« CA1: rich doctor’s deferred compensation plan was indeed a top-hat plan | Main | CA1: The formalities of putting someone in jail based on prior convictions and drug quantity »

January 23, 2008

Comments

JFC

A literally correct reading of the statute that clearly contradicts its intent. The law intends to trigger the cap if the mental state is reckless but says that a criminal conviction is good enough. Massachusetts is unusual in criminalizing ordinary negligence rather than "criminal negligence" in traffic cases. The conduct required to trigger the exemption now varies significantly from state to state.

Admissions to sufficient facts are common in motor vehicle homicide cases because of the 15 year license suspension required on formal conviction.

S. COTUS

Thanks. I added your comments to the post, since I think people need to understand that Mass actually was trying to accomplish some good w/ its procedures.

The comments to this entry are closed.