Hoosier trucker acquitted in deadly crash

A truck driver was found not guilty Monday on all charges in a bus crash that killed five people returning from a high school marching band competition.

[what a joke]

this idiot should have his license suspended for life and be rotting in jail...the 'blame the vicitim' defense is a bunch of BS.

[riiiiiiiiight]

My son was not in the wrong," he said. "It was just an unfortunate series of events."

He had no license, didnt report his jacknifed trailer or put out flares to warn others on the road-sure sounds like he did SOMETHING wrong. And to blame the driver of the bus for not being able to see his trailer in the dark is beyond me. The prosecuter f.u.kked this one up horribly!!! Five people are dead because of Mr Kozlowski-may that sit on his conscience forever!!!!!!!!

[TroyM]

Score one for the little guy. Seems that truckers are targets these days. When some suburbanite talking on the phone blows a red light in their SUV and runs over a working class person, they don't get prosecuted, it is just dismissed as an unfortunate accident.

[Brian]

Not to belittle this sad story, but here's more excellent editing from The Star:

"The Oct. 16, 2005, crash killed bus driver Paul Erasmus"

"Gray blamed the accident on Rasmus"

"'Paul Rasmus was much more negligent..."

Make up your mind, Star. Which way do you want to spell this driver's name? I'm guessing nobody would notice or find as much fault in a misspelling as long as you were consistent throughout the story.

[Civil Suits]

That's all good. This BOZO needs to get back to work in order to pay off all the civil lawsuits he will loose!

[Cold One]

That's too bad that he'll have to spend money he probably doesn't have to defend himself in a case where a jury found him not guilty. I think the lesson here is that 76-yr-olds shouldn't be driving buses.

[steve]

I would like to know what type of drivers license the bus driver had. Interesting that there is no mention of that!!!! He was transporting passengers, he also needs some form of the CDL, just like the truck driver. Conspiculously left out of this article...I would hazard a guess that the jury arrived at their decision based on that morsel of information. The lawsuit should probably be turned towards the Chippewa Falls School District that had a 78 year old sleepy bus driver bus driver behind the wheel. Oh, I forgot, go after the trucker because he is out of state. Don't saddle a Wisconsin school district with this lawsuit!!! This is just "good ol' boy" politics being played out in a courtroom.

[calinstuff]

I am glad he was acquitted. The families are looking for someone to blame, when it was just an accident. We risk our lives everyday driving on all roads. The woman that admittedly drifted to sleep and killed two children a few weeks back wasn't charged with any crime at all. It is so unfortunate for the families that lost loved ones, but I believe it was just an accident.

[steve]

Civil Suits wrote:

That's all good. This BOZO needs to get back to work in order to pay off all the civil lawsuits he will loose!

That truck driver and/or his company DON'T OWE A DIME!!!!!!!!

[Cpetr13]

The bus driver was 76 and not wearing the glasses his licensure DEMANDED? Sorry, but that's insane. Drivers are supposed to be able to cope with adverse road conditions--especially commercial drivers who are carrying passengers.

Trucks jackknife all the time. And if this happened with enough time to report the accident and put out flares, there is no reason on EARTH why this bus couldn't have stopped or at least slowed down significantly before impact.

riiiiiiiiight wrote:

My son was not in the wrong," he said. "It was just an unfortunate series of events."
He had no license, didnt report his jacknifed trailer or put out flares to warn others on the road-sure sounds like he did SOMETHING wrong. And to blame the driver of the bus for not being able to see his trailer in the dark is beyond me. The prosecuter f.u.kked this one up horribly!!! Five people are dead because of Mr Kozlowski-may that sit on his conscience forever!!!!!!!!

[Red White and Blue]

Worldwide, it has been found, our youth
are failing in spelling; much of the problem is being blamed on text messaging, the use of both phonetic spelling and unapproved abbreviations.
Due to the above, the Indy Star is thinking about "considering" the forming of a proofreading department.

[Meatball]

How long had his truck been flipped before the bus hit it?

[Dead on the Money]

Cold One wrote:

That's too bad that he'll have to spend money he probably doesn't have to defend himself in a case where a jury found him not guilty.

Could not agree more with this statement. I've yet to understand why a person found not guilty of a crime can be taken for all he's worth in a civil trial. Just another example of modern day America's desire to be rewarded for being a "victim".

[Tricia]

"It was just an unfortunate series of events.

[get a life]

first of all the evidence is right there. the truck was going 70 miles an hour. the speed limit is not 70 for any "truck". second of all, did i read that information correctly when it said it was not the truck drivers fault he was just trying to pull over to go to the bathroom. did that mean at a truck stop or did that mean on the highway, well guess what that is another charge. they don't let me just stop my car on the side of the road to pee. whatever, the trucker was speeding and he was 100% at fault. since he got off with whatever kind of idiots you put on that jury then my guess is that he will pay for all the injuries he "did" cause. truck drivers are very careless and they travel in the 3rd lane on the interstates and should not be there. he is guilty.

[Seriously-]

Sounds to me like this truck driver made a decision to go out and get ripped the night before, and b/c of a shred of doubt placed in the jurors' heads regarding the ability of the bus driver to avoid a semi moving 70-mph across 2 lanes, he gets off. Come on, did the jury really believe he was moving too fast while trying to pull off the side of the road to take a leak? If he fell asleep, he fell asleep, and there was obviously no intentional wrongdoing (save the decision to go out the night before and drive hungover); but for the sleeze-ball lawyer to say with a straight face that he was moving too fast while attempting to pull off the side of the road to relieve himself is a joke!

[KPT]

riiiiiiiiight wrote:

My son was not in the wrong," he said. "It was just an unfortunate series of events."
He had no license, didnt report his jacknifed trailer or put out flares to warn others on the road-sure sounds like he did SOMETHING wrong. And to blame the driver of the bus for not being able to see his trailer in the dark is beyond me. The
prosecuter f.u.kked this one up horribly!!! Five people are dead because of Mr Kozlowski-may that sit on his conscience forever!!!!!!!!

To my understanding the van hit not minutes but seconds after the truck lost control and jacknifed. So maybe the van/bus driver was following too close and was unable to stop.

[Interesting]

Civil vs. Criminal trials have different burdens of proof. While many criminal juries can not consider partial responsibility, depending on the judge's instructions, civil juries can, among other differences.

Personally, I would like to see what other states have on the books with respect to partial blame on driver liability. I don't care whether they are a car, truck or bus driver. Just seems that if a driver says it was an accident, they are almost never held to any accountability. Yes, that would include the lady that mowed down the boy riding his bike in Indy not long ago, as well as other deaths caused by drivers this year, in Indiana.

[Anonymous]

This is an accident, the bus driver should not have missed a Tractor Trailer even on it's side it is over 6 feet tall even at night your headlights can see something like that. The civil trials should be tossed, let this honest working man go back to work. I'm sure he's making barely enough to support his family... if the civil trials go through and he loses he mind as well call himself homeless.

[Indy MBA]

Dead on the Money wrote:

<quoted text>
Could not agree more with this statement. I've yet to understand why a person found not guilty of a crime can be taken for all he's worth in a civil trial. Just another example of modern day America's desire to be rewarded for being a "victim".

I understand the dichotomous situation that exists between civil and criminal trials. The proof of guilt in a civil trial is much lower. It is referred to as "preponderance of the evidence"; a fancy way of saying “more likely than not”. The threshold for entering evidence, I believe, is much lower as well. This is in opposition to the criminal trial maxim that we all know –“beyond a reasonable doubt”. If the families of the deceased were not litigious they would not seek any monetary compensation for their loss. I am not sure that I could put a price on a loved one as they probably will easily and callously do. I agree that an acquitted person should not have to defend themselves twice, but it does not break the “Double Jeopardy” rule since the government is only prosecuting once and then the victims/victims’ families get their turn.