Man sues man he killed

I-dont-want-to-live-on-this-planet-anymore-meme.jpg
 
It's actually more interesting than it sounds.

A man died in a car accident. At dispute now is whose fault that accident was. The man who is suing survived the accident, but was prosecuted and is serving a 12-year sentence in jail. If that was a wrongful sentence, then he is absolutely a victim who deserves to be compensated. However, it does seem like this is an uphill battle. The man originally pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter. WIthout knowledge of how the accident went down, it's tough to really say make a judgment. The headline seems there for shock value - 'cause it's pretty ghastly sounding when you put it like that.

This is a lot closer to "man sentenced to jail for murder alleges innocence and wrongful conviction."

I don't know why he is suing the estate of the deceased for that, though. Perhaps that can be explained to me?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogies said:
It's actually more interesting than it sounds.

A man died in a car accident. At dispute now is whose fault that accident was. The man who is suing survived the accident, but was prosecuted and is serving a 12-year sentence in jail. If that was a wrongful sentence, then he is absolutely a victim who deserves to be compensated. However, it does seem like this is an uphill battle. The man originally pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter. WIthout knowledge of how the accident went down, it's tough to really say make a judgment. The headline seems there for shock value - 'cause it's pretty ghastly sounding when you put it like that.

This is a lot closer to "man sentenced to jail for murder alleges innocence and wrongful conviction."

I don't know why he is suing the estate of the deceased for that, though. Perhaps that can be explained to me?
Click to expand...
Did you read the whole article? The man was drunk. Six witnesses claimed the victims were stopped at a red light and this guy rear ended them at 70 mph. And a camera shows the victims car was not moving at the time of the accident. Where's the wrongful conviction?

 
Right, I guess all of that is what's under dispute. Not a camera, by the way, a data recorder, which I guess is more liable to malfunction.

If he is guilty of course this isn't going anywhere. But he isn't "suing the man he killed", so to speak. He's trying to argue that he isn't guilty of manslaughter because the other party was equally at fault. I have no idea, based on a several paragraph long media summary of the case, if his argument has merit or not.

 
Is he really going for wrongful conviction? That doesn't necessarily sound like his primary goal. If so, he wouldn't be suiting the estate, would he?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top