Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on February 18, 2013 at 7:12am

Wow, that is just amazing; even given the poor line of sight on a large truck like that he should have seen him and known he was close to the truck.  It is crazy to me there are no charges.

What is even more shocking is that a driver with a record like that not only had a CDL but that he was able to get a job as a driver!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Davo on February 18, 2013 at 7:50am

Thats pretty disgusting how that driver got away with out fault especially with his past record. He must know someone or Mass has really lax laws. Yet another example of why I hate riding near huge trucks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by djm on February 18, 2013 at 8:11am

<sarcasm>People who ride bicycles dont contribute much to society and impede those who do.  The deaths of a few cyclists is a small price to pay to maintain the efficiency of the transportation system for the greater good.</sarcasm>

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Davo on February 18, 2013 at 8:50am

My guess is that C.J. Mabardy probably gives a lot of money to some politician.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Barish on February 18, 2013 at 8:50am

Bookmark this thread.  Lets revisit in a couple years after the civil law suit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Will on February 18, 2013 at 8:58am

Lag time? That DOT record appears to be dated July 2012, the crash happened in August. Maybe it will be on the next one.

Cameron 7.5 mi said:

I'm also surprised that they've managed to keep the accident off of their publicly viewable DOT record. Does anyone know why a crash wouldn't show on a DOT record?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Will on February 18, 2013 at 10:04am

BTW, thanks to Cameron for the link to the company who I assume no longer employs the driver...

For any general inquires, comments or suggestions, please call C.J. Mabardy at (617) 354-7580. Our offices are open Monday thru Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. To contact C.J. Mabardy via email, please email jamie@cjmabardy.com.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Willis on February 18, 2013 at 10:27am

Stories like this scare the hell out of me. I fear that if something unfortunate where to happen to me, my family would not be able to see justice. This is a prime example of why people drive so reckless. There is no fear of repercussion, even the courts don't care!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Peter Grimaldi on February 18, 2013 at 12:27pm

I would bet a months pay that there wasn't a cyclist on that grand jury. They weren't allowed to bring up his record to the grand jury, so that didn't have any factor in their decision. I wonder how hard the states attorney tried to get them to indict the driver, and if the trucking company contributed to his campaign fund.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on February 18, 2013 at 3:01pm

As usual, I am in the distinct minority when it comes to opinions regarding motor vehicle/bicycle accidents. Before we get more proclamations that the fix was in or that the owner of the trucking company paid off, contributed to, or somehow influenced the states attorney or grand jury panel, please be aware that grand juries' indictment rate nationally is 98+%. Grand juries are made up of randomly selected registered voters, people just like you and me. While everyone complains about getting called for jury duty, my experience is that people who serve on juries consider it to be a positive experience and they listen, are engaged and try to do a good job with the evidence presented to them.

No question that this was a horrible accident and a horrible tragedy. I read much of the police report, the investigator's, and accident reconstructionist's notes. Horrible injuries. But it's not impossible for me to imagine that the driver of a semi-trailer truck hauling broken concrete (help me out Dug, 50-60,000 pounds?) would not have even heard or felt the impact with a 170 lb cyclist. He certainly didn't behave as though he felt an impact. No braking, no swerving reported by witnesses. The grand jury heard (and saw) the evidence presented, and chose not to indict, just like they do ONLY 1 or 2% of the time.

So, a grand jury did not hear sufficient evidence to charge the driver of the truck with a crime (prima facie case to support the charges alleged). The burden of proof for indictment is lower than the burden of proof for conviction of a crime (beyond a reasonable doubt). The driver's checkered driving history doesn't come in before the grand jury because it's prejudicial and has no probative value to determine whether the driver behaved with criminal intent on the day of or moments leading up to the accident.

With respect to the civil action, the driver's record will come in, because it goes to owner's actual or constructive knowledge of the type of driver he puts out on the road. There's already a wrongful death suit. It's a civil claim alleging negligence and the burden of proof is now "preponderance of the evidence." The owner of the company was unlikely to have engaged in conduct exposing him to criminal liability, but he will be writing a big check to resolve (settlement or verdict) the civil matter. (likely seven or 8 figures depending on his insurance coverage and self-insured retention on the policy).

This is a horrible tragedy. I accept the judgment of the grand jury that it was not criminal in nature.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David P. on February 18, 2013 at 4:14pm

Good response, Kevin - thanks for making me think of it with a different mind.

Kevin C 4.1 mi said:

As usual, I am in the distinct minority when it comes to opinions regarding motor vehicle/bicycle accidents. Before we get more proclamations that the fix was in or that the owner of the trucking company paid off, contributed to, or somehow influenced the states attorney or grand jury panel, please be aware that grand juries' indictment rate nationally is 98+%. Grand juries are made up of randomly selected registered voters, people just like you and me. While everyone complains about getting called for jury duty, my experience is that people who serve on juries consider it to be a positive experience and they listen, are engaged and try to do a good job with the evidence presented to them.

No question that this was a horrible accident and a horrible tragedy. I read much of the police report, the investigator's, and accident reconstructionist's notes. Horrible injuries. But it's not impossible for me to imagine that the driver of a semi-trailer truck hauling broken concrete (help me out Dug, 50-60,000 pounds?) would not have even heard or felt the impact with a 170 lb cyclist. He certainly didn't behave as though he felt an impact. No braking, no swerving reported by witnesses. The grand jury heard (and saw) the evidence presented, and chose not to indict, just like they do ONLY 1 or 2% of the time.

So, a grand jury did not hear sufficient evidence to charge the driver of the truck with a crime (prima facie case to support the charges alleged). The burden of proof for indictment is lower than the burden of proof for conviction of a crime (beyond a reasonable doubt). The driver's checkered driving history doesn't come in before the grand jury because it's prejudicial and has no probative value to determine whether the driver behaved with criminal intent on the day of or moments leading up to the accident.

With respect to the civil action, the driver's record will come in, because it goes to owner's actual or constructive knowledge of the type of driver he puts out on the road. There's already a wrongful death suit. It's a civil claim alleging negligence and the burden of proof is now "preponderance of the evidence." The owner of the company was unlikely to have engaged in conduct exposing him to criminal liability, but he will be writing a big check to resolve (settlement or verdict) the civil matter. (likely seven or 8 figures depending on his insurance coverage and self-insured retention on the policy).

This is a horrible tragedy. I accept the judgment of the grand jury that it was not criminal in nature.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Will on February 19, 2013 at 5:49am

No doubt, it was horrible. And I have no doubt the truck driver neither felt nor heard any of the impact. What gets me is, he admits to seeing the cyclist before the impact, but he goes on to claim he passed the cyclist safely and see him in his rear view mirror, which is obviously false.

I don't know what the standard was for criminal intent, but it just seems wrong that you can mow someone down, then make false statements after the fact, and it's all OK.

Kevin C 4.1 mi said:

As usual, I am in the distinct minority when it comes to opinions regarding motor vehicle/bicycle accidents. Before we get more proclamations that the fix was in or that the owner of the trucking company paid off, contributed to, or somehow influenced the states attorney or grand jury panel, please be aware that grand juries' indictment rate nationally is 98+%. Grand juries are made up of randomly selected registered voters, people just like you and me. While everyone complains about getting called for jury duty, my experience is that people who serve on juries consider it to be a positive experience and they listen, are engaged and try to do a good job with the evidence presented to them.

No question that this was a horrible accident and a horrible tragedy. I read much of the police report, the investigator's, and accident reconstructionist's notes. Horrible injuries. But it's not impossible for me to imagine that the driver of a semi-trailer truck hauling broken concrete (help me out Dug, 50-60,000 pounds?) would not have even heard or felt the impact with a 170 lb cyclist. He certainly didn't behave as though he felt an impact. No braking, no swerving reported by witnesses. The grand jury heard (and saw) the evidence presented, and chose not to indict, just like they do ONLY 1 or 2% of the time.

So, a grand jury did not hear sufficient evidence to charge the driver of the truck with a crime (prima facie case to support the charges alleged). The burden of proof for indictment is lower than the burden of proof for conviction of a crime (beyond a reasonable doubt). The driver's checkered driving history doesn't come in before the grand jury because it's prejudicial and has no probative value to determine whether the driver behaved with criminal intent on the day of or moments leading up to the accident.

With respect to the civil action, the driver's record will come in, because it goes to owner's actual or constructive knowledge of the type of driver he puts out on the road. There's already a wrongful death suit. It's a civil claim alleging negligence and the burden of proof is now "preponderance of the evidence." The owner of the company was unlikely to have engaged in conduct exposing him to criminal liability, but he will be writing a big check to resolve (settlement or verdict) the civil matter. (likely seven or 8 figures depending on his insurance coverage and self-insured retention on the policy).

This is a horrible tragedy. I accept the judgment of the grand jury that it was not criminal in nature.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page