Your Honor, May I Pro...secute?

[thedebutante]

like the lady who ordered hot coffe from McDonalds then spilled it on her, and found that it says nowhere on the cup that the contents are hot and then sued the company for millions and won?? I dont think ill ever get over the stupidty of the court on this one!! the jury must have hated McDonalds or something.. LOL

Not quite buddy. If there is a state statute that dictates for such cups to be marked as hot, then the restaurant can be accused of negligence and made to pay a fine. However, I would argue that it was foreseeable that the "hot coffee" the lady ordered was hot and that there was contributory negligence on her part. Now whether or not the court agrees will be based on precedent at best. And once again, I have very little trust in the present court system.

[gevo]

Another thaught, in such a case ( i may be straying form the hypothetical presented) where the trolly operatr has absolutely no other way out, I would think the respnsibility should be held by the institution that is in charge of the trolly system, this way someone will be held respnsible, yet not one specific person can be charged with murder or anything.. and, the family (if any) should get the compensation. SO, i do believe there is a very large problem here, but i do not think it is at all the operators problem, even though in such a case he did infact willfully decide he will runover the hobo...

[gevo]

Not quite buddy. If there is a state statute that dictates for such cups to be marked as hot, then the restaurant can be accused of negligence and made to pay a fine. However, I would argue that it was foreseeable that the "hot coffee" the lady ordered was hot and that there was contributory negligence on her part. Now whether or not the court agrees will be based on precedent at best. And once again, I have very little trust in the present court system.

I understand, and agree.. yet CMON!!!! YOU CANT POSSIBLY SAY THAT, THAT WASNT A REDICULOUS COMPENSATION!!!!!

[thedebutante]

Another thaught, in such a case ( i may be straying form the hypothetical presented) where the trolly operatr has absolutely no other way out, I would think the respnsibility should be held by the institution that is in charge of the trolly system, this way someone will be held respnsible, yet not one specific person can be charged with murder or anything.. and, the family (if any) should get the compensation. SO, i do believe there is a very large problem here, but i do not think it is at all the operators problem, even though in such a case he did infact willfully decide he will runover the hobo...

Hey, awesome point. But yup, you're going against my little note in the beginning and altering the hypothetical. That's a no no.

[thedebutante]

I understand, and agree.. yet CMON!!!! YOU CANT POSSIBLY SAY THAT, THAT WASNT A REDICULOUS COMPENSATION!!!!!

Hahaha, why not? You can say anything. In case you haven't picked up on this, this is exactly why I would like to be an attorney one day. Not to make ridiculous claims, but rather to be able to beat my way around the system because it has so many flaws and inconsistencies.

[loseyourname]

The drivers may not be prosecuted for murder, but I'd need lots of proof to believe that they wouldn't be guilty of manslaughter. However, whether or not they'd be prosecuted for this somewhat lesser charge is clearly similar to the question we have at hand.

The driver of this hypothetical trolley of yours would never be charged with murder. Even in the case of second degree murder, aforethought malice or willful disregard for human life must be proven. Given that he had no choice, how would you prove that? You'd argue as a prosecutor that his intention was to kill the hobo, his attorney would argue that his intent was to not kill the children. What jury would honestly accept your assessment of his intent?

[loseyourname]

By the way, any DA would need to know what extenuating circumstances were in existence at the time, and you haven't given them to us. A decision to prosecute would never be made on this evidence alone.

[thedebutante]

By the way, any DA would need to know what extenuating circumstances were in existence at the time, and you haven't given them to us. A decision to prosecute would never be made on this evidence alone.

In case I didn't make this clear in the beginning, which may very well be the case, these aren't real cases. There is no list of stipulations, etc. This all the information I was given.

[gevo]

In case I didn't make this clear in the beginning, which may very well be the case, these aren't real cases. There is no list of stipulations, etc. This all the information I was given.

You were given???? ... what for>>>/? and whats the point.. cause you say its not that easy to decide, but in both of your cases i feel there is an exact line,, right/wrong is evident.. and seems that most people even on here agreed... I dont know if you read my second (long) post on here, but honestly there isnt much debate on this issue.. unless im missing something...

[loseyourname]

The point is legality. There are extenuating circumstances in both cases that would allow one to either prosecute or not prosecute the suspects. If this is all we're going to be given, then we must say no. There is certainly enough to prosecute the doctor, for murder. His crime was not one of passion or of self-defense. He might claim temporary insanity due to the pressure he was under, but that's for the jury to decide.

In the case of the trolley-driver, unless there were circumstances unbeknownst to us, he did not will the death of the hobo. There was no action he could have taken that would not have resulted in the death of an innocent human being. A particularly zealous DA might be able to get him on manslaughter, but I highly doubt any jury would convict, and the DA would be risking a great deal of humiliation from such a case and would almost certainly not be re-elected.