|
Phil:
I am familiar with the Florida doctrine of which you speak. First, it is a principle of tort law, which is completely separate from criminal law. The doctrine imposes tort liability upon the owner of a "dangerous instrumentality" who gives permission to another to operate that instrument and that other party does so negligently. The modern example would be the owner of a trucking company whose trucks are not maintained properly being held liable for damage his negligent driver caused in operating the unsafe truck. There is nothing unusual or Florida-exclusive about it. That is the law in most states.
Secondly, a tort is a civil wrong, for which money damages may be awarded to the prevailing party. The standard of proof is a preponderance of evidence; to prevail, a party must show evidence that makes his position more likely than not, 51% or more.
In criminal law, the State must show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, more like 99%.
The scene you depicted in your original post could not happen. In 1920, contributory negligence would prevent the left-turning driver from recovering anything. Now, comparative fault would allocate fault among the parties. The RVer overweight by 1000 lbs probably would not be allocated any fault unless the plaintiff could prove that the excess weight increased the stopping distance of the RV significantly. Not very likely.
|