This is a case about a man who has had many hardships in his life and now inadvertently caused a tragedy that resulted in the death of his beloved fiancee, Sally Jones. I do understand the immense grief experienced by the accusing side: indeed, the loss of a mother and a sister is irreplaceable and should not be underestimated. Therefore, I do keep the late Sally Jones family in my thoughts and prayers and send my heartfelt condolences to anyone affected by her timeless death. However, I am here to defend the dignity, liberty, and good name of Larry Downey who does not deserve being tormented any longer for something he could not quite control. Thus, I bring to your attention three facts from the case that speak in favor of my defendant.
Firstly, I would like to point out the nature of the relationship between Larry Downey and Sally Jones that proves that the killing was not intentional. Citing Bashi v. Wodarz, “insane persons are commonly held liable for their intentional torts.” Not a single fact from the relationship between my defendant and his late fiancee points at a possibility of intentional murder. As it has been established by the court through the evidence submitted by their friends and family, Larry and Sally were a loving, long-term couple. Larry has always been respectful to his girlfriend and later fiancee. Ms. Jones was aware of my defendant’s mental condition from the very beginning and was willing to look beyond it because she loved him dearly. My client Larry Downey is distraught and devastated and experiencing immense blame due to how much pain he caused Sally’s family.
Next, I would like to draw your attention to the medical history of my client. Indeed, he experienced a horrific loss when he was a little child. On these grounds, my client was receiving a powerful medication for treating the mental and physical consequences of the traumatic event. Mr. Downey had no other choice but to continue taking anti-migraine drugs as curing the disease once and for all was extremely unlikely. The use of the said drugs resulted in dizziness and disorientation, which contributed to how the fatal events unfolded. Referring to Bashi v. Wodarz, “[…] a person of unsound mind, of whatever degree, is civilly liable […] unless at the time of the act he was capable of knowing that it was wrongful.”
Lastly, Mr. Downey is still suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder – a condition that is largely misunderstood in the court system. PTSD is an insidious disease that persisted into adulthood in my client’s case. It is characterized by involuntary reactions and loss of control in situations related to what caused the condition in the first place. Mr. Downey found himself in a situation similar to the one that led to the death of his father. What happened to Mr. Downey on the highway can be classified as a sudden onset of a transitory delirium. As it has been made clear in Bashi v. Wodarz, a sudden onset of a disease that could not be predicted nor prevented serves as a defense to my client’s alleged negligence. I ask you to consider the factual information that I provided and reconsider how my client’s case has been seen by the court so far.
Work Cited
Bashi v. Wodarz, 45 Cal.App.4th 1314, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 635 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). Court of Appeal of California, Fifth District.