View Single Post
Old 05-15-2004, 12:44 AM   #5
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Exclamation Musings on Littlefield and justice

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
The civil & criminal proceedings are proceeding on two distinctly different tracks.

The burden of proof in the civil proceedings is much less than that in the criminal proceedings (preponderance of the evidence versus beyond a reasonable doubt).

The civil case is extremely strong and will continue regardless of the outcome of the appeal. It is not uncommon in cases like this to have the criminal conviction overturned while gaining a victory in civil court.

And remember, the victim's family has temporarily seized an extremely sizable portion of Littlefield's estate in anticipation of this contingency. This will be available to the plaintiffs should they prevail in civil court.

Justice is better served when the guilty party assumes full moral and financial responsibiltiy for their wrongdoing. Therefore I believe the US District Court's ruling against Littlefield is actually not only a vicxtory for the plaintiffs, but a victory for every policy holder that will not now have to partake in a financial burden caused by the defendant's negligence.

Hopefully the appeal will be overturned in the not to distant future and the convicted party can begin paying his debt to society and allowing the victim's family the closure they deserve.
I agree with what you said above but I am constantly troubled by the fact that we have 2 systems to dispence 'justice'. That our civil system can proceed in complete disagrement with our criminal system (though not in this case, think OJ) bothers me to no end (despite what I might agree is a righteous outcome). Naively I wish for a system that would arrive at facts, all punishment derived from the facts. I guess world peace would be nice too.

That the insurance company is denying any claim is a 2 sided thing (not that I disagree). Let's remember Littlefield Sr owns the boat and is guiltless as far as I'm concerned. It's the son who bears the sole responsibility. That said, I'm sure the contract stipulates (perhaps not explicitly) who may operate the boat and be covered. This is a lesson to be learned. Let your good buddy drive the boat back some night and do something wrong, you won't be insured. You own the repair and ??? whatever else ??? costs. Maybe your good buddy will re-imburse you and then again ....
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links