wu :: forums - Print Page


    
      
        wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        riddles >> what happened >> Why didn't he have to go to jail?
        
(Message started by: DeMark on Feb 28^th, 2004, 1:52am)

Title: Why didn't he have to go to jail?
Post by DeMark on Feb 28^th, 2004, 1:52am

There was a car crash. Two cars ran into each other.
In the car A there was one person. In the car B there were two.
A person from the car B lost his leg in the accident (can I say "lost his leg"? We say it in Croatian. You know what I mean).
The driver of the first car, who caused the accident, just had to pay 100$. Why didn't he have to go to jail?

Title: Re: Why didn't he have to go to jail?
Post by John_Gaughan on Feb 28^th, 2004, 2:05am

It was an accident -- there was no criminal intent. He paid up what his insurance did not cover, and stayed a free man.

Title: Re: Why didn't he have to go to jail?
Post by DeMark on Feb 28^th, 2004, 2:13am

Nope. Let's say that he would go to jail if that was a normal case. But it wasn't.
It's pretty hard to translate riddles from Croatian to English, you know. I must learn how to think in English. :P

Title: Re: Why didn't he have to go to jail?
Post by Icarus on Feb 28^th, 2004, 7:27am

"Lost his leg" is entirely appropriate in English as well. In veiw of your response to John's answer, perhaps you should have added that the driver of the first car intentionally caused the accident. Being at fault in an accidents are not considered criminal in the USA (or other countries for which I am aware) unless there is some other factor, such as the driver being drunk, extremely reckless, or intentionally causing the accident (which makes it assault).

My answer is [hide]the two people in 2nd car were a kidnapper & his victim. The driver of the first car was aware of the situation (perhaps giving chase), and caused the accident in order to stop the kidnapper. The one problem I see with this senario is why the guy even has to pay $100.[/hide]

Title: Re: Why didn't he have to go to jail?
Post by Sir Col on Feb 28^th, 2004, 7:37am

I was thinking that the $100 was an excess on the insurance policy, but the fact he would have gone to jail has thrown me. I suppose, like Icarus suggested, the driver intentionally stopped some criminals getting away? Could the person who "lost a leg", have some type of prosthetic (false limb), and the cost was to replace it after it became damaged in the accident?

[e]I just edited this post to remove the hide tags. I was thinking (dangerous, I know) that anything after, say, the third post is not visible from the original problem, so it won't spoil it for anyone who wants to read the problem and ponder it. In addition, no one will post a reply until they've read all the posts to check that it hasn't already been suggested. What thinks the moderators on this issue, as it is far more reaching than just this post?[/e]

Title: Re: Why didn't he have to go to jail?
Post by DeMark on Feb 28^th, 2004, 8:18am

Nope again. There were no criminals there. I don't know how it goes in USA, but in Croatia, if you cause an accident, you must pay much more than 100$, even if you're not drunk. The police could also take your driving license. But it depends on the case... I could tell you the answer if you want...

Title: Re: Why didn't he have to go to jail?
Post by Icarus on Feb 28^th, 2004, 12:14pm

You are responsible for the damage for accidents you cause, but you are not considered a criminal and subject to jail time for an accident unless it was the result of some other criminal behavior.

Title: Re: Why didn't he have to go to jail?
Post by DeMark on Feb 28^th, 2004, 12:36pm

It depends. If a person dies in an accident, they can throw you to jail. Should I modify the subject? Why didn't he have to pay more than 100$? :P
But it's a Croatian riddle, established on Croatian sistems...
I dunno how to explain it... So here is the answer (I won't hide it): The car A was a normal car. The driver was a bit drunk. The car B was a coroner's car (how should I say it in English?). The person who lost his leg was a dead man. So it wasn't such a damage... :P

Title: Re: Why didn't he have to go to jail?
Post by Sir Col on Feb 28^th, 2004, 1:35pm

I know that different countries have different laws, but in England, if the police suspected you were not in a fit state to be in charge of a vehicle you would face charges and a possible term of imprisonment. For example, being over the legal drinking limit (including taking drugs), taking medication or suffering from an illness/condition that could affect your senses and/or reaction time, emotionally unstable, wreckless/dangerous driving, and so on. If the driver was drunk they would automatically face a driving ban, a fine of £5000, and up to six months imprisonment. I don't know about currency conversion rates at the moment, but I suspect that most drunk drivers would prefer to pay $100 than £5000. ;)

By the way, DeMark, your English is perfect and you worry unnecessarily about phrases/words you use. I'm sure someone would mention it anything was unclear. I suspect it was difficult for us to solve your puzzle, as the laws, from country to country, operate quite differently under these types of situations.

Title: Re: Why didn't he have to go to jail?
Post by Icarus on Feb 28^th, 2004, 8:11pm

I agree with all Sir Col has to say. In the USA, you do not go to jail even if you kill someone in an accident, provided that the accident was not caused by your acting in some criminal manner. A simple driving error is not criminal, unless it is part of a more general disregard for the safety of others. A young friend of mine, a severely autistic boy, was killed when he wandered out into the road late at night last fall (his parents had thought he went to visit the horses, a common activity for him). The situation was an unfortunate collusion of circumstances, and the young woman driving the car did not see him in time to stop. He either did not realize his danger or know how to respond to it. To have arrested the driver for this would only have compounded the tragedy. There would have been no justice to it.

You are always liable (required to pay) for damages, however, if the accident was your fault. A wreck bad enough to damage a body in such a way would definitely be greater damage just to the vehicle itself than $100 would cover!

On the other hand, drunk driving IS considered criminal behavior in the US. So even if the accident had been just a fender-bender here, your drunk would likely spend at least 1 night in jail, and face many more consequences. Even if he is not over the legal limit (0.08 blood alcohol level here, with some pressing to lower it), he would still find himself in considerably more trouble because of his intoxication. We do not treat the decision to drive a motor vehicle while in an impaired state as being acceptable behavior anymore.

As for your English, occasionally you may slip up with the more odd constructions (such as "great-grandfather"), but this is hardly a major concern and easily corrected, so I shouldn't worry about it.

Title: Re: Why didn't he have to go to jail?
Post by bobcat on Mar 4^th, 2004, 8:19pm

Although the intended answer has been revealed, an alternative answer may be that the crash occured in the Dodgem Cars at a theme park, where the intention is to crash. A foolish person not following safety procedures may have their leg out of the car which could be injured enough to warrant an amputation. The $100 dollars may have been the admission price to the theme park.

Title: Re: Why didn't he have to go to jail?
Post by towr on Mar 5^th, 2004, 12:55am

It might also have been a fake (wooden) leg, so loosing it might not have been catastrofic..

Title: Re: Why didn't he have to go to jail?
Post by Kazn on Apr 22^nd, 2004, 4:12pm

on 03/05/04 at 00:55:25, towr wrote:

It might also have been a fake (wooden) leg

Why would you have a wooden leg? ???

Maybe the ''leg'' is from a doll.

Title: Re: Why didn't he have to go to jail?
Post by Icarus on Apr 22^nd, 2004, 4:46pm

on 04/22/04 at 16:12:16, Kazn wrote:

Why would you have a wooden leg?

Because you've lost your real leg, and more advanced prosthetics are not available.

Title: Re: Why didn't he have to go to jail?
Post by pedronunezmd on Jun 7^th, 2004, 10:41pm

Quote:

The driver of the first car, who caused the accident, just had to pay 100$. Why didn't he have to go to jail?

The driver was a politician. He only had to pay a $100 bribe to avoid any charges from the accident.