Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mustaine on August 26, 2005, 02:55:48 PM

Title: One cannot conspire to be negligent?
Post by: Mustaine on August 26, 2005, 02:55:48 PM
is this BS lawyer speak?

the story here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050826/ap_on_re_us/hazing_lawsuit

basically a girl died in a hazing incident. a bunch of girls were blindfolded and put in the back of an SUV while the driver drove erattically to scare the girls. one was thrown from the vehicle and killed. the parents are suing... and the lawyer said the above quote:
One cannot conspire to be negligent...

i dont get it. of course you can conspire to be neglignet. you can conspire to do ANYTHING, that is the defination of conspire.  
Quote
engage in plotting or enter into a conspiracy, swear together; "They conspired to overthrow the government"  


God i hate lawyers. all of them. they are worthless tools who try and double speak their way out of anything. i bet you if lawyers had a chance to, they's try and convince the world hitler was innocent.
Title: One cannot conspire to be negligent?
Post by: jEEZY on August 26, 2005, 03:07:33 PM
In a sense the lawyer is right. Negligence cannot, by definition be intentional conduct, so it would be impossible to conspire to be negligent.

For instance, you and your buddy are driving down the road, and decide to drive real fast and erratically. Your careless driving results in a collision with another care. Did you agree (agreement is the touchstone for conspiracy) to wreck the car? No you only agreed to drive erratically, which is intentional conduct; you did not agree to the collision, an unitentional action.  I note however, in a consiracy one is generally liable for the foreseeable acts of co-conspirators--so even if you did not agree to crash the car, both would still be liable, becuase a collision is a reaonable foreseeable act.

Change the hypo a little, and you agree to  collide with another car--this is intentional conduct, and you have conspired to do such--but since the act was intentional it cannot therefore be negligent.

The porblem is that the dead girl's lawyer is not very savy, or the media is not fully reporting the story. Just becuase the tortfeasors could not conspire does not mean they are not liable.  

I agree lawyers make things overly complicated--espetially bad lawyers.
Title: One cannot conspire to be negligent?
Post by: Holden McGroin on August 26, 2005, 04:39:47 PM
If you conspired to rob a bank and in the robbery someone was unintentionally killed, everyone is responsible for the felony homicide.

That would make them guilty of a conspiracy that lead to felony murder whether they intended to kill or not.
Title: One cannot conspire to be negligent?
Post by: Tarmac on August 26, 2005, 05:10:22 PM
Conspire = intent
Negligent = lack of intent.  

Not that hard.
Title: Re: One cannot conspire to be negligent?
Post by: Jackal1 on August 26, 2005, 05:21:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Mustaine

One cannot conspire to be negligent...

i dont get it. of course you can conspire to be neglignet.  


  Did you conspire to mispell that or was it negligence?
  Same theory. :)
Title: Re: Re: One cannot conspire to be negligent?
Post by: Mustaine on August 26, 2005, 05:24:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Jackal1
Did you conspire to mispell that or was it negligence?
  Same theory. :)
no i ripsnort and pasted the words from the news story, i cant speel gud enouf:p
Title: One cannot conspire to be negligent?
Post by: Jackal1 on August 27, 2005, 12:34:46 AM
LOl
My reddin has improuved 100 purcent ever sinse i took the Evelyn Woodhead sped reddin course. :)