read about the owner tells us that he’s either a scam artist or at best doesn’t play by the rules and chooses to enrich himself at the expense of others based on most if not all of his past business enterprises. This leads me to conclude that it’s reasonable he chose to not play by the rules in this specific large capacity limo vehicle.
4. Employee (driver) not certified/qualified to drive said limo.
5. Said limo was cited by Troopers/DOT/or other govt persons to not be in service the times it was pulled over and/or inspected visually by govt persons if authority AND the limo firms owner/operations ignored them and continued to operate illegally.
6. I’m sure there’s more I’m forgetting but I believe #1 above is the only one needed to conclude Limi firms 100% negligence IMO.
Again, I “get” defense trying to place “portion” of blame (or attempt to get charges reduced to lesser offense) on govt entities for not forcing them to take limo off road, repair shop for possibly not performing work (which I’m not sure has been proven as the owner of limo refused recommended repairs because owner’s past motive of how they operate businesses), etc, but I don’t see how any reasonable jury would by any of this defense.
So my question to the lawyers on this forum - what’s your opinion/take on this whole situation? I really don’t see how the limo company isn’t 100% at fault because crash wouldn’t have occurred if they followed original permit/license decline and never operated said limo until given authorization to do so.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand this tactic/defense and maybe the real lawyers on this forum can enlighten us; but here’s my non-law degree/common sense POV:
1. Limo company did not (as I understand it) have a license or permission to even operate the limo in question because their applications were denied by state.
2. Limo company never complied with said limo requirements of semi annual inspections by the correct govt required entity (even if they were approved in1 above).
3. Motive/negligence/history/etc. everything I read about the owner tells us that he’s either a scam artist or at best doesn’t play by the rules and chooses to enrich himself at the expense of others based on most if not all of his past business enterprises. This leads me to conclude that it’s reasonable he chose to not play by the rules in this specific large capacity limo vehicle.
4. Employee (driver) not certified/qualified to drive said limo.
5. Said limo was cited by Troopers/DOT/or other govt persons to not be in service the times it was pulled over and/or inspected visually by govt persons if authority AND the limo firms owner/operations ignored them and continued to operate illegally.
6. I’m sure there’s more I’m forgetting but I believe #1 above is the only one needed to conclude Limi firms 100% negligence IMO.
Again, I “get” defense trying to place “portion” of blame (or attempt to get charges reduced to lesser offense) on govt entities for not forcing them to take limo off road, repair shop for possibly not performing work (which I’m not sure has been proven as the owner of limo refused recommended repairs because owner’s past motive of how they operate businesses), etc, but I don’t see how any reasonable jury would by any of this defense.
So my question to the lawyers on this forum - what’s your opinion/take on this whole situation? I really don’t see how the limo company isn’t 100% at fault because crash wouldn’t have occurred if they followed original permit/license decline and never operated said limo until given authorization to do so.