Drunk first

What obligation is there to save anyone from their own stupidity? None, unless the "victim" is a child, as is the case here. Was the adult a parent, sibling, guardian? If so, the duty is higher, and the law's desire to enforce that duty make a little bit of sense (not much, granted).

Law = the moral minimum. This is too far reaching to be the minimum.

Elie is so Mystikal.

Congrats to that DA, ruining someone's life to try out his novel approach to a case.

Collard is currently being held in the Utah County Jail on unrelated felony drug charges.

suck-phist = epic fail

3 - nice to know you didnt play solitaire during Torts. I did! But I seem to vaguely recall that local law determines the outcome, not some random religion your professor was preaching...

I believe it is a crime (and sin) to consume alcohol in Utah so she is guilty by association.

Where did they get liquor in the middle of Utah?

And where were his parents?

Did she ever speak with his parents? Did she notify them that their son was passed out, drunk, in her vehicle?

Does she have any medical background? Anything that would lead you to believe she's capable of diagnosing a drunk, or anything that supports a duty? (see: 3's post)

I can think of literally dozens of questions. We don't really have the requisite background to dismiss their decision to prosecute.

Under general principles of torts, if you start helping, you then have a duty towards the person you're helping. This is one of the exceptions to the (no) Good Samaritan rule.

"someone called Collard, 24 for help"? How did it become this woman's problem???

Under general principles of torts, if you start helping, you then have a duty towards the person you're helping. This is one of the exceptions to the (no) Good Samaritan rule.

Being from Utah, I am more entertained by the "Big Love" picture associated with the post than the post itself. I think ATL should use "Big Love" for all Texas posts too...

Further questions:

Did she know he was a minor? (Major issue.)

Were there any signs, physical or otherwise, that his death was imminent? Did she notice these signs? Did she ignore them? (Another major issue.)

Did she know that there was a hospital nearby? (It's entirely possible that, despite its proximity, she didn't know.) Why did she decide to drive him home? Did the other teens solicit her help?

Are there any relevant manslaughter precedents? How does Utah handle liquor-related deaths? Differently than jurisdictions where alcohol is more common?

This is exactly why people should not be living in states like Utah! May as well go live in Singapore. It is laws like this that make absolutely NO SENSE!

Attention, retards: general common law tort principles are not applicable where a STATUTE (e.g., Utah's "criminal statute for failure to render aid" exists.

17: you can make some very sophisticated arguments, both legal and policy-focused, for why that statute might not apply here.

But, as I stated in my earlier heuristic posts (10 and 15), we don't have enough information to determine whether they have a case. Therefore, I would rather leave it at "I don't know, I won't judge."

Don't fck with The Bronx.

This article gives a few more details. http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700253729,00.html Something tells me she was more involved in this incident than they are describing

Just another overzealous prosecutor who cares more about padding his ego and resume than justice. Par for the course for a profession that tends to attract people with inflated senses of self-importance.

17 - you are a retard. "criminal statute for failure to render aid" does not cover a person "who voluntarily renders aid to another in imminent danger but negligently causes injury while rendering the aid." The statute involves the failure to render any aid at all, whereas the tort principles 11 was talking about relate to situations when someone has begun to render aid but fail to proceed diligently.

This woman rendered aid, proceed to do so negligently, and arguably caused the kid's death. If the woman left the kid where he was, there would've been at least a slight chance that a smarter person would've rendered aid and done so competently. When the woman took the kid home and left him inside of her house out of sight of others, she took away even that slightest chance from the kid.

That's how I would argue it...

--Not 11

What do you expect from a city called "Vernal" located in the ridiculously named country of "Uintah" which is located in a state inhabited by a bunch of mormons?

I meant "but failed to proceed diligently" and "proceeded to do so negligently."

Flame on, grammar freaks (alright it was definitely a poor proofreading on my part). =)

Congratulations 23 for simultaneously offending Native Americans (Vernal, Uintah) and one of the fastest growing religions in the world by use of only one post.

P.S. Uintah is a county, not a country.

The law makes complete sense. All those making stupid comments about this law are clearly Obama supporters and part of the liberal elite.

Something similar just went down in Seattle, although in that case she actually provided the drugs... http://www.komonews.com/news/27412314.html

23 = bigot

25: Agreed.

Can anybody speak to the character and fitness investigation for the Oregon State Bar? Are they as in depth as, say, California in that they require fingerprints and send them to the feds, etc.

I've never met a Mormon that I didn't like.

23 = bitter Huckabee supporter

22 -- 17 is not the moron here. Whether or not that particular statute applies, YOU DON'T GET ARRESTED FOR VIOLATIONS OF TORT LAW. You get arrested for violations of criminal law, which pretty much everywhere you go in this country is codified by statute.

33 and 17 - don't get your knickers in a twist. let me summarize the debate for you. elie: how crazy is it that Utah would have a statute that forces good samaritanism? 11 and 22: it's not that crazy, we've always had exceptions to the no good samaritan rule, and this fact pattern fits. parsing the statute itself is not that interesting. the issue is: should we or should we not impose a duty to help?

This is why I screen all my calls, and if it's a friend asking for help, I wait at least 24 hours before calling them back.

If you live in Utah, and see anything even remotely suspicious, as quickly as possible, drive off and pretend you didn't see anything. Whatever you do, don't help, because if there is a bad outcome, you will be held personally responsible.

Your number one job is to maintain a plausible claim that you didn't know anything was wrong - anything less, and the authorities will be gunning to put you in prison. 'Cause you know, that's what they do in Utah.

Actually, I take all of that back. If you live in Utah and have half a brain, your number one job is to get the hell out of Utah...

Seriousy Lat, or whoever is posting these days, ditch the Utah/Polygamy link. It's old, and hardly original.

37 - I agree completely

haha BigLove has 3 wedding bands.

22 here.

33 - huh? I never said the woman could be arrested for a tort. But crim law, codified or otherwise, originated from tort law, so basic tort principles apply. Indeed, crim and tort laws overlap in many areas (e.g., you can have a civil suit and a criminal prosecution under the same Good Samaritan doctrine).

Anyhoo, the woman was charged with "negligent homicide," which is defined under the statute: “(1) Criminal homicide constitutes negligent homicide if the actor, acting with criminal negligence, causes the death of another," Utah Code Ann. s 76-5-206. All I was saying was that she acted with criminal negligence--not just gross negligence, see Utah Code Ann. s 78B-4-501--with the way she "rescued" the kid. As a result, the kid died. With both the mens rea and actus reus elements theoretically satisfied, the prosecution's theory is totally legitimate.

34 – oh, if that’s the debate, I can care less. I live in California and we don’t help people. :-P

22, again.

There would've been no negligence of any sort if the woman didn't do anything to start with. But once she commenced her rescue efforts, a duty was imposed on her to act at least without gross negligence. In this case, not only she acted with gross negligence but she acted, as argued by the prosecutor, with criminal negligence.

Like I said, I live in California and we don't help people, especially people that are dying on the streets. There is a good reason why...

Why is everyone talking about TORTS in a CRIMINAL case?

"To ask concerning any occurrence 'Is this a crime or is it a tort?' is -- to borrow Sir James Stephen's apt illustration -- no wiser than it would be to ask concerning a man 'Is he a father or a son?' For he may well be both." J.W. Cecil Turner, Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law 543 (16th ed. 1952).

42: for some reason, 40 thinks tort law matters, so we have to listen to this rambling, incoherent analysis that's probably going to implicate the magna carta soon. This discussion is a pretty good illustration of how little intelligence it really takes to get a law degree.

c'mon guys, i have to agree with 40 here. a crime is just a tort that has been deemed by society as inherently reprehensible and punishable. they are definitely related to each other, and the rules of application are more or less the same.

42: On the money.

as a very close friend of micade i would like to clear up some facts for you. yes candice does know that micade is a minor and she knew this at the time she was called. the reason she was called was because one of the other boys there with kade was her boyfriends nephew and they thought they could trust her. and if she would have paid any attention she would have known that he was way past drunk because his head was swelling at a horrifying rate. and watching my friend go through these things and lose his life to it i really learned alot and it has greatly and largely opened my eyes

as a very close friend of micade i would like to clear up some facts for you. yes candice does know that micade is a minor and she knew this at the time she was called. the reason she was called was because one of the other boys there with kade was her boyfriends nephew and they thought they could trust her. and if she would have paid any attention she would have known that he was way past drunk because his head was swelling at a horrifying rate. and watching my friend go through these things and lose his life to it i really learned alot and it has greatly and largely opened my eyes