Discussion Thread #60 - 14.9.12 ~ the appeal~

[Sherbert]

Maybe where you are, but in Australia it's the other way around:

However I shouldn't have included future wage loss in in the special damages as that's included in general damages. (Sorry, very late night last night).

Special damages: This generally refers to out-of-pocket expenses. These may include medical and like expenses such as ambulance fees, loss of earnings to the date of trial, and other incidental expenses such as home help. Because of their very nature, special damages are generally easily quantifiable.

General damages: This covers such matters as loss of earning capacity in the future, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and disfigurement. They are of their very nature incapable of precise mathematical calculation. The court looks at these individual aspects of general damages and assesses the suitable amount of money that is fair and reasonable to both parties to compensate the plaintiff.

http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/handbook/ch18s01s03.php

When I was a "girl" I did a lot of work in this environment. It might sound boring but when you're trying to stop "dodgy plaintiffs" (and it's surprising how many there are) from succeeding, it can be really interesting and very, very funny.

Sorry, I don't follow - what is the other way round?

 

[AJ_DS]

Yes, if a party to a RTA believes that the police investigating the accident are corrupt, then, obviously, this would be a valid reason for keeping stumm.

Also, if a party to a RTA knows he is at fault, it might be advisable, from a legal perspective, to say nothing and sit back and wait for the State to prove its case. I guess that 44ALLAN is saying that, in the second scenario, he would provide a statement, accepting blame.

Red : How does one determine if police investigators are corrupt ?

Blue : I'm never suggested that one should attempt to avoid taking responsibility… I simply suggested that one should have all the facts before doing so, as I believe there is nothing unethical or immoral in that.

 

[JudgeJudi]

<Snipped for brevity>

Firstly, motor vehicle accidents that go to trial are usually heard in civil courts and relate to damages. The greatest part of damages is what's called "general damages" and this relates to loss of income. A seriously wounded person may never work again and they'll claim $X per week for the balance of their working life. Then there are "special damages" which covers all the medical bills, physio, medical care at home etc, past, present and future caused as a direct result of the accident. Negligent or reckless driving causing injury is the most common reason for legal proceedings.

This statement will cover liability, general and special damages. General damages consist of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. Special damages include lost earnings.

Sorry, I don't follow - what is the other way round?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was only referring to general and special damages. The biggest part of these type of claims is invariably future wage loss and ongoing medical expenses, particularly if the plaintiff suffered really extreme injuries and requires 24 hour a day nursing care, and will continue to do so into the future. These fall into general damages in Oz.

Special damages here are the ones that are up to the date of trial, e.g. hospital, medical, ambulance etc.

You have lost earnings in special damages. However re-reading your post, you may well have been referring to wage loss up to the trial, and if so, you're absolutely correct. However it's the future wage loss which is in serious accidents where the big money falls. I'm afraid I was thinking about that because the trials that I was involved with were invariably very big ones. Sorry for the confusion. Tunnel vision.

 

[AJ_DS]

AJ, rather than address the individual comments in your posts, I just want to point something out.

Firstly, motor vehicle accidents that go to trial are usually heard in civil courts and relate to damages. The greatest part of damages is what's called "general damages" and this relates to loss of income. A seriously wounded person may never work again and they'll claim $X per week for the balance of their working life. Then there are "special damages" which covers all the medical bills, physio, medical care at home etc, past, present and future caused as a direct result of the accident. Negligent or reckless driving causing injury is the most common reason for legal proceedings.

I think you may be confusing the above form of negligence with "criminal negligence".

Sometimes there has already been a criminal conviction based on the same conduct related to the crash, and a civil court will accept a certified conviction as sufficient proof that the defendant is responsible for the damages. The standard of proof in a civil case for car crash injuries/wrongful death is lower than in a criminal case, so a conviction in criminal court is more than enough evidence&#8221;.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2013/10/can-criminal-charges-affect-car-crash-lawsuits.html

If someone is charged and convicted of a criminal offense that relates to fault in a car accident -- either by recklessness, negligence, or bad intent -- then there is sufficient proof that the convicted driver was responsible for the injuries.

Convictions for DUI can also prove useful in civil court, as violating laws which are meant to protect driver safety can be considered negligence per se.

I'll give you an example to try and explain the difference. Car A is driving along the highway at the prescribed speed limit. Car B which is travelling behind him is also driving within the limit. Car C is travelling along the highway 70 ks over the limit when it swerves into B. Car B is then forced into the car in front of him (Car A) causing damage. The police are called to the scene. They charge the driver of Car B with negligent driving because they say he was driving too close to the car in front of him (Car A). The driver of Car C is charged with criminal negligence because when the police investigate and see the skid marks, speed cameras etc. not only do they establish negligence but they also discover he was speeding away from a store he'd just robbed.

Driver A sues drivers B and C. The court establishes that while driver B was driving too close to A, they only apportion, say, 20% of the negligence to him, i.e. 20% of the damages. Driver C however will face paying 80% of the damages because he committed a robbery and was speeding away from the scene of the crime when he had the crash.

Driver B, on the advice of his lawyer declines to make a statement. Driver C also declines.

The ballgame changes from negligence (even if someone dies) to criminal negligence when there is a criminal element. This is when the police will caution him (read the Miranda rights or equivalent) and interrogate him. This is in no way unfair because he still has the right to arrange for a lawyer before he answers any questions, and the lawyer may well tell the police that his client chooses not to answer. Without the requisite proof, a person cannot be found guilty by virtue of the fact that he chose to remain silent and/or not to provide a statement. The prosecution still needs to prove its case.

BiB&#8230; To continue on your metaphor, the problem is that you, as a simple civilian, are not purview to said ballgame : you are pretty much clueless about the sport, the teams, the players, the score, who's on offense and who's on defence, etc&#8230; whereas investigators are playing both coach and referee on behalf of the managers (prosecutors).

As for the Miranda rights or equivalent&#8230; the problem is that Police does not have to caution you until they arrest you (or intend to arrest you) which opens up a big gray area for investigators : they can question you without cautioning you and it would be very difficult or impossible to prove that they had already decided to arrest you when they were questioning you&#8230;

...this is the unfair bit : you don't know what evidence they possess, you don't know if you're a suspect, you don't know if they have already decided to arrest you, you don't know if they are lying or deceiving you, etc&#8230; BUT they play the "good cops" who just want you to help them figure out what happened, what you saw, what you did, etc&#8230;

&#8230; then they arrest you, caution you and start playing "good cop" and "bad cop" who just want you to help them help you.

 

[AJ_DS]

No
No

"On the opposite side of the highway to which Carl and his colleague were travelling, traffic was in fact backed up and moving very slowly".

Oh no!!!!! Uncle Arnold said this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rother-in-intensive-care-after-car-crash.html

Oh no!!!!! Again!!!

"The brothers' uncle, Arthur Pistorius, released a statement which said his nephew was in a critical condition, but was "out of danger". A colleague was following in a different vehicle and witnessed the collision. He was able to tell us what happened.

The collision took place along a stretch of the N1 where for some reason, traffic had slowed down considerably.

On the opposite side of the highway to which Carl and his colleague were travelling, traffic was in fact backed up and moving very slowly".

http://news.sky.com/story/1311896/pistorius-brother-critical-after-head-on-crash

The only good bit of news here is:

"Emergency workers say Pistorius was conscious throughout and sang happy birthday to one of the medics who treated him".

At least he remained conscious and hopefully that will mitigate a potential statement from him that he was so shocked that he can't remember what happened.

http://www.enca.com/carl-pistorius-mend-after-near-death-experience

Thanks for the info&#8230; BUT as the source of said info is Arnold, I'll reserve judgement.

If in fact this is reality I can come up with a theory :

- Other driver was backed up in slow moving traffic
- Other driver wanted to skip ahead
- Other driver proceeded into oncoming lane to overtake (swerved)
- Carl was driving way too fast
- Other driver did not see Carl or anticipate Carl's speed
- Too late for both of them to do anything but brake
- Crash

 

[Sherbert]

Red : How does one determine if police investigators are corrupt ?

Blue : I'm never suggested that one should attempt to avoid taking responsibility&#8230; I simply suggested that one should have all the facts before doing so, as I believe there is nothing unethical or immoral in that.

Of course, it is possible to seek to avoid taking responsibility by exercising one's right to silence, rather than admitting fault.

Reading between the lines, I presume that you would consider this immoral?

 

[Sherbert]

<Snipped for brevity>







Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was only referring to general and special damages. The biggest part of these type of claims is invariably future wage loss and ongoing medical expenses, particularly if the plaintiff suffered really extreme injuries and requires 24 hour a day nursing care, and will continue to do so into the future. These fall into general damages in Oz.

Special damages here are the ones that are up to the date of trial, e.g. hospital, medical, ambulance etc.

You have lost earnings in special damages. However re-reading your post, you may well have been referring to wage loss up to the trial, and if so, you're absolutely correct. However it's the future wage loss which is in serious accidents where the big money falls. I'm afraid I was thinking about that because the trials that I was involved with were invariably very big ones. Sorry for the confusion. Tunnel vision.

In the UK, future loss of earnings is categorised as special damages. And, yes, I agree - this is often the most financially significant part of the claim.

 

[AJ_DS]

Of course, it is possible to seek to avoid taking responsibility by exercising one's right to silence, rather than admitting fault.

Reading between the lines, I presume that you would consider this immoral?

No need to read between the lines&#8230; I'll say it outright&#8230; trying to avoid taking responsibility for what one has done is immoral.

Naturally those who wish to avoid taking responsibility would be well advised to remain silent when questioned by Police

BUT remaining silent when questioned by Police does NOT mean that one wishes to avoid taking responsibility.

Like I mentioned before, you may genuinely and honestly believe that you are responsible for something BUT you may be incorrect in your beliefs because they are invariably subjective : your beliefs are based on what you witnessed and what you remember&#8230; basically you are inferring beliefs based on incomplete and biased evidence.

 

[44ALLAN]

Yes, if a party to a RTA believes that the police investigating the accident are corrupt, then, obviously, this would be a valid reason for keeping stumm.

Also, if a party to a RTA knows he is at fault, it might be advisable, from a legal perspective, to say nothing and sit back and wait for the State to prove its case. I guess that 44ALLAN is saying that, in the second scenario, he would provide a statement, accepting blame.

Thanks Sherbert appreciated

What I'm saying is I've brought my kid's up to tell the truth unless their going to get in very serious trouble then they have to lie through their teeth...............hope that makes my position clear to everyone :shame::blushing::innocent:

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://citizen.co.za/308514/man-behind-oscars-door/


National 17.1.2015 07.00 am
The man behind Oscar’s door

It may be one of the most infamous doors of all time.

“The Door” stood to the right of the North Gauteng High Court room in which the trial of Oscar Pistorius for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp took place.

It was the same door State advocate Gerrie Nel said Steenkamp cowered behind while an “enraged” Pistorius fired four bullets at her.

And it was then Captain Chris Mangena’s unenviable job of walking a tightrope between assisting sitting Judge Thokozile Masipa, not destroying Nel’s case and being a believable expert to the defence.

“The door was a problem,” Mangena says, laughing ruefully. “The first time I received it as an exhibit, I thought this is going to cause us trouble because it was removed from the crime scene and people are going to want to see it all the time.
...........

Comment:
#MANGENA&THENOTORIOUSDOOR - Talking about skills well displayed by a "public servant" bravo my brrrrrr, you truly did a good a job, you truly represented us, thank you & we proud of you. You shall remain in the hearts & minds of many South Africans for many years to come.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://panmacmillan.bookslive.co.za...antha-greyvenstein-describes-the-crime-scene/

Excerpt from Behind the Door: Reeva Steenkamp&#8217;s Close Friend Samantha Greyvenstein Describes the Crime Scene

The phone on the bedside table vibrated and woke Justin Divaris from a deep slumber. It was 3:59 AM on Valentine&#8217;s Day. Justin rolled over, looked at the screen and mumbled to his girlfriend Samantha Greyvenstein, &#8216;Oscar&#8217;s phoning me.&#8217; He ignored the call, but when it rang for a second time Samantha urged him to answer it. &#8216;Answer the phone, maybe it&#8217;s something serious,&#8217; she said.

&#8216;Hi, Oz,&#8217; Samantha heard Justin say, followed by, &#8216;Don&#8217;t speak ****!&#8217; Oscar had told his friend that he had shot Reeva.

&#8216;What are you talking about? I don&#8217;t understand you,&#8217; Justin repeated. &#8216;There has been a terrible accident &#8211; I shot Reeva.&#8217;

It was at that point that Carice had taken the phone from Oscar and continued the conversation with Justin. She told him it was true and that he should get to the house.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Awww, isn't this nice news. It looks like Captain Chris Mangena has had a promotion and is now Major Chris Mangena.

Now a Major and the newly appointed head of the Forensic Science Laboratories of South African Police Service: Detective Services &#8211; Ballistics Unit, Pretoria, Mangena takes his job very seriously.

For the most part he has been an enigma, shot from relative obscurity to a firm favourite of the public at large, delivering his testimony during Pistorius&#8217; trial with authority.

His interest was piqued watching crime scene technicians leaving the building, he wanted to know what they were doing, and why. Six months later on January 15, 1995, his transfer came through to the ballistics unit and the young constable&#8217;s life changed forever.

Three years of in-service training later, he qualified as a ballistics expert. &#8220;The training really pushed me,&#8221; he says, explaining there were 11 levels he had had to complete successfully before qualifying.

http://citizen.co.za/308514/man-behind-oscars-door/

 

[44ALLAN]

Awww, isn't this nice news. It looks like Captain Chris Mangena has had a promotion and is now Major Chris Mangena.

Now a Major and the newly appointed head of the Forensic Science Laboratories of South African Police Service: Detective Services &#8211; Ballistics Unit, Pretoria, Mangena takes his job very seriously.

For the most part he has been an enigma, shot from relative obscurity to a firm favourite of the public at large, delivering his testimony during Pistorius&#8217; trial with authority.

His interest was piqued watching crime scene technicians leaving the building, he wanted to know what they were doing, and why. Six months later on January 15, 1995, his transfer came through to the ballistics unit and the young constable&#8217;s life changed forever.

Three years of in-service training later, he qualified as a ballistics expert. &#8220;The training really pushed me,&#8221; he says, explaining there were 11 levels he had had to complete successfully before qualifying.

http://citizen.co.za/308514/man-behind-oscars-door/

Whats the point if court appointed Judges ignore his testimony ?

 

[L2L]

http://mg.co.za/article/2014-12-04-oscar-pistorius-unravelling-the-shadows-and-the-light/

Who gets the role of OP? An "actor willing to have both legs amputated below the knees"!

 

[JudgeJudi]

Whats the point if court appointed Judges ignore his testimony ?

No, only one judge did, and everyone else acknowledged he was the State's best witness. In other judgments I've seen, even another one with Wollie opposing him, he came out a winner.

But not only is he a major, he's also the newly appointed head of the Forensic Science Laboratories of South African Police Service: Detective Services – Ballistics Unit, Pretoria.

Be happy for him Allan. We haven't exactly had a lot to be cheerful about for a long time.

 

[Val1]

Just wondering, did anymore news come out of all those visits OP did to Jewel City?

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/oscar-diamonds/

 

[Colin de France]

Just wondering, did anymore news come out of all those visits OP did to Jewel City?

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/oscar-diamonds/

...Good question, i wonder if he was buying or selling ?

 

[JudgeJudi]

Just wondering, did anymore news come out of all those visits OP did to Jewel City?

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/oscar-diamonds/

Not that I've heard. At the time that article was published I wondered if he was converting cash into diamonds in order for Arnold to hold them for him until the end of the trial. The money market can be volatile whereas diamonds are going up in value all the time. It's probably irrelevant about OP having a licence because "Heno and Tom Kruger, apparently family members on his mother’s side, were involved in a diamond mine and therefore have a licence to deal in polished and rough diamonds".

Blood is thicker than water. The family connection is there. I rest my case.

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/oscar-diamonds/

 

[44ALLAN]

No, only one judge did, and everyone else acknowledged he was the State's best witness. In other judgments I've seen, even another one with Wollie opposing him, he came out a winner.

But not only is he a major, he's also the newly appointed head of the Forensic Science Laboratories of South African Police Service: Detective Services – Ballistics Unit, Pretoria.

Be happy for him Allan. We haven't exactly had a lot to be cheerful about for a long time.

Of course I'm happy for him I was simply having another dig and the old relic who ignored every word he said..................he must be seething inside I would be.

 

[L2L]

Oscar's Family in price-fixing scandal......what next?


http://www.iol.co.za/business/compa...-fixing-cartel-scandal-1.1806040#.VLuw1uGYWis