- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Deputies arrest 4 in LSU student Madison Brooks case
Posted on 2/1/23 at 9:57 am to JudgeHolden
Posted on 2/1/23 at 9:57 am to JudgeHolden
Minimum limits?
Uber drivers are required to carry commercial policies.
Oh, you mean the yahoo perps. Likely minimum unless daddy pays for the vehicle out of a family business. Then, might be more.
I assume a search warrant covered the car.
Would the interview with the suspects be recorded or videoed and will a jury see all of it?
Uber drivers are required to carry commercial policies.
Oh, you mean the yahoo perps. Likely minimum unless daddy pays for the vehicle out of a family business. Then, might be more.
I assume a search warrant covered the car.
Would the interview with the suspects be recorded or videoed and will a jury see all of it?
1
Posted on 2/1/23 at 10:04 am to HodsonTiger13
quote:
Would the interview with the suspects be recorded or videoed and will a jury see all of it?
I'm sure they were recorded. The jury probably see most of it.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 10:08 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
The arrest DNA of the accused will be compared to the DNA recovered in the medical examination after the accident.
Would use of condoms have any effect on DNA collected? I doubt these sorry assholes used any but just curious if it would keep enough dna from being present.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 10:12 am to JudgeHolden
Was about to post this - based on your posts and name I'll assume both law school and practice - I only did one and it's been a while - could you please comment on subpoena power - particularly regarding the assailants' phones - I assume any nearby camera footage would be a non-issue - wondering more about what they would have deleted but was stored in cloud when they charged their phones, etc.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 10:33 am to JudgeHolden
The detectives could have waited until the end of the interview once he was convinced he got all the info he could out of him. And say, hey we want to know exactly everywhere Ms. Brooks was before she was struck by the car and say lets go take a ride to verify it. Or pull it up on google street maps street view right there and verify it that way. Who knows maybe they did that.
This post was edited on 2/1/23 at 10:46 am
Posted on 2/1/23 at 10:45 am to ryanlsu
quote:
And Murphys closed in the mid-90s when an SAE pledge died of alcohol poisoning with others at Murphys that night also going to the hospital. The alcohol served at the bar directly caused the death. In this case, these 4 guys caused Madi's death.
If I recall, and it was a long time ago so I might be wrong, but wasn't there a combination of illegal drugs in Ben Wynne's system that allowed him to drink a lethal amount of alcohol? It didn't eliminate Murphy's responsibility, but it was a factor.
Also, under Louisiana Title 26 there is no distinction whether or not the liquor killed her directly (e.g. having a BAC > .40%) or whether the car killed her because she was incapacitated. In both cases, it is the negligence of the bar that played a factor, and they are indeed liable.
When I owned a bar, from a legal liability standpoint, I was responsible for every person who left my bar until they sobered up, even if it was proved they were bar hopping. In that case, every bar can be sued.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 11:01 am to HodsonTiger13
quote:
Anyone have the ability to do a map of likely paths they took?
Someone posted this who knows how many pages back.
quote:
raining
I've seen this several times but I can't find anything online to corroborate it. It was very cold (33F to 34F).
If there was precipitation, it would've been really cold.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 12:03 pm to tritiger
quote:
When I owned a bar, from a legal liability standpoint, I was responsible for every person who left my bar until they sobered up, even if it was proved they were bar hopping. In that case, every bar can be sued.
Bars/restaurants do have liability for a patron's injury/death, if the bar served someone alcohol without the patron asking for it, ie. a bartender trying to get laid and giving an attractive female free shots or drinks without her ordering them. Or, if the bar continues serving someone that is visibly intoxicated.
If Reggie's was super packed that night and Madison didn't know any of the staff and the bartender was really busy and interacted with Madison for five seconds to get a drink order and five seconds to hand it to her and add it to a tab, then there is no real liability because the bartender isn't held responsible in that instance because the interaction wasn't really long enough to notice her current state. If Madison was getting drinks from a friend/sorority sister, then that bartender did likely notice how drunk she was.
There are several factors to determine liability from a civil lawsuit standpoint, but as far as the license is concerned, I could see the ATC and ABC making an example out of them with how high profile this case is. The Responsible Vendor handbook is 40 pages long, and I'm not sure they followed any of the rules that night.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 12:26 pm to tritiger
quote:
but wasn't there a combination of illegal drugs in Ben Wynne's system that allowed him to drink a lethal amount of alcohol?
He definitely had drugs in his system. I dont know if that is what let him drink a lethal amount since people die of alcohol poisoning without drugs in their system all the time. The rumor was that SAE had a big plastic garbage can and the pledges had to fill it up with vomit before they could stop drinking. I know for a fact that they had numerous guys passed out that they couldn't wake up and they used the grocery carts from the store next door to carry them out of Murphys.
You must not have had a bar in Louisiana then, our anti-dram shop laws protect the bar from liability in most circumstances. Only if you serve to underage patrons, force someone to drink, or sell alcoholic drinks that you misrepresented to be non-alcoholic can they go after the bar.
In this case they did serve underage customers. However the Negligence of the bar would probably be broken by the actions of the guys. Negligent liability can be broken by intervening causes if they are also superseding. It gets way more complicated with cause in fact and legal cause. Also forseeabilty of the harm (could the bar foresee that over serving her would cause her to get raped, dropped off, and then hit by a car.) But the agencies can still get Reggie's for serving underage people. They just may not have any liability for the death.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 12:38 pm to ryanlsu
quote:
However the Negligence of the bar would probably be broken by the actions of the guys. Negligent liability can be broken by intervening causes if they are also superseding.
That's an interesting question. I'm not sure if it would be handled as a duty/risk analysis (legal question for court) or as a causation question (factual question for jury).
Does the duty to refrain from overserving underage patrons include the risk that the risk that the patron will be raped? I'd say probably not.
But does it include the risk that the patron might get hit by a car? I'd say yes.
If it is a factual question, the jury would apportion fault between Madison herself, the four in the car, the Uber driver, and the bar. If they think that the bar's conduct did not cause the assault or the death (two different torts for the bar), they will give is a 0% liability.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 12:46 pm to JudgeHolden
There's a case against the Uber driver and a case against the bar.
Those all together in one case? Or two separate?
Still no word out on the third case (Washington in LP).
The records of the second charge (in LP) aren't public as victim was an is a minor. Washington can be charged as an adult though he was 15 or 16 at time of offense. For that, if convicted, he'd face a life sentence.
Those all together in one case? Or two separate?
Still no word out on the third case (Washington in LP).
The records of the second charge (in LP) aren't public as victim was an is a minor. Washington can be charged as an adult though he was 15 or 16 at time of offense. For that, if convicted, he'd face a life sentence.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 12:51 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
JudgeHolden and other legal pros
What should we expect to see as the next steps? Reasonable timeline? TIA
Posted on 2/1/23 at 1:02 pm to ryanlsu
quote:
ryanlsu
Very good analysis; I had to make sure I was still on TD for a minute.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 1:13 pm to HodsonTiger13
quote:
There's a case against the Uber driver
Seems like it would be the other way around.
Who knows if this happens but if it’s determined that the wreck was unavoidable and no fault of the uber driver wouldn’t the uber driver actually have a case against the estate of Madison Brooks since she was jaywalking and caused damage to the uber driver’s vehicle. I would think he had major damage to his vehicle from an accident which was not his fault.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 1:19 pm to T
Way to think outside the box! Morris Bart or Gordon may be able to use a creative thinker like you!
Posted on 2/1/23 at 1:19 pm to HodsonTiger13
quote:
There's a case against the Uber driver
fricking stop with this stupidity. We finally got rid of retard Chad and now you're going to push this nonsense again?
This post was edited on 2/2/23 at 7:32 am
Posted on 2/1/23 at 1:22 pm to HouseMom
quote:
What should we expect to see as the next steps?
I’m not a criminal lawyer (in either sense).
Posted on 2/1/23 at 1:25 pm to JudgeHolden
But . . .
I think they get a preliminary hearing in which the prosecution has to establish probable cause. There is some statutory time frame on that. Too busy to look up this sec.
Once past that, it goes onto the docket for trial. Investigation will continue. Someone may seek a change of venue. The defense will ask for continuances to get experts. The prosecutor will be obliged to disclose “exculpatory evidence” that it has.
Looking at two years to trial is my guess.
I think they get a preliminary hearing in which the prosecution has to establish probable cause. There is some statutory time frame on that. Too busy to look up this sec.
Once past that, it goes onto the docket for trial. Investigation will continue. Someone may seek a change of venue. The defense will ask for continuances to get experts. The prosecutor will be obliged to disclose “exculpatory evidence” that it has.
Looking at two years to trial is my guess.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 1:29 pm to LNCHBOX
It's a straight roadway. 1/3 mile visibility or more. There are lights in the area. Driver does have to look ahead. What if she was, say, just in a car that had stalled out? He have a legal right to hit her?
LINK
Both driver and Madison were at fault. Judge or jury % decides by what extent.
quote:
Laws about shared blame situations vary from state to state. Some states follow a "pure comparative negligence" rule. In a pure comparative negligence state, you can recover compensation if you're partially to blame for an accident. But your compensation is reduced by your percentage of fault for the accident.
Returning to our example of the jaywalking pedestrian who was hit by the speeding driver: Let's say an insurance adjuster finds the jaywalking pedestrian's accident-related losses total $100,000. The adjuster also finds that the jaywalker was 40% responsible for the accident and the speeding driver was 60% responsible. Under pure comparative negligence rules, the driver must pay the jaywalker $60,000 ($100,000 reduced by 40%, the degree of blame assigned to the jaywalker.)
LINK
Both driver and Madison were at fault. Judge or jury % decides by what extent.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 1:30 pm to T
quote:
wouldn’t the uber driver actually have a case against the estate of Madison Brooks
Hmmm.
The real party in interest would probably be her parents’ insurance. And the driver could claim trauma for having been put in a situation where he innocently killed someone.
That would be a very bold move. Not saying it can’t happen.
Page 335 of 419
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News