Your opinion on my jury duty results...?

Question

Hello everyone. I just finished up jury duty yesterday, and I'd love your opinions on how this trial should have ended. Here it is in a nutshell....An 18 year old boy was driving with his friend as the passenger. He was driving at least 70-80 on a country road. He purposely excelerated at a railroad track to try to "catch air"...meaning go airborne over the tracks. Upon doing so, he lost control of the car, swirved all over the road, went into the ditch, hit rocks, flew some more, and the car rolled. He had a few scratches; his friend died. Would you consider this "careless driving" described as negligence while driving a vehicle, or "vehicular homicide" which is described as "grossly negligent" driving. It all comes down to "negligent" verses "grossly negligent." No drinking or drugs involved. So what do you think....negligent driving or grossly negligent. We had varying outlooks while deliberating, and I'd like your input (and maybe some peace of mind!). Thanks!

Answer 1

Speeding and trying to perform a stunt resulting in a death. If that doesn't take negligence to the gross level, I don't know what does. I mean what else would one have to do? Juggle hand grenades at the same time?

To me, simple negligence would be more like, forgetting to put gas in the car or driving with bald tires or backing up while not looking. This kid hit the trifecta! Speed, stunt, killing. This is an example of a criminal disregard for his own life, his friend's life, other motorists or pedestrians lives as well as other peoples' property.

.

Answer 2

I think this is an interesting border situation. Don't feel bad whichever way you went.
Were this a 30 year old driver with over ten years driving experience then I would be comfortable with gross negligence. However a more experienced driver might well have done the same action but not lost control of the car.
There was no intent to have an accident. While it is negligent it is not rare for drivers to attempt to get their cars airborne, as they may well have done on their bicycles at an only slightly earlier age. An accident is not assured, merely possible.
It amounts to the driver over estimating his ability, taking into account his age and driving experience, therefore his capacity to accurately assess his ability, I would tend to feel "negligent" would suffice.
Should he commit this offense again then clearly it meets the criteria for "gross". So I would be guided by his previous driving history.

Answer 3

Grossly negligent

Answer 4

I would say "grossly negligent" since he did it on purpose just for the thrill. But if people said "negligent", I would be able to see where they are coming from. It's just a judgment call.

What did you guys decide?

Answer 5

My opinion, is that is bad enough that his friend died, because of what the driver did, and he will have to live with that for the rest of his life. He is very young, and he has no record, so I would say he was negligent over grossly negligent, because the greatest punishment is the fact that he has to live with himself. And we will never know if the passenger egged him on. Sad case, I hate those. at least with murderers you know what to do punish to extent of law.

Answer 6

Based on the facts you gave me, I would go for the harsher punishment. Vehicular Homicide. Grossly negligent

Answer 7

It sound like grossly negligent to me. But then I didn't hear the entire case. If you can say Legally I'm curious to know what the jury decided and the punishment.

Answer 8

Since there was a death, I would have gone with grossly negligent.

Answer 9

He certainly didn't intend to kill his friend, but, he cannot say "I didn't know." Certainly TV and drivers' training taught him the dangers of his actions. So, sadly I must agree with those of you who said "grossly negligent."

Answer 10

Grossly negligent. That was just stupid.