Kevin at Lowering the Bar spots a promising new theory in a defense expert’s testimony, though it’s not clear the lawyers actually wound up making use of it. [Vail Daily, same at Denver Post]
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Schools for Misrule
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
{ 3 comments }
What is the point of the defense bringing up his sleep apnea? That may be the cause of his losing consciousness, but it hardly excuses his culpability for the accident. In fact, it should make him more culpable since he knew that he could lose consciousness and he still drove the car.
“it should make him more culpable since he knew that he could lose consciousness and he still drove the car.”
I sort of thought this as well, but I was also thinking about what little I know about sleep apnea, which does not include a nacolepsy-like symptom of sudden sleep onset.
Sleep apnea is a condition which affects respiration while one is already asleep.
The connection to sleep apnea is probably that sleep apnea reduces the restfulness of sleep, making it more likely that the sufferer will fall asleep during the day.
As for new car fumes, I have no idea whether they make people more likely to fall asleep, but I can say that not everyone likes them. I can’t stand the smell, to the point that strong new car odor on a hot day can make me feel sick.
Comments on this entry are closed.