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

[MsBetsy]

Never mind I tried to fix it but it won't work

 

[kpm]

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

If it is the farms car, they knew CR only had a state id and no DL, per arrest warrant

If he was given permission to use the car with that knowledge than the farm is clearly in the wrong

Any person who got the use the car should have been completely vetted by the farm

JMO

 

[MsBetsy]

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

I think it was the car he normally used. The example was meant to compare the fact that just because someone used a tool or vehicle to carry out a crime, it doesn't make the owner liable if they could not have known it was being used in such a manner. No one in the comparison is under age.

 

[MimosaMornings]

Do we know the number of “housed employees” at this farm?

 

[Hatfield]

But he could be liable for allowing drivers without a DL use his vehicles

JMO
I agree. Its basically the definition of negligence. Something happens and sure you didnt expect it but you could be negligent for allowing the circumstances that it happened in the first place.

The bottom line is a civil case jury will decide. Thats why there are so many civil cases. Some won and some lost.

The link below is mostly talking about car accidents and negligence resulting from it but in a murder case where an illegal driver is on the road and a murder happens with a possibly company owned vehicle it could get real interesting in this case.

"Negligence can result in all types of accidents causing physical and/or property damage, but can also include business errors"

"Nine states (California, New York, Michigan, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island) make the owner of the vehicle responsible for all damages caused by a driver given permission to use the car"

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

 

[kpm]

Do we know the number of “housed employees” at this farm?

About 10 people

 

[MsBetsy]

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.

I don't think he would necessarily want to lower the charge, I think he just wants a fair trial and see that Justice is served for his beloved child.

 

[MsBetsy]

Do we know the number of “housed employees” at this farm?

I dont think we know the exact amount, only that there were several. One or two have left.

 

[kpm]

JMO
I agree. Its basically the definition of negligence. Something happens and sure you didnt expect it but you could be negligent for allowing the circumstances that it happened in the first place.

The bottom line is a civil jury and lawyers will decide. Thats why there are so many civil cases. Some won and some lost.

The link below is mostly talking about car accidents and negligence resulting from it but in a murder case where an illegal driver is on the road and a murder happens with a possibly company owned vehicle it could get real interesting in this case.

"Negligence can result in all types of accidents causing physical and/or property damage, but can also include business errors"

"Nine states (California, New York, Michigan, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island) make the owner of the vehicle responsible for all damages caused by a driver given permission to use the car"

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

JMO

It’s something totally different when a company allows employees to use a vehicle if they have not presented a valid DL

Sure a fake one could be used, but the nature of this business should be a red flag for the employer to triple check that darn DL before a company car is used.

 

[kc1023]

Perhaps they lent the car to someone else (appropriately licensed?) and that person then let CR use the vehicle.

 

[kpm]

I dont think we know the exact amount, only that there were several. One or two have left.

Company records online state 8-10

Type in the farm name inc, llc to find the company history

And it’s been stated in many article and it matches up

 

[FrostedGlass]

I think there is a good chance that CR did have a fake DL, which he included with the rest of the fake papers he showed to the farm manager. When he was arrested, that's where it was learned that he had no legal DL. IMO

I can't imagine the farm not asking him for his DL when they hired him. I also can't imagine them letting him drive one of their vehicles if they even suspected he was unlicensed. They must know the liability issues that could be lurking in the future, even for leaving keys in an accessible place.

 

[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

Exactly why I would never let anyone drive my car, unless maybe a good friend who had an emergency. It's never happened, but that would be the only reason.

 

[rebel123]

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.

I don't think that's possible, the Judge will determine the sentence taking the law and everything else into consideration; MT's family can read out an 'impact statement', if they want to.

 

[MsBetsy]

Company records online state 8-10

Type in the farm name inc, llc to find the company history

And it’s been stated in many article and it matches up

Oh ok, how many people did they say actually left?

 

[rebel123]

Do we know the number of “housed employees” at this farm?

10 at the moment; a couple left after the arrest of CR.

 

[kpm]

I think there is a good chance that CR did have a fake DL, which he included with the rest of the fake papers he showed to the farm manager. When he was arrested, that's where it was learned that he had no legal DL. IMO

I can't imagine the farm not asking him for his DL when they hired him. I also can't imagine them letting him drive one of their vehicles if they even suspected he was unlicensed. They must know the liability issues that could be lurking in the future, even for leaving keys in an accessible place.

Exactly, but the farm has claimed he only had an out of state ID and SS

It’s the farms responsibility to secure that vehicle as you said

Now he could have had a fake one, but he didn’t show it when they arrested him

 

[Al Hoffman]

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

Yes, if they are involved in a MVA. But you are not responsible for criminal acts committed by the user of the car, unless they committed property damage with the vehicle or actually caused injury with the car. UNLESS, you knew before the act that this was their intent. Then you are a willing participant and accessory to the crime before the fact. Or if they returned the car and you actively participated in covering up the crime. Then you are an accessory after the fact.

While a civil case has lower burdens of proof, it faces the same as basic test of accountability as above. "What would a reasonable and prudent man thought or would have done at the time.

At Y Farms, these are employee quarters, in a remote location. The car is a vehicle the owner kept for employee use rather than trading it in, with maybe a tax write off. That is why it is not a P/U or SUV. Because the living quarters are in so remote an area, the car is left there for emergencies, and for the employees to come and go to other parts of the property. The keys are kept on a hook or left in the vehicle for this reason. It is prudent to leave the car there, in case an employee had an after hour medical emergency. "It is a pity that a NOW apparently unbalanced employee abused this privilege. And yes, he did show me a DL" CR could have shown his supervisor (his uncle?) or even one of the farm owner's family a fake DL that sufficed.

JMOO

 

[SharonNeedles]

I think y’all have worked CR’s immigration status and severity of his crime into the question - neither of which is relevant in establishing liability.

The same framework would apply if I drive my employers car without a valid license. It expired, I couldn’t pass the eye exam - my employer thinks I have a license but I don’t. I drive their car into town and commit arson, burn someone’s house to the ground. Is there any chance whatsoever that my employer is liable at all?

And since this case is pretty much stagnant pending new info becoming available, I’d love it if some of you would take a look at the Brandon Lawson thread. That case bugs me to no end...

 

[rebel123]

Oh ok, how many people did they say actually left?

A couple, that to means '2'.