Justice!!!

[BobO]

For those who don't know, Brian Lynch killed two cyclists last year in a group of ten who were stopped at a traffic light. It was a horrific scene in a very heavily traveled cycling route. One of them, Ken Viera had volunteered to lead the group of visiting cyclists. Lynch was under the influence at the time, and according to a Sheriffs deputy I know, he was also texting at the time.

TUCSON, AZ (Tucson News Now) -

This afternoon at the Pima County Superior Court was an emotional day for both parties, from a deadly cycling crash that happened March, 2016.

Judge James Marner sentenced Brian Lynch to 10.5 years in prison, with an additional five years of probation, where he will have to go through a court ordered substance abuse program.

In March 2016, Lynch crashed into a group of cyclists at La Canada and Hardy. He killed Kenneth Vieira and Clare Rhodes, while another cyclist was severely injured. Police reports show that at the time of the crash, Lynch tested positive for meth.

On Friday in court we heard from the family of Vieira. Two of his sons spoke about the loss of their father. They said he was a family man and loved cycling.

Clare Rhoades, was the other cyclist killed in the crash. Her son Justin Rhoades spoke about the loss of his mom in court. He said, it was a difficult situation because he’s a federal prosecutor in Los Angles, dealing with violent criminals every day.

Lynch was the last person to talk in court today. He said, he learned a lot over the last year and a half in jail. He also told the families that he was sorry for his actions.

On Thursday, Aug. 24 the families of Vieira and Judith Costlow who was injured in the crash, settled a civil lawsuit with Lynch and his former employer Scott Roofing.

We learned that the settlement was for $11 million.

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/36221515/brian-lynch-sentenced-for-cyclist-deaths

Ken took the time to tutor me in group riding when I first got started. He was a good man, and his death was a loss not only to his family but to the community. I am sincerely glad that his family and friends get to know that he is getting justice.

[RobJ]

Excellent news. While it won't bring back those killed, I am glad to see the families receive some sense of justice and punishment. And finally the courts taking cycling-related fatalities more seriously.

[jimcav]

too often there is no significant prison. I still think 10.5 years for 2 lives ended due to such gross negligence (meth + text) is inadequate. Does anyone know why the dirtbag's employer was in the lawsuit--doesn't seem fair to hold them responsible--is it just because the vehicle was owned by the company?

[Idris Icabod]

too often there is no significant prison. I still think 10.5 years for 2 lives ended due to such gross negligence (meth + text) is inadequate. Does anyone know why the dirtbag's employer was in the lawsuit--doesn't seem fair to hold them responsible--is it just because the vehicle was owned by the company?

He was at work in the work truck when it happened. My guess would be that he was a known meth abuser and this was ignored by the employer, despite them coming out right after this that they carried out drug screenings.

[Idris Icabod]

For those who don't know, Brian Lynch killed two cyclists last year in a group of ten who were stopped at a traffic light. It was a horrific scene in a very heavily traveled cycling route. One of them, Ken Viera had volunteered to lead the group of visiting cyclists. Lynch was under the influence at the time, and according to a Sheriffs deputy I know, he was also texting at the time.



http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/36221515/brian-lynch-sentenced-for-cyclist-deaths

Ken took the time to tutor me in group riding when I first got started. He was a good man, and his death was a loss not only to his family but to the community. I am sincerely glad that his family and friends get to know that he is getting justice.

Thanks for posting the update. I live close to here, my neighbor was one of the first cars on the scene. I see the homage to Ken every time we visit Beyond Bread. I'm really glad that the authorities prosecuted this to the greater than usual extent, although it doesn't bring back the 2 riders nor heal the long-term pain of the injured.

[bikingshearer]

too often there is no significant prison. I still think 10.5 years for 2 lives ended due to such gross negligence (meth + text) is inadequate. Does anyone know why the dirtbag's employer was in the lawsuit--doesn't seem fair to hold them responsible--is it just because the vehicle was owned by the company?

In legal-speak, it's called respondeat superior. The over-simplified explanation is that that means that employers are on the hook for the bad acts of their employees who are acting "within the course and scope" of their employment.

Potentially there are a number of issues that would have to be resolved before a jury could hold the employer responsible for the perp's action and the harm he caused. But it sounds to me like the employer (and the employer's lawyer and insurer) determined that there was a very real risk that (a) the employer would be held liable for the employee's actions and (b) that the damage award would much bigger that $11 million.

It also sounds to me like the plaintiffs accepted the $11 million even though they might have won more at trial because (c) there was a risk that the employer would have been found not be liable under respondeat superior and (d) there is no way on God's green earth that the plaintiffs would ever recover even a very, very tiny fraction of whatever judgment was entered against the perp. This is a case of the bird in the hand being better than the two in the bush that you can never reasonably be expected to get. There may also be an (e); the plaintiffs may not have wanted to go through a trial that, win lose or draw, would have been more gut-wrenching than most of us will ever know.

[/law lesson]

I take no joy from this outcome. Yes, it is entirely appropriate for the perp to do serious time, and I applaud the court for not wussing out. It is also entirely appropriate for the injured and survivors to recovery a big pot of money. But at the end of the day, the money and the prison sentence are scant compensation for the losses suffered. They are, however, all the compensation society can offer unless we want to bring back blood feuds and personal retribution (and we don't), and they should get it and whatever small consolation they bring.

[bikingshearer]

He was at work in the work truck when it happened. My guess would be that he was a known meth abuser and this was ignored by the employer, despite them coming out right after this that they carried out drug screenings.

If the perp was actually on the job when he kiled and maimed the cyclists, than respondeat superior would apply unless what the perp was doing was so far outside the realm of work duties that the employer should not be held liable. Sounds like a weak argument to me; when you send an employee out in a company vehicle, you run the risk that the employee will do something incredibly stupid, including driving while high and texting. That sounds like what happened here. My guess is that the employer (and his/her/its lawyer and insurer) figured that they would lose lose lose on liability at trial and decided to cap their losses by settling for what they could.

[jimcav]

appreciate your taking the time to explain that. of the many perils to trying to own a business, an awful employee must be among the most frustrating.

In legal-speak, it's called respondeat superior. The over-simplified explanation is that that means that employers are on the hook for the bad acts of their employees who are acting "within the course and scope" of their employment.

Potentially there are a number of issues that would have to be resolved before a jury could hold the employer responsible for the perp's action and the harm he caused. But it sounds to me like the employer (and the employer's lawyer and insurer) determined that there was a very real risk that (a) the employer would be held liable for the employee's actions and (b) that the damage award would much bigger that $11 million.

It also sounds to me like the plaintiffs accepted the $11 million even though they might have won more at trial because (c) there was a risk that the employer would have been found not be liable under respondeat superior and (d) there is no way on God's green earth that the plaintiffs would ever recover even a very, very tiny fraction of whatever judgment was entered against the perp. This is a case of the bird in the hand being better than the two in the bush that you can never reasonably be expected to get. There may also be an (e); the plaintiffs may not have wanted to go through a trial that, win lose or draw, would have been more gut-wrenching than most of us will ever know.

[/law lesson]

I take no joy from this outcome. Yes, it is entirely appropriate for the perp to do serious time, and I applaud the court for not wussing out. It is also entirely appropriate for the injured and survivors to recovery a big pot of money. But at the end of the day, the money and the prison sentence are scant compensation for the losses suffered. They are, however, all the compensation society can offer unless we want to bring back blood feuds and personal retribution (and we don't), and they should get it and whatever small consolation they bring.

[MattTuck]

appreciate your taking the time to explain that. of the many perils to trying to own a business, an awful employee must be among the most frustrating.

Yes, obviously thread drift, but then people wonder why people with a record of history of substance abuse have such a problem finding work.

[BobO]

If the perp was actually on the job when he kiled and maimed the cyclists, than respondeat superior would apply unless what the perp was doing was so far outside the realm of work duties that the employer should not be held liable. Sounds like a weak argument to me; when you send an employee out in a company vehicle, you run the risk that the employee will do something incredibly stupid, including driving while high and texting. That sounds like what happened here. My guess is that the employer (and his/her/its lawyer and insurer) figured that they would lose lose lose on liability at trial and decided to cap their losses by settling for what they could.

As I understand it, he was on the job at the time of the collision.

Thanks for posting the update. I live close to here, my neighbor was one of the first cars on the scene. I see the homage to Ken every time we visit Beyond Bread. I'm really glad that the authorities prosecuted this to the greater than usual extent, although it doesn't bring back the 2 riders nor heal the long-term pain of the injured.

I live near there too. I give Ken's ghost bike a nod every time I go past there.

[54ny77]

terrible terrible tragedy.

on a slight topic diversion, for those in the know, how on earth does a biz owner protect themselves from something like that? boatloats of umbrella liability?

let's assume instead of a texting meth head causing fatal injury, it's a retiree with a part time job delivering flowers for the local flower shop.

via a freak accident, they accidentally kill a pedestrian or a cyclist. they're on the job, and it's reasonable to assume the biz has deeper pockets than the part time retiree.

[BobO]

terrible terrible tragedy.

on a slight topic diversion, for those in the know, how on earth does a biz owner protect themselves from something like that? boatloats of umbrella liability?

let's assume instead of a texting meth head causing fatal injury, it's a retiree with a part time job delivering flowers for the local flower shop.

via a freak accident, they accidentally kill a pedestrian or a cyclist. they're on the job, and it's reasonable to assume the biz has deeper pockets than the part time retiree.

Bottom line, if you're using vehicles for business, you carry a metric **** ton of liability insurance and you insulate yourself personally.

[ColonelJLloyd]

Yeah, I'd be curious to know what the policy pays toward the settlement. Question for an attorney: Do the monies have to be there for the settlement to occur as opposed to a trial? If this roofing company was like most it's a small LLC with few assets (less than $100k of equipment value) so its doubtful much money is coming from the company itself.

[Mark McM]

Bottom line, if you're using vehicles for business, you carry a metric **** ton of liability insurance and you insulate yourself personally.

Or maybe you just declare that your drivers are "independent contractors", and therefore you are not liable for their actions. This is a classic maneuver for many operations, Uber and Lyft just being the more famous (notorious?), but certainly includes many other industries.

[ColonelJLloyd]

Or maybe you just declare that your drivers are "independent contractors", and therefore you are not liable for their actions. This is a classic maneuver for many operations, Uber and Lyft just being the more famous (notorious?), but certainly includes many other industries.

You can't just declare it. The IRS has very specific tests to determine the true nature of the worker and this is an issue that they pursue regularly and aggressively. There would be no argument for independent contractor in this instance, obviously.

[BobO]

We're probably wandering a bit too far off track at this point.

[Mark McM]

You can't just declare it. The IRS has very specific tests to determine the true nature of the worker and this is an issue that they pursue regularly and aggressively. There would be no argument for independent contractor in this instance, obviously.

Yes, there are continuing legal battles over who is or isn't an independent worker. For example Uber has declared that their drivers are not employees, but some courts have said that (at least some) drivers are employees. Here is one such case, that is currently under appeal by Uber:

http://nypost.com/2017/06/13/uber-drivers-should-be-legal-employees-with-benefits-judge/

With the current move toward a permanent "gig" economy, I'm sure that that there will be continuing legal arguments about who is or isn't an employee.

[MattTuck]

We're probably wandering a bit too far off track at this point.

Understood. It is a tough one to have a strong positive or negative reaction. Good people are dead and injured, and other people are now incarcerated and out 11 million bucks, over a text message. There are no 'winners' today... all losers.

The whole situation is unfortunate. More than that, is the feeling that this is the best we can expect when a negligent driver mows us down.

At first, I didn't know what to post in this thread because of this exact feeling. Should we feel like justice is done? How can that ever be the case when someone is killed and their family bears the loss?

This is a story of the criminal and civil justice systems running their course, and seeing that although the deck frequently seems stacked against us, society hasn't completely thrown out the idea that decisions behind the wheel actually have consequences.

[BobO]

Understood. It is a tough one to have a strong positive or negative reaction. Good people are dead and injured, and other people are now incarcerated and out 11 million bucks, over a text message. There are no 'winners' today... all losers.

The whole situation is unfortunate. More than that, is the feeling that this is the best we can expect when a negligent driver mows us down.

At first, I didn't know what to post in this thread because of this exact feeling. Should we feel like justice is done? How can that ever be the case when someone is killed and their family bears the loss?

This is a story of the criminal and civil justice systems running their course, and seeing that although the deck frequently seems stacked against us, society hasn't completely thrown out the idea that decisions behind the wheel actually have consequences.

I'm looking at it as a step in the right direction. For a little background, there was a community wide outrage at this incident. It was a shock to see that much carnage caused by meth and distraction, and it could have happened to any of us. There was a demand that this punk get severely punished, not just from cyclists, but across a wider audience. I think the courts recognized this and have declared that this sort of crime will not go un-punished. Keep in mind that this was effectively his first offense and he got 10-1/2 years in hardcore FMITB prison, that's a good sized step up from treating this like an "accident" as has happened in the past.

[MattTuck]

I'm looking at it as a step in the right direction. For a little background, there was a community wide outrage at this incident. It was a shock to see that much carnage caused by meth and distraction, and it could have happened to any of us. There was a demand that this punk get severely punished, not just from cyclists, but across a wider audience. I think the courts recognized this and have declared that this sort of crime will not go un-punished. Keep in mind that this was effectively his first offense and he got 10-1/2 years in hardcore FMITB prison, that's a good sized step up from treating this like an "accident" as has happened in the past.

I hear you. The meth was undoubtedly an exacerbating factor. If it were a sleep deprived doctor, I wonder if the outcome would be different. To me, the difficult thing to express is that the roads are a public space, and all road users owe each other a certain level of attention and respect. Whether it was a meth addict or a well respected doctor checking a text message, the punishment should be the same.

Punishing this guy for his addiction (in other words the difference between the punishment he got and what a well respected doctor would get) amounts to dealing with a public health issue via the criminal justice system. I don't really support that. Equal justice under the law is one of my central tenants and this runs in the face of it.

yeah, people are outraged when a drunk kills someone because most people are not drunks. The outrage is a little less when an 'average' person 'loses control' of their car and hits someone. well.... that could happen to anyone. In other words, it's easy to call for blood when the perpetrator isn't a mainstream person.

[BobO]

He is being punished because he made the choices he did. Addiction or not, he is responsible for the outcome of his actions.

[Fivethumbs]

Some states have statutes that hold the vehicle owner responsible for damages caused by the negligent acts of the driver regardless of whether it is the owner of the vehicle or someone else driving and regardless of whether the driver is an employee. So respondeat superior may have not even been an issue.

[benb]

One way the employer covers themselves is drug testing & background checks.

There have been quite a few news stories lately about the opioid crisis causing employers who have factory or other workers in dangerous situations having trouble hiring people because too many employees/potential hires are failing drug tests and it is way too dangerous for people like that to be in their workplace.

My wife has been dealing with this trying to hire people in NC this year.. she keeps having people fail the drug/background checks and has trouble filling spots.

I'm mostly onboard with drug legalization but also totally in favor of employers being able to test for stuff too if it makes people too hazardous to have in the workplace.

[tiretrax]

10.5 years may seem to some like a light sentence, but that's an order of magnitude great than most sentences I hear about, if the perp gets charged, tried, and convicted.

[Jaybee]

He is being punished because he made the choices he did. Addiction or not, he is responsible for the outcome of his actions.

Agreed, which is good. But MattTuck's point, at least as I read it, was that a "more respectable" member of society making bad choices with similar outcomes wouldn't be punished nearly as much. That's an injustice that is perpetrated far too often.

[BobO]

Agreed, which is good. But MattTuck's point, at least as I read it, was that a "more respectable" member of society making bad choices with similar outcomes wouldn't be punished nearly as much. That's an injustice that is perpetrated far too often.

First, this is a guy with a good job, home etc., driving a company vehicle. He is on that list of "respectable" people. Had this been a doctor who killed those two people while texting on meth, the outrage would have been the same. This community demanded that he been treated the way he was because of the result, not the person.

The treatment of Brian Lynch by the community and courts is not IN ANY WAY an injustice. He is a murderer and deserves what he got if not more.

Furthermore, we don't know that he is or was an addict, but if he were, that matters little as the result of his actions are indefensible.

The bottom line, is that justice has been served and this case sets a good, positive example for the treatment of those who get behind the wheel compromised and kill.

[Jaybee]

First, this is a guy with a good job, home etc., driving a company vehicle. He is on that list of "respectable" people. Had this been a doctor who killed those two people while texting on meth, the outrage would have been the same. This community demanded that he been treated the way he was because of the result, not the person.

The treatment of Brian Lynch by the community and courts is not IN ANY WAY an injustice. He is a murderer and deserves what he got if not more.

Furthermore, we don't know that he is or was an addict, but if he were, that matters little as the result of his actions are indefensible.

The bottom line, is that justice has been served and this case sets a good, positive example for the treatment of those who get behind the wheel compromised and kill.


I think we agree. My point is that sleepy doctor or texting mom should get the same 10 years, not that substance-abusing tradesman should get less.

[BobO]

I think we agree. My point is that sleepy doctor or texting mom should get the same 10 years, not that substance-abusing tradesman should get less.

We do in fact agree. Like I said earlier, this conviction and sentence are a step in the right direction.