MNO Blog – Motorcycles, News, Opinions

While the attorney for DaimlerChysler Corporation has filed a technical response. Jeffery Vernis one of the attorneys for Billy Lane filed an objection to the motion for speedy trial that was requested by the plaintiffs’ attorney Sam Cacciatore.

Mr. Cacciatore explained to me in a phone interview that, like many rules, there is a difference in a “speedy trial” for a civil action as opposed to a criminal case.

Looking at the definition for “speedy trial” at law.com we see the following is for criminal cases:

in criminal prosecutions, the right of a defendant to demand a trial within a short time since to be held in jail without trial is a violation of the “due process” provision of the 5th Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment). Each state has a statute or constitutional provision limiting the time an accused person may be held before trial (e.g. 45 days). Charges must be dismissed and the defendant released if the period expires without trial. However, defendants often waive the right to a speedy trial in order to prepare a stronger defense, and if the accused is free on bail he/she will not be hurt by the waiver.

However, when a “speedy trial” is requested in a civil action and in Florida, it takes on a new meaning:

415.1115 Civil actions involving elderly parties; speedy trial.–In a civil action in which a person over the age of 65 is a party, such party may move the court to advance the trial on the docket. The presiding judge, after consideration of the age and health of the party, may advance the trial on the docket. The motion may be filed and served with the initial complaint or at any time thereafter.

So, what is being asked in the motion and what will happen if the motion is granted, is that the case will have a bit more priority in movement on the docket when the parties are ready to go to trial.

Many mistakes are often made in the legal terms, rules and findings of the civil action and can easily be misconstrued using the same of the criminal laws. I found a pretty good page while doing some research that gives a good explanation of the differences between criminal and civil law that you may want to read: Differences between Civil and Criminal Law in the USA

Sources:

http://www.floridamalpractice.com/stat415.1115.htm

law.com

Brevard Clerk of Courts

Florida State Statute 415

Technorati Tags: billy lane, dodge, dui, civil trial, motorcycle news

(Melbourne, Florida) 12/06/2006 Answer to wrongful death complaint in the Brevard County court of Dolores J. Morelock Vs. William D Lane and DaimlerChrysler Corporation.

William McCandless, attorney for the defendant, DaimlerChrysler Corporation filed an answer in the civil suit against the company and Billy Lane for the Wrongful Death of Gerald Morelock. The document was filed on November 15, 2006 with the Brevard Clerk of Courts and a copy has been served on Nance, Cacciatore and Hamilton, the attorneys for the plaintiff.

Before I get into the answer, I want to add to the top of this post, the definition of the legal term that you will see used throughout the text of this document. The legal term definitions used on this blog are provided by law.com.

affirmative defenses: part of an answer to a charge or complaint in which a defendant takes the offense and responds to the allegations with his/her own charges, which are called “affirmative defenses.” These defenses can contain allegations, take the initiative against statements of facts contrary to those stated in the original complaint against them, and include various defenses based on legal principles. Many of these defenses fall into the “boilerplate” (stated in routine, non-specific language) category, but one or more of the defenses may help the defendant.

Below you will find the notice transposed in its entirety.

NOTICE OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT, DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION

NOW COMES the Defendant, DaimlerChrysler Corporation (“DC”), by counsel, and asserts the following Affirmative Defenses:

1. No Negligence. Defendant DC was not guilty of any negligence which was a legal cause of any damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs’ decedent.

2. Comparative Negligence. In the event that discovery demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ decedent was guilty of negligence which was the sole proximate cause of any damages allegedly sustained, plaintiffs’ recovery is therefore barred. Alternatively, in the event that discovery demonstrates that plaintiff’s decedents own negligence substantially contributed to the damages allegedly sustained, the recovery of plaintiff’s, if any, should be reduced proportionately.

3. Third party fault. In the alternative, while continuing to deny any and all liability, DC asserts that plaintiff’s decedent’s alleged damages may have been the result of the negligence of third party over whom DC had no control and was not legally responsible. DC cannot identify such parties until discovery has been conducted. DC relies upon the doctrine of Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d1182 (Fla. 1993).

4. Collateral source set-off. DC is entitled to a set-off for all payments made by collateral sources for bills, expenses, or other obligations which have been paid, or are payable to Plaintiff’s herein. Further, DC is entitled to a set-off for any settlements or compensation Plaintiffs may have received regarding the subject incident.

5. Tort Reform and Insurance Act of 1986. Additionally, DC asserts that the incident herein falls under the provisions of the “Tort Reform and Insurance Act of 1986”. which said act specifically addresses, but is not limited to, joint and several liability and non-duplication of benefits. DC affirmatively pleads all of the defenses and rights available to it under said statute.

6. Federal Pre-emption. Additionally, DC affirmatively states that it is entitled to any and all rights and privileges available to it under the Federal Pre-emption Doctrine.

7. Apportionment of damages. Additionally, DC asserts that it is entitled to an Apportionment of damages in relation to the degree of fault of all parties, persons, companies or employers, whether joined as co-defendant or not.

8. Mitigation of damages. In the event that discovery demonstrates that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their alleged damages, the recovery of plaintiffs, if any, should be reduced accordingly.

9. Intervening/superseding cause. In the event that discovery demonstrates that Plaintiff’s claim arose from a superseding and intervening causes unrelated to DC, then Plaintiffs claims are barred.

10. Limitations of liability. Any recovery by Plaintiffs’ is limited by F.S.A. 324.021(9)(b).

11. Failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs’ fail to plead the requisite elements of negligence to support a cause of action as required by Simon V. Tampa Electric Company. 202 So.2d209, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967).

12. Additional Affirmative Defenses. DC reserves the right to amend its answer to assert any additional affirmative defenses based upon either the law of Florida or facts and circumstances which may be disclosed throughout the course of discovery herein.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, DaimlerChrysler Corporation demands that plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and costs assessed against plaintiffs and further demands a trial by jury.

DENARDIS, MCCANDLESS & MILLER, P.C.

Signed by William McCandless

END OF DOCUMENT

Further research:

Norman Gregory Fernandez, ESQ article entitled YOU BETTER CHECK OUT THE PERSON THAT YOU LOAN YOUR CAR TO; YOU COULD BE HELD LEGALLY LIABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. This article shows why Dodge may be held responsible in the case.

I posted the original civil action complaint against Billy Lane and Dodge on October 6th entitled Wrongful death complaint cites Billy Lane acted outrageously.

The complete wrongful death complaint with the answer from Dodge
         

Taking a look at the “DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS” in the civil action for the wrongful death of Gerald Morelock filed against Billy Lane, the motion is very basic in its composition.

The motion was filed by Jeffrey Vernis ESQ of the Palm Beach law firm Vernis & Bowling on October 26 with the Brevard County Clerks Office in Viera.

The case record now reflects that Billy Lane has added another attorney on his defense team in the civil action. Newly added attorney Terence R. Perkins is partner of a Daytona Beach law firm that handles both criminal, personal injury and insurance law.

There is still no attorney of record listed for DaimlerChrysler the other defendant named in the suit. However, the law firm of Vernis & Bowling does list DaimlerChrysler corporation as one of their clients. There has been no official statement released from the DaimlerChrysler corporation yet regarding the suit.

The attorney for the plaintiff, Dolores J. Morelock is Sammy S. Cacciatore JR of the Melbourne law firm Nance Cacciatore. Sammy S. Cacciatore filed a auto negligence suit against William D. Lane and the DaimlerChrysler corporation on October 2 for the wrongful death of Gerald V. Morelock. Mr. Morelock was killed on September 4 when the pickup Billy Lane was driving hit him head on while riding his 1983 Yamaha motor scooter. A crash report filed by the Florida Highway patrol stated that Billy Lane had crossed the double yellow lines on Highway A1A in an attempt to pass 3 vehicles. The report also found Billy Lane to be under the influence of an alcoholic beverage with a blood level of 0.192.

What you are about to read are lines taken from the actual motion to dismiss filed in the case. You will notice links on some of the legal terms by the difference in color of text. These links when clicked on will take you to the definition of that legal term to give you a better understanding of what this document is saying.

I have chose to use the law dictionary at www.law.com for this purpose, as I think that the definitions in their dictionary are more concise, yet easier to understand for the common layperson.

OK, so on with the motion:
1. This is a wrongful death action filed on behalf of the Plaintiff, resulting from an automobile accident, which occurred on or about September 4, 2006.

2. That Plaintiff’s complaint against this Defendant purportedly is predicated upon negligence, however, the Plaintiff has failed to state a cause for action for negligence.

3. That in count 1 of the Plaintiff’s complaint, the Plaintiff purportedly alleges a claim for negligence, however, no where within its count, except for the heading does it set forth the required elements of negligence, specifically: (1) a legal duty to protect the party seeking relief under the circumstances; and (2) negligent failure to comply with said duty.

4. In order to state a cause of action for negligence, the above two elements, together with an allegation that the injury to the party seeking relief was a result of the negligence, and a claim of damages must be pled. See Cintron V. Osmose Wood Preserving, 681. So2d 859, 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

Wherefore, the Defendant requests that this court enter an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint against, Defendant, William D. Lane.

End of motion|

You are welcome to leave your comments and track-back to this article. This article is also open for discussion at

Bikers Voice Forum

This article is public information. However, I work very hard transposing the text of other documents and formatting the article for this blog. Please, if you use this article on your site, give me the courtesy of giving a link back and credit. I have also added a PayPal donation button on the right lower navigation of this blog.

The time, travel and expense of the research for these articles have become very consuming. If you find them informative, please consider a donation in any amount you desire through PayPal.

(Melbourne, Florida) October 26, 2006
F. Jeffrey Vernis ESQ with the firm of Vernis & Bowling has been named the attorney of record for chopper builder Billy Lane in the Brevard County civil suit for the wrongful death of Gerald Morelock.  

Jeffrey Vernis filed several documents today with the Brevard County Clerks office, one of which was a Motion To Dismiss. Although Jeffrey Vernis was not yet named as the attorney for DaimlerChrysler, the web site for the firm lists DaimlerChrysler as one of the many clients of the Vernis & Bowling firm.

On October 2, the civil suit for the wrongful death of Gerald Morelock was filed by the Melbourne, Florida law firm of Nance Cacciatore and Hamilton naming William D. Lane and DaimlerChrysler as defendants. The suit was filed on behalf of Dolores J. Morelock and the estate of Gerald V. Morelock which was amended on October 6 to include punitive damages.

Gerald Morelock was killed Labor Day weekend when the 2006 custom Dodge truck that was being operated by Billy Lane struck him head-on. Witnesses of the September 4th wreck stated that Billy Lane had crossed the doubled yellow line on State Road A1A while attempting to pass 3 vehicles. The witnesses also commented that Lane continued to pass regardless of the oncoming motor scooter that was being driven by victim Gerald Morelock and that he was speeding.

Although Lane was requested to submit to blood alcohol tests several times, he refused to do so. It was not until over 45 minutes after the crash that FHP troopers read the Implied Consent and Lane was still not cooperative even with knowledge of death. FHP Troopers then told Billy Lane that because there was a death and serious injury involved that they were going to take the blood for testing. A registered nurse withdrew the blood sample and it was sent to the FDLE crime lab for testing.

September 22, 2006 the results of the BAC were returned from the crime lab to the investigating Officer. The result was 0.192% which is more than twice the legal limit of impairment for Billy Lane. The results revealed Billy Lane to be under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at the time of his traffic crash. Billy Lane turned himself in 3 days later accompanied by his attorneys and was released on 15,000.00 bond only 90 minutes later.

Billy Lane faced criminal charges of DUI Manslaughter, DUI Serious Bodily Injury and Driving while License Suspended/Revoked With Serious Injury or Death at the time of his arrest. The States Attorneys Office has only officially charged Lane with Felony DUI Manslaughter on October 19, while filing no information on the other two charges. Billy Lane is scheduled to appear before Judge Allawas on November 9 at 9:00 am at the Brevard County court in Viera, Florida on criminal charges. No date has been set for the civil suit at this time.
Gerald Morelock was a park ranger at the Sebastian Inlet State Park and was riding his 1983 Yamaha motor scooter at the time of the crash. Gerry Morelock had visited the park with his parents in his youth and it was his dream to move to the area and live when he got older. The funeral for Gerry was held at the Sebastian Inlet Park where many friends and relatives gathered to say goodbye to the 56 year old man. Gerald Morelock’s ashes were scattered to the wind with a beautiful sunset on the water at the Sebastian Inlet Park where he worked and fished.

Billy Lane is owner of the Melbourne, Florida motorcycle company Choppers Inc. and gained the public attention as a winner in the Discovery Channel’s Great Biker Build-Off and also Appeared on Monster Garage.

DaimlerChrysler is the corporation for Dodge, owners of the 2006 custom Dodge pickup that was being operated by Billy Lane on the night of the crash. The civil suit claims that DaimlerChrysler was negligent in allowing a person with a history of bad driving to operate their vehicles. Billy Lane was out on bond on the date of the crash for refusing to submit to a breathalyser when he was pulled over by the North Carolina Police for driving on the wrong side of the road and without a helmet.

Please go to Bikers Voice for comments and discussion on this post.

Technorati Tags: dui, dwi, drunk driving, billy lane, dodge, daimlerchrysler, law, case research, motorcycle news, celebrities, lawyer

Auto Negligence Civil Action 

The complaint filed by Dolores J. Morelock, plaintiff, for the wrongful death of her son, Gerald V. Morelock names William D. Lane and Daimlerchrysler Corporation as the defendants. Mrs. Morelock has retained the legal services of Nance Cacciatore and Hamilton a Melbourne based law firm that filed the complaint on October 2 in Brevard County, Florida. The case has not yet been set for trial.

The Parties

Dolores J. Morelock, Plaintiff, Mother of the deceased, Gerald V. Morelock lives in Dayton, Ohio. Her son, Gerry Morelock loved it when the family visited Sebastian, Florida in his youth. He used to tell everyone that one day he would move to Sebastian to live. Dolores J. Morelock is named as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Gerald V. Morelock in the complaint.
William D. Lane, Defendant, known to most as Billy Lane famous chopper builder and owner of Choppers Inc. of Melbourne, Florida gained his popularity appearing on the Discovery Channel’s hit television show “The Great Biker Build-Off” and “Monster Garage”. Billy Lane, 36, was born in Miami, Florida and says that his brother got in interested in motorcycles in his younger years.
Daimlerchrysler Corporation, Defendant, known for Dodge products. The auto maker produces vehicles from small cars to heavy duty pickup trucks. Dodge was one of the sponsors for Billy Lane’s Blood, Sweat & Gears Tour.

The Crash

Wrecked Dodge pickup driven by Billy Lane in fatal crash.

The fatal crash that took the life of Gerry Morelock, son of the Plaintiff, Dolores Morelock happened on State Road A1A, 2.8 Miles south of Melbourne Beach at 9:00 pm. September 4th, 2006 According to the probable cause affidavit filed by investigating Officers of the Florida Highway Patrol. The affidavit states that Billy Lane was operating a 2006 Dodge Mega Cab Pickup at this date and time. Based on sworn witness statements, the defendant was passing three other vehicles at one time and exceeded the speed limit of 50 MPH at the speed of 68 MPH. The defendant continued to pass regardless of northbound traffic.

Billy Lane was drinking prior to the crash at Coconuts on the Beach and traveled to Cheaters where he was drinking additional alcoholic beverages. Mr. Lane left these night clubs and drove to his place of business, Choppers Inc. in Melbourne, FL on his chopper with a passenger, Erin Levens Derrick. Billy Lane changed vehicles and proceeded to travel to his residence with Ms. Derrick The FHP affidavit continues on to say that Defendant, Billy Lane chose to pass in a no passing zone and on a double yellow line. He continued to pass at a high rate of speed. Witnesses stated the the defendant was traveling in excess of 60 MPH while overtaking them. The witnesses stated they could not believe the Defendant was passing on a double yellow no passing zone. All the witnesses stated that the motor scooter’s headlight was on and in operation and that it was in clear view of the oncoming traffic.

Billy Lane continued to overtake the witnesses regardless of the motor scooter traveling northbound on State Road A1A. The Yamaha motor scooter that was driven by Gerry Morelock was on the right side of the northbound lane two feet five inches from the painted white line. Billy veered east in an attempt to avoid a head-on crash with the motor scooter. Defendant, Billy Lane, struck Gerald Morelock head-on with the right front of the Dodge Pickup. Gerry’s motor scooter was forced west upon impact and he was killed instantly by the impact of the Dodge Pickup. The Yamaha motor scooter was destroyed and thrown to the west coming to a rest sixty-four feet away.
The Dodge truck that was being operated by Billy Lane drove onto private property and started to overturn, striking three palm trees knocking them over. The truck continued to overturn traveling two hundred and four feet striking a power pole with its undercarriage knocking it over and came to rest on top of the power pole on the northbound side of State Road A1A.

The Aftermath

FHP Narrative continued: Upon arrival of the Brevard County Fire Department and Paramedics stated that Billy Lane was in the driver seat. One of the Fire Paramedics stated that he could detect the oder of an alcoholic beverage from the driver’s side of the vehicle while performing medical treatment on Mr. Lane. Billy Lane was transported by ambulance to Holmes Medical Regional Center in Melbourne, FL. Two FHP Troopers were dispatched to the hospital for the purpose of withdrawal of a blood sample from the Defendant and were present at the emergency room to request a blood sample at 10:42 pm. Mr. Lane refused.

The Trooper read Implied Consent and he still refused. The Trooper advised Billy Lane due to the serious nature of this traffic crash, they would be taking a sample of his blood for the D.U.I. Investigation. A registered nurse then drew the blood from the defendant and it was submitted into evidence and sent to the F.D.L.E. Crime lab for analyst.

The Arrest

On Friday, September 22, 2006 the results of the BAC were returned from the crime lab to the investigating Officer. The result was 0.192% which is more than twice the legal limit of impairment for Billy Lane. The results revealed Billy Lane to be under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at the time of his traffic crash. The defendant caused this traffic crash by driving the 2006 Dodge pickup in a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property and is guilty of reckless driving ( 316.192 ) The defendant chose to pass on a double yellow center line and was guilty of improper passing ( 316.0875.2 ). The defendant, Billy Lane, caused the death of a human being by the reckless operation of his vehicle, vehicular homicide ( 782.071.a ). The defendant was driving the 2006 Dodge Pickup while intoxicated to the Blood Alcohol Level of 0.192 percent and caused the death of a human being, Gerald Vernon Morelock, which is D.U.I. Manslaughter ( 316.193.3. (c)3 ). William D. Lane had a revoked driver license in the State of North Carolina for refusing to submit to a breath test on June 25, 2006.

The State of North Carolina suspended the defendant’s Florida driver license for refusal to submit to a chemical test. The suspension is through July 13, 2007. The defendant is aware of this suspension due to North Carolina taking his Florida driver license at the time of his arrest in that sate.
The defendant is guilty of driving while license is suspended in the state of North Carolina and drove in a negligent operation of a motor vehicle and caused the death of a human being, Gerald Vernon Morelock, and is guilty of a felony of the third degree.

On Monday September 25, 2006 at 1:00 pm Billy Lane turned himself in at the FHP headquarters on HWY 520 in Cocoa, Florida. He was accompanied by 4 attorneys and charged DUI Manslaughter, DUI Serious Bodily Injury and Driving while License Suspended/Revoked With Serious Injury or Death. Billy Lane was also required to turn in his passport and is not allowed to drink alcohol or drive.

Mr. Lane is scheduled to appear in court for these charges on October 27, 2006 in Brevard County.

The Wrongful Death Complaint

A complaint filed for the wrongful death of Gerald V. Morelock is based on the following:

Allegations Common To All Counts

• The defendant’s decision to repetitively engage in such dangerous conduct suggests a higher level of culpability than would be present in a case involving a first time offender.
• The defendant, Daimlerchrysler Corporation at all material times was the owner of the 2006 Dodge Pickup truck.
• At the time of collision, the defendant, William D. Lane, was operating the promotional 2006 Dodge pickup truck which was owned by Daimlerchrysler Corporation, and had been provided along with other promotional vehicles to the defendant, William D. Lane, for his use.
• The Defendant, Daimlerchrysler Corporation, received an economic benefit as a result of the Defendant, William D. Lane, operating the promotional vehicles on the roadways of the State of Florida as well as other states.
• That as a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid wrongful acts of the defendant, William D. Lane, Gerald V. Morelock died.

Liability of Daimlerchrysler

• The Defendant, William D. Lane, had a history of disobeying traffic laws, receiving numerous moving citations, and being reckless, incompetent or unfit driver.
• The entrustment for economic benefit of the Dodge truck by the defendant, Daimlerchrysler Corporation, to the defendant, William D. Lane, created an appreciable risk of harm to others, including the deceased, Gerald V. Morelock, and a concomitant or corresponding duty on the part of the defendant, Daimlerchrysler Corporation.

More basis of claim

• William D. Lane, had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that injury or damage to another individual would result and, despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct.
• The Defendant’s, William D. Lane, conduct was so reckless or wonting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct, such as the decedent, Gerald V. Morelock.

* The content of this article was researched and is based on facts found in the FHP Probable Cause Affidavit and the contents of the complaint filed with the Brevard County Courts for the wrongful death of Gerald Morelock. It is all of public record. However, I did do a great amount of work in research, format and development of this article. Therefore, the article in whole or in part should not be used without my consent. If you wish to use article, please contact me and link back to this article giving me credit for my work.

You are welcome to leave your comments and track-back to this story. This story is also open for discussion at Bikers Voice Forum.

Source:

• Complaint for the wrongful death of Gerald Morelock
• Amended complaint for the wrongful death of Gerald Morelock
• FHP probable cause affidavit
• Florida Today news article http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060925/BREAKINGNEWS/60925014 (removed)

The following statement is taken from the web site Beach Rider and is used by permission of the author. The author is an attorney that wishes to remain anonymous for the simple reason he does not want feedback on the issue. However, when I read the comment regarding this case, I felt that it had a great deal to offer to this article. The author was contacted and has given written permission for use.

First, remember that a criminal charge does nothing to redress injuries suffered by the victim or, as in the Morelock case, the victim’s survivors. Even the style of a criminal case — The People of the State of Florida (or, the State) v. Billy Lane — suggests the action is brought by the state to punish someone who broke the laws of the state. In other words, it’s the state seeking redress on behalf of the state, not the victims. And that makes sense. When someone commits a crime, isn’t the crime against the standards of behavior set by the people through their legislature? Isn’t the crime itself against the state?

So, what is left for the victim? Nothing but money. It’s imperfect, I know, it’s kind of creepy as well. But money is all the law allows as recompense. There is nothing else.

You cannot deny the Morelock family suffered, right? You cannot deny that they suffered at the hand of Billy Lane (assuming the evidence bears out the early reports). The civil law provides one avenue for the family to seek some sort of redress, and that’s a civil lawsuit. And it provides only one remedy. Money. How much is enough?

The right amount isn’t what will enrich the Morelocks. Let’s face it, they lost a dear family member. Do you think any of them will ever feel rich, even if they are awarded a large sum of money? Put it another

way: don’t you think every one of the surviving Morelocks would trade every penny they get plus every penny they’ve ever earned to have Gerry back? Wouldn’t you if it were your brother?

No, this isn’t about what they can get. It’s about imposing a punishment proportionate to the offense and sufficient to let the offender know his actions have consequences. He pays his debt to society for the harm he did to society by doing time (or paying a fine or doing community work), but he pays for how he harmed the family (if he did) in dollars and cents. It’s not enough. But it’s all there is.

So, why is Daimler Chrysler in this? It’s not just their deep pockets.

And its not because anyone is claiming the truck was defective. This is not a products liability case, it’s a negligent entrustment case.

They gave Billy Lane the pick-up truck and, by most accounts, retained title to it as part of their sponsorship deal. They made money from his use of the truck. But what if they entrusted the truck to him knowing he had a history of drunk driving? What if they ignored his history because they could make money from his use of the truck? Isn’t Daimler Chrysler just a little culpable? Don’t you think they bear at least some of the responsibility?

Chrysler is being held to the same standard as anyone who loans his car to someone knowing that person has a history of using it recklessly and in a way that endangers lives. We all have the duty not to do that.

You’d be held to the same standard if you loaned your car to someone you knew had a history of drunk driving. You have a duty to the other people on the road not to entrust your car to someone who you know is likely to mishandle it and cause injury.

Notice, the duty is not to loan your car to someone you know has a problem. it’s a different duty because you know the person is likely to (or has a history of) mishandling the car. If you don’t have affirmative knowledge of their history of misuse, you probably wouldn’t be culpable.

Did Daimler Chrysler know of Billy Lane’s history when they game him the truck? I don’t know. But you can see how they might be, right?

For now, that’s all that matters. The truth will come out through the civil trial process. Let it take its course. See what it reveals.

Reserve judgment until all the facts are in.

I’m glad the motorcycle community is taking a healthy interest in this case. Let us all hope for justice for all concerned.

This is a comment posted about the suit posted on another site and has been used with his permission.

Technorati Tags: auto negligence, billy lane, case research, celebrities, civil suit, court, dodge, drunk driving, dui, dwi, florida, law, melbourne, news, wrongful death, daimlerchrysler, legal news

Only days before Billy Lane is scheduled to appear in a North Carolina court room to answer to charges of DUI, Dolores Morelock, mother of Gerald Morelock has filed a Auto Negligence suit with the Brevard County Clerk of Courts.

The suit was filed on October 2nd and names William D. Lane and the Daimlerchrysler Corporation as defendants for auto negligence stemming from the fatal crash that happened on September 4th involving Choppers Inc. Owner, Billy Lane. Gerald Morelock, 56, of Melbourne Beach was pronounced dead at the scene. Billy Lane faces charges of DUI/Manslaughter in the death of Gerald Morelock.

The lawsuit was filed by Attorney Sammy S. Cacciatore Jr. of the Melbourne based law firm of Nance Cacciatore.

The auto negligence suit against Billy Lane and Dodge can be seen here

Technorati Tags: auto negligence, dodge, daimlerchrysler, court, billy lane, wrongful death, melbourne, florida, news, dui