Found Deceased IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 *Arrest* #44

[TL4S]

Following up on this point from yesterday. In order to hold the owner of a vehicle responsible for a crime that occurred using that car, doesn't it have to be proven that if that car was not available, the crime would not have occurred? That's not possible here. There no reason to believe that if that car was not available, Rivera would not have obtained another vehicle to use in the abduction and murder of Mollie.

Wouldn't it also have to be proven that the owner was aware the car was going to be used in a crime?

 

[kpm]

Or lawfully legal for Lizzie to use the tools ?

Exactly, due diligence!

 

[MsBetsy]

Following up on this point from yesterday. In order to hold the owner of a vehicle responsible for a crime that occurred using that car, doesn't it have to be proven that if that car was not available, the crime would not have occurred? That's not possible here. There no reason to believe that if that car was not available, Rivera would not have obtained another vehicle to use in the abduction and murder of Mollie.

If someone borrowed my car and carried out a robbery, would I then be held accountable? How could I have known if this person had given me no reason not to trust him or her?

 

[otto]

Question: my employee, Lizzie, is entitled to use the tools in my tool shed as part of her compensation. She must check them out. She comes to me one evening asking to borrow my ax. I allow her to and the next morning I discover she’s given everyone in her company owned house a whack. Am I liable because it was my ax she used?

Very good analogy! No, you are not responsible for the actions of someone who used something that belonged to you while committing a crime.

I'm not a lawyer, but that much seems to be common sense.

 

[Al Hoffman]

JMO
I think the significance of it will come into play in civil court as I am expecting MT's family will most likely sue the farm for some percentage of liability they may have had in MT's death.

I suspect their lawyers will argue that with a name like "John Budd" which is traditionally a well known US surname that the farm should have known he was using an illegal allias and thus should have checked him out more carefully regarding his status to be working in the country legally. Amongst other things too like the car and whether he had a valid drivers license and insurance to be driving the roads on which MT was taken.

I have been interested in learning about the car insurance situation because there was a case in my state where an illegal immigrant hit and killed a person and they were held liable but the person had no drivers license or insurance. So it causes quite a quandry as the family is tried to recoup hospital medical bills that were incurred before the person died.

If and when a civil case gets filed in this case I am pretty sure the farm is going to be involved in some percentage of liability. Lawyers will include them in a civil suit because they know the defendant does not have the money. This is why having valid insurance when driving is so important and why people get upset when others drive without drivers licenses and insurance.

When and if your family member ever gets injured in a vehicle crash or worse dies in one and if the other person is not insured properly then you are left to figure out how to recoup money lost or you may not have the means to pay either as hospital bills skyrocket.

1) I don't think that MT's family will go this route. I don't think that RT will want to go there, for a lot of reasons. It touches on too many hot button issues he is now publicly speaking out against to defend MT's memory.

The basis for this Tort against the farm is tenuous at best. How would a reasonable and prudent man know before the fact that CR was a killer? If the owners of the Y Farm aided and abetted the murder of MT, it was as an unwilling participant. If CR had killed MT in a MVA/Pedestrian interaction with the car, I could see your point. But short of being able to prove in court that CR said "Hey boss, can I have the keys to the farm car, 'cause I'm going out to kill a girl tonight. Don't wait up", there will be no lawsuit against Y Farm for this. IF the car is even registered to Y Farm. JMOO

MT's family has already publicly said they know the owners of Y Farms, and empathize with their situation. In Iowa, friends don't sue friends. This is a small town

In the uninsured motorist situation you note above, has the involved family tried suing whomever sold the illegal immigrant the car? The name will be on file with the State DMV. Please get back to me on that. They will have as much luck with that Tort as a Tort against Y Farms, for the same reasons.

2) To protect your family, ALWAYS carry Uninsured Motorist insurance coverage for this very reason. Also, even if 21 y/o and as healthy as a Y Farm Bull, always have health insurance, at the very least some kind of cheap catastrophic loss health insurance and/or accidental death coverage. All pretty cheap, and a hedge against the above noted MVA aftermath. Always make sure that YOU have the correct, valid insurance coverage you need before going on the road. The other guy may be a US citizen and a tort-proof idiot.

Again JMOO

 

[kpm]

Wouldn't it also have to be proven that the owner was aware the car was going to be used in a crime?

The burden of proof would have to be that he knew CR was using it for a crime, which is highly doubtful.

I think where he will be in trouble is letting people without a valid DL use the car, for any reason

When we buy car insurance they ask for all the drivers who will be using the car


All Moo, JMO

 

[otto]

Wouldn't it also have to be proven that the owner was aware the car was going to be used in a crime?

If the owner knew nothing about the intended used of the object, the owner of an object that is used in a crime is not responsible for the crime.

 

[MsBetsy]

Question: my employee, Lizzie, is entitled to use the tools in my tool shed as part of her compensation. She must check them out. She comes to me one evening asking to borrow my ax. I allow her to and the next morning I discover she’s given everyone in her company owned house a whack. Am I liable because it was my ax she used?

Thats what I would like to know. According to some people you would be!!!

 

[cody22]

Thats what I would like to know. According to some people you would be!!!

If your Lizzie was an illegal immigrant, would her Employer have any civil liability ?

 

[kpm]

Thats what I would like to know. According to some people you would be!!!

You could be liable if you allow drivers without a DL to use your vehicles

 

[MsBetsy]

Very good analogy! No, you are not responsible for the actions of someone who used something that belonged to you while committing a crime.

I'm not a lawyer, but that much seems to be common sense.

If not, a great many innocent people would be accountable for something they didn't do.

 

[MsBetsy]

If your Lizzie was an illegal immigrant, would her Employer have any civil liability ?

I guess not if they didn't know.

 

[otto]

This is included to illustrate how multiple parties can get dragged into a civil case. Look at the result of how many different parties ended up with a judgement against them and their share was a percentage of the overall judgement.

The most interesting one to me is the raft builder. They probably never expected they would be dragged into a civil case resulting in someones death. They just supplied the raft. They probably had little control in how tall the water park made the ride or how fast the ride itself made their rafts go. Their small judgement related to the other parties reflects this. But yet they still had to pay some.

▪ $14 million from SVV 1 and KC Water Park, two companies associated with Texas-based water park company Schlitterbahn.

▪ $5 million from Henry & Sons Construction, the general contractor on the 17-story ride that broke records for the height of a water slide.

▪ $500,000 from Zebec of North America, which manufactured the raft that carried up to three riders down the slide.

▪ $232,125 from National Aquatics Safety Co. and its founder, John Hunsucker, which consulted on Verrückt.

Family of Caleb Schwab receives nearly $20 million in Verrückt settlements

That sounds like product related legal liability, which I see as different than the question of whether the owner of an object, such as a gun, is responsible for crimes committed using that object.

I'm inclined to think that it has to be proven that if, and only if, Rivera had access to that vehicle, he could commit the abduction/murder. That's simply not true. When he decided to commit the abduction/murder, he would have found a way to do it regardless of that one vehicle.

 

[MsBetsy]

You could be liable if you allow drivers without a DL to use your vehicles

True, but what if I didn't know they didn't because I had seen them driving before?

 

[kpm]

I guess not if they didn't know.

Oops, sorry I didn’t see your post to me

We are responsible for our vehicles, if we loan them them out to Joe Schmoo, we better be darn sure Joe knows not to let anyone one else, especially anyone without a DL use it

 

[Al Hoffman]

Interesting question.

I wonder if its something about those vehicle types that may make them easier to steal or something. I have always wondered what makes a certain car type the most stolen vehicle.

The demand for replacement parts drives the top 10 list. The more popular the car, the more accidents they will be involved in overall. The cars aren't sold intact, but go to "chop shops" where they are parted out for non-VIN bearing parts, and the parts sold to auto body repair shops. The repair shop collects from you and the insurance company for "genuine" OEM parts, and that is what you get, but at a fraction of the cost to the shop doing the work, full price - F.O.B. to you, and not "directly" from the manufacturer.

The left over parts can be scraped out, but that is getting harder to do, as I think that scrap yards now must check for VINs on certain parts. You need a "friend" in the business to do this sub rosa for you.

 

[kpm]

The key question in all of this is who the farm or whomevers car it is allowed CR to use the vehicle without a DL

If they allowed anyone without a DL to use it then that won’t be good

If they were presented with a fake DL, it’s not as bad

JMO

 

[MsBetsy]

Oops, sorry I didn’t see your post to me

We are responsible for our vehicles, if we loan them them out to Joe Schmoo, we better be darn sure Joe knows not to let anyone one else, especially anyone without a DL use it

True, but it may be hard to prove they didn't know.

 

[Confusion]

Question: my employee, Lizzie, is entitled to use the tools in my tool shed as part of her compensation. She must check them out. She comes to me one evening asking to borrow my ax. I allow her to and the next morning I discover she’s given everyone in her company owned house a whack. Am I liable because it was my ax she used?

From what I understand about the way things were at the house/farm, you're using the wrong analogy. I think it would be more likely: You have tools in your tool shed for employees to use for their work, and the key to the shed is left in a place where the employees could access them as need. Lizzie is only 13 so not allowed to use any of the sharp/power/dangerous tools, but takes your ax and kills everyone in her company owned house. Are you liable because it was your ax?

We have no way (right now) to know if CR had been given permission to drive the car, at least not by the owner, and I don't remember it ever being confirmed that the car was owned by the farm. It makes sense that he would have a vehicle or two for them to use to get around at work, run errands, get groceries and supplies, etc. , but it may have been understood (and possibly even stated) that only licensed drivers were to use it/them. With what we've been told so far, I don't feel you with your ax or the farm owner with his car would be liable. MOO

 

[CarnegieHall]

Could someone please remind me what role a victim’s family plays in prosecution of criminal cases? For example, can RT ask the State to reduce charges? Or is the State bound by law to prosecute at the highest charge based on the evidence they have? Because, JMO, i believe RT would want to lower the charges. He seems very uncomfortable with the whole thing.