DOCSLIB.ORG

SC19516 Concurrence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SC19516 Concurrence ****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** DOE v. BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA CORP.ÐFIRST CONCURRENCE AND DISSENT ZARELLA, J., with whom ESPINOSA and ROBINSON, Js., join, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree with and join parts I and VI1 of the majority opinion2 and agree with the majority's determination not to reach the issue of whether the award of damages was excessive. I express no opinion with respect to parts II, III and IV of the majority opinion.3 I write separately because I disagree with the majority's conclusion in part V of its opinion that the thirty year limitation period prescribed by General Statutes § 52-577d applies to an action that sounds in negligence and recklessness. The plain language of § 52-577d compels the conclu- sion that it applies only when an action is premised on intentional misconduct. In a case alleging negligence or recklessness, such as the present case, the two year limitation period in General Statutes § 52-5844 applies. Not only does the plain language of § 52-577d support this construction, but the statutory scheme pertaining to statutes of limitations, the relevant legislative history, and case law from other jurisdictions also indicate that § 52-577d does not apply to actions alleging negligence or recklessness. I would thus conclude that, because the two year limitation period set forth in § 52-584 expired before the plaintiff commenced the present action, the matter is time barred.5 Section 52-577d provides in relevant part: ``Notwith- standing the provisions of section 52-577, no action to recover damages for personal injury to a minor, includ- ing emotional distress, caused by sexual abuse . may be brought by such person later than thirty years from the date such person attains the age of majority.'' The majority acknowledges that ``§ 52-577d expressly provides that [General Statutes] § 52-577, which applies to intentional torts, does not apply to claims involving personal injury to a minor caused by sexual abuse, [whereas] § 52-577d makes no mention of § 52-584, which applies to claims of personal injury arising from negligence or recklessness . .'' Text accompanying footnote 20 of the majority opinion. The majority con- cludes, however, that the omission of § 52-584 ``tends to create some ambiguity concerning the statute's scope . .'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Part V of the majority opinion, quoting Doe v. Indian Mountain School, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 82, 83 (D. Conn. 1995). In my view, the legislature's deliberate omission of § 52-584 demonstrates its intent to specify that § 52-577d applies to intentional conduct only. The plain language indi- cates that the legislature recognized a conflict between §§ 52-577 and 52-577d, making it necessary to clarify that an action for injuries caused by sexual abuse is subject to the thirty year statute of limitations in § 52- 577d. Perceiving no conflict between §§ 52-584 and 52- 577d, however, the legislature saw no need to mention § 52-584. In other words, because § 52-577d applies to intentional conduct only, it would have been redundant to clarify that it does not apply to claims alleging negli- gence or recklessness. If the legislature had intended for these claims to be subject to § 52-577d, it would have provided, ``[n]otwithstanding the provisions of sections 52-577 and 52-584'' in § 52-577d. The fact that § 52-577 is a ``catchall'' provision that applies to intentional torts and other torts not specifically mentioned in other stat- utes does not negate the fact that the legislature, in drafting § 52-577d, perceived and resolved a conflict between §§ 52-577 and 52-577d, and perceived no such conflict between §§ 52-577d and 52-584. Despite the deliberate omission of any reference to § 52-584 in § 52-577d, the majority concludes that negli- gence and recklessness claims are subject to the thirty year statute of limitations because ``[t]he all-encom- passing language of § 52-577d providing that `no action to recover damages for personal injury to a minor . caused by sexual abuse' . supports an interpreta- tion that negligence and recklessness claims would also be subject to the thirty year statute of limitations.'' (Emphasis in original.) Part V of the majority opinion. The only way to arrive at this conclusion, however, is to disregard entirely the phrase ``[n]otwithstanding the provisions of § 52-577'' in § 52-577d. Moreover, this con- clusion creates a conflict between §§ 52-577d and 52- 584, when no such conflict exists under the plain statu- tory language. When § 52-577d is construed as written, it applies only when an action is predicated on conduct that amounts to sexual abuse, sexual assault or sexual exploitation, all of which require intentional conduct. Under this straightforward approach, there is no con- flict with § 52-584, which applies only when an action is predicated on negligent or reckless conduct. Moreover, this approach is consistent with our long-standing his- tory of construing statutes to avoid conflict when possi- ble. E.g., Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 305 Conn. 539, 552, 46 A.3d 112 (2012). The majority's contrary approach not only ignores the legislature's resolution of the con- flict between §§ 52-577d and 52-577, but creates a con- flict between §§ 52-577d and 52-584 where the legisla- ture saw none. Additional language in § 52-577d compels the conclu- sion that it does not apply to actions sounding in negli- gence or recklessness. Section 52-577d provides that it applies to actions for damages ``caused by'' sexual abuse or sexual assault. The use of the narrow phrase ``caused by,'' rather than more expansive language, indicates that § 52-577d applies only when the action arises from the perpetrator's intentional act that caused the sexual abuse. See State ex rel. Heart of America Council v. McKenzie, 484 S.W.3d 320, 327 (Mo. 2016) (construing statute of limitations for `` `any action to recover dam- ages from injury . caused by childhood sexual abuse' '' and rejecting argument that, because statute did not expressly exclude claims against nonperpetra- tors, such claims could be brought); see also Walker v. Barrett, 650 F.3d 1198, 1209 (8th Cir. 2011) (rejecting argument that claim could be brought against nonperpe- trator when statute of limitations governing `` `[a]ny action to recover damages from injury . caused by childhood sexual abuse,' '' by its terms, suggested that nonperpetrator could not be held liable). The majority offers no explanation for how the phrase ``caused by'' includes negligent or reckless conduct but concludes instead that, ``[i]f the legislature had intended to limit the application of § 52-577d to claims against perpetrators . it could have simply said so.'' Text accompanying footnote 21 of the majority opinion. In my view, the legislature did say so by indicating that § 52-577d applies to injuries ``caused by'' sexual assault and by expressly incorporating a reference to § 52-577 while omitting any reference to § 52-584. Moreover, one can argue just as easily that, if the legislature had intended to extend the application of § 52-577d to non- perpetrators, it could have said so. Finally, I am not persuaded by the majority's conclusion that § 52-577d must apply to negligent and reckless conduct because it applies to tort claims for emotional distress. Because such emotional distress claims can be premised on intentional conduct or negligent conduct, a common- sense reading of § 52-577d suggests that it applies to claims for emotional distress premised on intentional conduct but does not apply to claims premised on negli- gent conduct. Not only does the plain language of § 52-577d compel the conclusion that it applies only to actions premised on intentional conduct, but this conclusion is also con- sistent with the statutory framework pertaining to stat- utes of limitations set forth in chapter 926 of the General Statutes. This chapter, which establishes limitation peri- ods for various types of actions, contains separate pro- visions for actions premised on intentional torts and all torts not specifically mentioned in other statutes; see General Statutes § 52-577; see also Collens v. New Canaan Water Co., 155 Conn. 477, 491, 234 A.2d 825 (1967); actions premised on specific intentional torts; see, e.g., General Statutes §§ 52-577b and 52-577c; and actions premised on negligence or recklessness. See General Statutes § 52-584. It is well established that ``[t]he enactment of [s]tatutes limiting the time within which an action may be brought are the result of a legitimate legislative determination which balances the rights and duties of competing groups.'' (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) St.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IN the SUPREME COURT of OHIO 2008 STATE of OHIO, Case No. 07
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2008 STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 07-2424 Plaintiff-Appellee, On Appeal from the -vs- Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District MARCUS DAVIS, Court of Appeals Defendant-Appellant Case No. 88895 MEMORANDUM OF AMICUS CURIAE FRANKLIN COUNTY PROSECUTOR RON O'BRIEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE STATE OF OHIO'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RON O'BRIEN 0017245 ROBERT L. TOBIK 0029286 Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney Cuyahoga County Public Defender STEVEN L. TAYLOR 0043876 PAUL A. KUZMINS 0074475 (Counsel of Record) (Counsel of Record) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Assistant Public Defender SETH L. GILBERT 0072929 1200 West Third Street Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 100 Lakeside Place 373 South High Street, 13`h Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Phone: 216/448-8388 Phone: 614/462-3555 Fax: 614/462-6103 Counsel for Defendant-Appellant E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien WILLIAM D. MASON 0037540 Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney THORIN O. FREEMAN 0079999 (Counsel of Record) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Phone: 216/443-7800 Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Ohio MEMORANDUM OF AMICUS CURIAE FRANKLIN COUNTY PROSECUTOR RON O'BRIEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE STATE OF OHIO'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION In State v. Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26, 2008-Ohio-1624 ("Colon P'), the defendant stood convicted on a robbery charge under R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), alleging that, in attempting or committing a theft offense or fleeing therefrom, defendant attempted, threatened, or actually inflicted physical harm on the victim.
    [Show full text]
  • Insufficient Concern: a Unified Conception of Criminal Culpability
    Insufficient Concern: A Unified Conception of Criminal Culpability Larry Alexandert INTRODUCTION Most criminal law theorists and the criminal codes on which they comment posit four distinct forms of criminal culpability: purpose, knowl- edge, recklessness, and negligence. Negligence as a form of criminal cul- pability is somewhat controversial,' but the other three are not. What controversy there is concerns how the lines between them should be drawn3 and whether there should be additional forms of criminal culpabil- ity besides these four.' My purpose in this Essay is to make the case for fewer, not more, forms of criminal culpability. Indeed, I shall try to demonstrate that pur- pose and knowledge can be reduced to recklessness because, like reckless- ness, they exhibit the basic moral vice of insufficient concern for the interests of others. I shall also argue that additional forms of criminal cul- pability are either unnecessary, because they too can be subsumed within recklessness as insufficient concern, or undesirable, because they punish a character trait or disposition rather than an occurrent mental state. Copyright © 2000 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Incorporated (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications. f Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego. I wish to thank all the participants at the Symposium on The Morality of Criminal Law and its honoree, Sandy Kadish, for their comments and criticisms, particularly Leo Katz and Stephen Morse, who gave me comments prior to the event, and Joshua Dressler, whose formal Response was generous, thoughtful, incisive, and prompt.
    [Show full text]
  • SIMPLIFICATION of CRIMINAL LAW: KIDNAPPING Analysis of Responses to Consultation Paper No
    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 200 (Analysis of Responses) SIMPLIFICATION OF CRIMINAL LAW: KIDNAPPING Analysis of Responses to Consultation Paper No 200 29 January 2014 KIDNAPPING: ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES 1.1 This minute analyses the responses to Consultation Paper No 200, Simplification of Criminal Law: Kidnapping. The questions for consultation may be summarised as follows. (1) Whether the offences of false imprisonment and kidnapping, or either of them, should be replaced by statute. (2) Whether “force or fraud” should continue to exist as a separate condition of liability or should be treated simply as evidence of lack of consent. (3) Whether there should be a condition of “lawful excuse”, leaving to the general law the question of what is a lawful excuse. (4) Whether the fault element should be “intention or subjective recklessness”. (5) Whether honest belief in consent should be a complete defence or whether the belief should be reasonable. (6) Whether the new offence or offences should be triable either way. (7) Whether the new offence or offences should take the form of: (a) Model 1: one offence covering all forms of deprivation of liberty; (b) Model 2: separate offences of detention and kidnapping; (c) Model 3: one basic offence of deprivation of liberty and one aggravated offence where any of a list of named factors or intentions is present. THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES Anthony Edwards 1.2 Taking the questions in the same order, his responses are as follows. (1) Both offences should be replaced. (2) Force or fraud should be evidence of lack of consent. (3) There should be a condition “without lawful excuse”.
    [Show full text]
  • Intoxication and Recklessness 22
    INTOXICATION AND RECKLESSNESS I. INTRODUCTION An issue which periodically falls to be determined by the courts is the question of whether or not intoxication is relevant to an issue of recklessness. The pro­ blem arises when the definition of an offence allows proof of recklessness as a sufficient mens rea. The question is then whether evidence of intoxication can be allowed to negative recklessness. Until the decision of the House of lords in R v Caldwell; 1 recklessness had a more or less fixed meaning in common law which distinguished it from the other states of mind. Generally. it would seem to lie somewhere between "negligence" and "intention" and in its natural sense to imply the conscious and unreasonable running of risk. However, the apparent effect of Caldwell and its sister case R v Lawrence2 (an appeal heard immediately after Caldwell and also involving consideration of a meaning of recklessness) has been to extend the meaning of "recklessness' to include inadvertent negligence. If this is a ,cor­ rect view of these. cases then. as Professor Glanville Williams has expressed it. "they work a profoundly regrettable change in the criminallaw".3 We can note. at this point. that the general effect of these two cases is to attach a much firmer objective meaning to the concept of recklessness than it has obviously been given in a series of decisions in the English Court of Appeal. As far as intoxication is concerned, the effect of Caldwell is to declare that nearly· all crimes, can beqommitted recklessly and that evidence of voluntary intol(icationvvill not assist to save people charged with these offences from conviction.
    [Show full text]
  • Crimes Against Property
    9 CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Is Alvarez guilty of false pretenses as a Learning Objectives result of his false claim of having received the Congressional Medal of 1. Know the elements of larceny. Honor? 2. Understand embezzlement and the difference between larceny and embezzlement. Xavier Alvarez won a seat on the Three Valley Water Dis- trict Board of Directors in 2007. On July 23, 2007, at 3. State the elements of false pretenses and the a joint meeting with a neighboring water district board, distinction between false pretenses and lar- newly seated Director Alvarez arose and introduced him- ceny by trick. self, stating “I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired 4. Explain the purpose of theft statutes. in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Con- gressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by 5. List the elements of receiving stolen property the same guy. I’m still around.” Alvarez has never been and the purpose of making it a crime to receive awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, nor has he stolen property. spent a single day as a marine or in the service of any 6. Define forgery and uttering. other branch of the United States armed forces. The summer before his election to the water district board, 7. Know the elements of robbery and the differ- a woman informed the FBI about Alvarez’s propensity for ence between robbery and larceny. making false claims about his military past. Alvarez told her that he won the Medal of Honor for rescuing the Amer- 8.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Deter Pedestrian Deaths: a Utilitarian Perspective on Careless Driving
    Touro Law Review Volume 36 Number 2 Article 5 2020 How to Deter Pedestrian Deaths: A Utilitarian Perspective on Careless Driving John Clennan Touro Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview Part of the Civil Law Commons, Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, Litigation Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Clennan, John (2020) "How to Deter Pedestrian Deaths: A Utilitarian Perspective on Careless Driving," Touro Law Review: Vol. 36 : No. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview/vol36/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Touro Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Clennan: How to Deter Pedestrian Deaths HOW TO DETER PEDESTRIAN DEATHS: A UTILITARIAN PERSPECTIVE ON CARELESS DRIVING John Clennan* I. INTRODUCTION For the last twenty years, politicians, developers, business leaders, academics, and environmentalists have formed coalitions to encourage transit-oriented development.1 Proponents of transit- oriented development argue that jurisdictions need to enact land-use reform to mitigate the damage of suburban sprawl.2 On Long Island, transit-oriented development is big business. With the goals of reducing pollution and car dependency, jurisdictions grant smart growth developers tax breaks worth millions.3 In most * Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, J.D. Candidate 2020; St. Joseph’s College, B.S. in Business Administration and Social Science, minor in History and American Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reasonableness in Recklessness
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Apollo Criminal Law and Philosophy (2020) 14:9–29 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-019-09501-z ORIGINAL PAPER The Reasonableness in Recklessness Findlay Stark1 Published online: 3 July 2019 © The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Recklessness involves unreasonable/unjustifed risk-taking. The argument here is that recklessness in the criminal law is best understood as nevertheless containing an element of reasonableness. To be reckless, on this view, the defendant must reason- ably believe that she is exposing others to a risk of harm. If the defendant’s belief about the risk being imposed by her conduct is unreasonable, she should not (nor- mally) be considered reckless. This point is most important in relation to ofences of endangerment where recklessness sets the outer limits of criminal liability. Keywords Mens Rea · Recklessness · Endangerment · Attempts 1 Introduction Recklessness involves unreasonable/unjustifed1 risk-taking. The argument here is that recklessness in the criminal law is best understood as nevertheless containing an element of reasonableness. To be reckless, on this view, the defendant must reason- ably believe that she is exposing others to a risk of harm. If the defendant’s belief about the risk being imposed on others by her conduct is unreasonable, she should not (normally)2 be considered reckless.3 1 I treat these terms as synonymous: see Findlay Stark, Culpable Carelessness: Recklessness and Negli- gence in the Criminal Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), Ch. 1. 2 The “normally” caveat covers (presumably rare) cases where the defendant unreasonably over-esti- mates the probability of harm involved in Φing, but it would have been unjustifed to run the (lower) risk that it would have been reasonable to believe existed in the circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Should the Model Penal Code's Mens Rea Provisions Be Amended
    Should the Model Penal Code’s Mens Rea Provisions Be Amended? Kenneth W. Simons* I. INTRODUCTION Do the Model Penal Code’s (MPC) provisions on mental states need revision? The question might seem preposterous. After all, many believe that these provisions count as the MPC’s greatest achievement: they clarify and simplify mental state categories, and replace an undifferentiated focus on the mens rea of an offense with a more careful focus on the mens rea for each element of an offense. The drafters of the MPC indeed have much to be proud of here. Prior to the MPC, the prevailing mental state categories included general intent and specific intent, malice aforethought, and other concepts that were just as confusing. And in many states, these confusing and infinitely manipulable old concepts are still with us. Consider one well-known recent case. In Commonwealth v. Woodward, a nanny was charged with murder for allegedly violently shaking a baby and slamming him against the floor, resulting in his death. The judge instructed the jury that, to decide whether she acted with “malice,” they should determine “whether, under the circumstances known to Defendant, a reasonable person would have known that her intentional act created a substantial risk of death to [the victim].”1 Notice that this sounds like a narrow criterion, insofar as it requires proof of the most culpable mens rea criteria—“intentionally” and “known.” Yet the most important part of the criterion (“a reasonable person would have known”) requires only ordinary negligence. And, taken literally, the criterion is quite easy to satisfy: it would permit a murder conviction for a beginning driver who “intentionally” switches lanes, “knowing” that he is on a busy highway, but negligently fails to check his blind spot and causes a fatal collision.
    [Show full text]
  • Mens Rea in Comparative Perspective
    University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Winter 12-1-2018 Mens Rea in Comparative Perspective Luis E. Chiesa University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation Luis E. Chiesa, Mens Rea in Comparative Perspective, 102 Marq. L. Rev. 575 (2018). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/943 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MENS REA IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE LUIS E. CHIESA* This Essay compares and contrasts the American and civilian approaches to mens rea. The comparative analysis generates two important insights. First, it is preferable to have multiple forms of culpability than to have only two. Common law bipartite distinctions such as general and specific intent fail to fully make sense of our moral intuitions. The same goes for the civilian distinction between dolus (intent) and culpa (negligence). Second, attitudinal mental states should matter for criminalization and grading decisions. Nevertheless, adding attitudinal mental states to our already complicated mens rea framework may end up confusing juries instead of helping them. As a result, jurisdictions without jury trials are better equipped to incorporate attitudinal kinds of mens rea into their criminal laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Role of Recklessness in American Systems of Comparative Fault
    The Role of Recklessness in American Systems of Comparative Fault Confusion now hath made his masterpiece! William Shakespeare Macbeth. Act ii, sc. 3 I. INTRODUCTION Perhaps the most significant change visited upon American negligence law during the twentieth century has been the growth of comparative fault.' Born out of a desire to ameliorate the severity of the contributory negligence doctrine, 2 comparative fault allows a fact finder to allocate the relative de- grees of fault attributable to the parties and to diminish the plaintiff's recovery accordingly. Its adoption has necessitated a dramatic reworking of negligence doctrines that arose as contributory negligence developed. These doctrines (last clear chance,3 various degrees of negligence and recklessness) date back almost as far as negligence itself and arose, as comparative fault, prima- rily as a palliative of the harsh contributory negligence bar. 1.The phrase "comparative fault" is used throughout this Comment as subsuming the concept of "com- parative negligence." "Comparative fault" is a broader term, at least arguably encompassing comparison not only of negligence but also of other sorts of tortious conduct (e.g., recklessness, strict liability, and perhaps even intentional conduct). A system of comparative negligence, in a strict sense, arguably would permit only the comparison of ordinary negligence. While the difference between the two concepts is significant, especially with respect to the treatment of recklessness, determining the appropriate label in individual cases has proven most difficult. Most jurisdictions that have adopted systems of comparative fault, whether they have titled them "comparative fault" or "comparative negligence," have not decided, eitherjudicially or legislatively, the extent to which the systems will apply to types of fault other than negligence.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislation--A Proposed Dangerous Driving Statute for Kentucky Arnett Am Nn University of Kentucky
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 36 | Issue 1 Article 5 1947 Legislation--A Proposed Dangerous Driving Statute for Kentucky Arnett aM nn University of Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the State and Local Government Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Mann, Arnett (1947) "Legislation--A Proposed Dangerous Driving Statute for Kentucky," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 36 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol36/iss1/5 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LEGISLATION LEGISLATION-A PROPOSED DANGEROIJS DRIVING STATUTE FOR KENTUCKY- It is common knowledge that deaths and nijuries resulting from improper operation of vehicles upon the highways have reached, in the past few years, alarming and tragic propor- tions. It is therefore necessary that increased attention be given to improving existing motor vehicle laws. That this need is recogmzed, is evidenced by the report from the President's Highway Safety Conference1 and by stat- utes in at least forty states.2 The former contains the reckless driving statute proposed by the Uniform Vehicle Code and the latter have created offenses of reckless driving though, the language employed is often not accurately descriptive of reck- lessness. The Uniform. Vehicle Code provides that, "any person who drives any vehicle in wllful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving." It is to be noted that this definition includes, as do the state statutes, a reference to property This is uncalled for because human safety and property are not equally deserving of protection and should not be placed on an equal footing.
    [Show full text]
  • Mens Rea for Sexual Abuse: the Ac Se for Defining the Acceptable Risk Eric A
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 99 Article 1 Issue 1 Fall Fall 2008 Mens Rea for Sexual Abuse: The aC se for Defining the Acceptable Risk Eric A. Johnson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Eric A. Johnson, Mens Rea for Sexual Abuse: The asC e for Defining the Acceptable Risk, 99 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1 (2008-2009) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/09/990 1-0001 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 99, No. I Copyright © 2009 by Northwestern University, School of Law Primed mnU.S.A. CRIMINAL LAW MENS REA FOR SEXUAL ABUSE: THE CASE FOR DEFINING THE ACCEPTABLE RISK ERIC A. JOHNSON* The persistence of strict criminal liability for child sexual abuse is attributable, at least in part, to the shortcomings of the existing alternatives, namely, the recklessness and criminal negligence standards. These two standards requirejuries to define the acceptable level of risk on a case-by-case basis. Juries are ill-equipped to make this calculation in sexual abuse cases, however, and their efforts to do so almost invariably are skewed by evidence of the victim's unchastity. This Article first explores the shortcomings of the recklessness and criminal negligence standards in this setting, and then attempts to develop a viable alternative.
    [Show full text]