Subscribe Today!
Networked Blogs
May
13
Don’t talk on cell phone with drunk driver
Filed Under law | 4 Comments
Don’t let friends or family members drive drunk.
Also remember to never follow a family member while speaking to her on the cell phone, if she is driving while under the influence.
The Indiana Court of Appeals issued an opinion yesterday that holds that a mother following her drunken daughter while speaking to her on a cell phone could potentially create joint liability for the mother for any driving actions the daughter undertakes.
Further, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the mother could encourage the daughter’s driving actions and/or distract her daughter by talking to her on the cell phone while she was driving drunk.
From Buchanan vs. Vowell, No. 49A02-0909-CV-873 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (PDF).
The allegations made by Jerry in his amended complaint show that Shannon agreed to enter into a concerted activity whereby Shannon would follow the drunken Candice and would direct and/or distract her by calling her on her cell phone. The allegations also show that Candice and Shannon conspired to leave the scene of an accident where serious injury to Jerry had occurred. Thus, like the passenger in Sanke, Shannon encouraged Candice’s tortious activity. It is possible that Shannon, like the passenger in Sanke, could be held jointly liable for Jerry’s injuries.
Furthermore, we note that Shannon owed a duty of reasonable care to those that shared the road with her, both motorists and pedestrians. See Claxton, 615 N.E.2d at 474. Shannon, as an individual, may have breached this duty by calling and distracting a person she knew was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Thus, Shannon may be found liable for Jerry’s injuries even if she did not gratuitously assume a duty or act in concert with Candice.
Apr
2
The Supreme Court recently issued an opinion where the justices held that criminal clients must receive advice from their attorneys regarding the immigration consequences of an plea agreement.
The immigration law has tightened up significantly since 1996 to the point where conviction of certain relatively minor crimes will result in automatic deportation under the Immigration laws.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla vs. Kentucky, No. 08-651 (U.S. 3/31/2010), means that criminal lawyers will need to advise their clients regarding the effect a plea agreement may have on an immigrant’s ability to remain in the United States.
Writes Justice Stevens in Padilla v. Kentucky:
It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant—whether a citizen or not—is left to the “mercies of incompetent counsel.” Richardson, 397 U. S., at 771. To satisfy this responsibility, we now hold that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation. Our longstanding Sixth Amendment precedents, the seriousness of deportation as a consequence of a criminal plea, and the concomitant impact of deportation on families living lawfully in this country demand no less.
Illinois already has a requirement similar to that now required by the Supreme Court, writes Chicago Criminal Law Blog author attorney Ava George Stewart.
