The Benz Driver who killed the guy in Scottsdale

It seems like such a rediculous stretch that they can say the company shouldnt have put him in "such a powerful mercedes" and how the company is liable. Its shit like that, that makes me hate the court system. Yeah, this guy fucked up and is a jackass, but how does something like that honestly hold up?!

It may or may not hold up, but the plaintiff's attorney has to list it in the complaint because that is where the money is. I wouldn't be surprised if VB doesn't have other means of protecting his assets like trusts, FLP's etc. The car was probably leased or purchased by VB's company (which I imagine, he is the sole owner of) in order to take advantage of various tax benefits and thus opens the company up to liabilty if he claimed the car was a company car used for employment purposes. This is, of coarse conjecture on my part, but that's my .02.

The bottom line here is, that his personal assets were not enough to jusify the money they are going after, so the attorney found a way to incorporate VB's business into the lawsuit to get everything out of there too. Its a sleezy way to get someone's money but it will be interesting if they let it stand in court. Seems like a stretch to me. I'm surprised it has not said anything about the criminal charges on them. Whatever happened there ? Anyone know ?

Here is the article:

Family of ex-legislator killed in crash suing other drivers

Carol Sowers

The Arizona Republic

Mar. 5, 2008 11:49 AM

 

SCOTTSDALE - The family of a former state legislator killed in a three-car crash is suing the two drivers suspected of slamming him into his car at speeds of up to 100 mph.

 

Cal Holman, a Paradise Valley state representative from 1975 to 1985 was killed Dec. 28 when the two cars crashed into his Camaro near Scottsdale Road and Eastwood Lane.

 

The lawsuit was filed recently in Maricopa County Superior Court by: Holman's wife, Margaret Elizabeth Holman; his son, Calvin Mark Holman; and daughter, Mary Morns Holman.

 

 

 

 

 

The suit says witnesses reported that Robert Hank Van Brakel, 42, of Phoenix, and Travis Jordan Aronica, 25, of Canton, Mich., were driving north on Scottsdale Road at speeds in excess of 80 mph and 100 mph.

 

Van Brakel and Aronica were arrested on suspicion of one count each of second-degree murder. They posted $25,000 bail and were released from a Maricopa County jail. They pleaded not guilty.

 

The claim, filed by Harding Cure, a Phoenix lawyer, says both men have been convicted of "multiple offenses" for racing on city streets in various states.

 

Harry Howe, Van Brakel's attorney in the civil case, did not return calls for comment. Aronica also could not be reached.

 

The suit says Margaret Holman has suffered "terrible grief, anguish and mental distress" at the loss of her husband.

 

Her grief was deepened by the manner in which she learned of the accident, the suit says.

 

Margaret Holman heard the "horrendous explosion" from the crash and suspected that her husband may have been involved because he was due home.

 

Cure also claims Robert Van Brakel's company, Van Brakel Electronics Inc., is liable for Holman's death.

 

The suit says Van Brakel was working for his company when the crash occurred. Because the company knew of Van Brakel's "propensity for reckless and illegal driving," he should not have been entrusted with the "high-powered Mercedes" involved in the crash.

 

 

The reason imo they are going after the company is not the company assets (which are minimal I think) but it's liability insurance policy....

 

Very predictable move..

 

 

Here is the article:

The reason imo they are going after the company is not the company assets (which are minimal I think) but it's liability insurance policy....

 

Very predictable move..

 

Same idea, they are going where the money is.

 

I saw it on the news last night. Hows Juicee63?

It seems like such a rediculous stretch that they can say the company shouldnt have put him in "such a powerful mercedes" and how the company is liable. Its shit like that, that makes me hate the court system. Yeah, this guy fucked up and is a jackass, but how does something like that honestly hold up?!

 

 

Not a ridiculous stretch at all....

 

The car was owned, apparently, by his company.... Which is a SEPARATE entity from HIM....

 

As the Company's CEO if he gives out a vehicle (whether it be a powerful V12, or a Hyundai) for conducting business, he has make sure the driver of that vehicle (EVEN IF IT IS HIMSELF) has a safe driving record, or the company is on the hook for drivers foreseeable reckless or negligent behavior. Its negligent to give ANY company car to a person with multiple convictions for poor driving.... The person behind the wheel was an employee of the company, operating a company vehicle...

 

No different than suing FEDEX because they hire a guy with a history of DUI who goes to the bar during lunch and runs over a kid....

 

Nothing at all novel or interesting about this.

 

 

 

From what I can tell, the line about them being CONVICTED is probably a typo by the reporter, because I still see them in the system.... They probably meant to say "CHARGED".

Not a ridiculous stretch at all....

 

The car was owned, apparently, by his company.... Which is a SEPARATE entity from HIM....

 

As the Company's CEO if he gives out a vehicle (whether it be a powerful V12, or a Hyundai) for conducting business, he has make sure the driver of that vehicle (EVEN IF IT IS HIMSELF) has a safe driving record, or the company is on the hook for drivers foreseeable reckless or negligent behavior. Its negligent to give ANY company car to a person with multiple convictions for poor driving.... The person behind the wheel was an employee of the company, operating a company vehicle...

 

No different than suing FEDEX because they hire a guy with a history of DUI who goes to the bar during lunch and runs over a kid....

 

Nothing at all novel or interesting about this.

From what I can tell, the line about them being CONVICTED is probably a typo by the reporter, because I still see them in the system.... They probably meant to say "CHARGED".

 

I think the line about convicted was regarding prior offenses - i.e. they have both been convicted in the past of reckless driving/speeding or other speed offenses, which the lawyer is going to use as a strong point of his argument - that they were known speeders who have been convicted of it before.

I think the line about convicted was regarding prior offenses - i.e. they have both been convicted in the past of reckless driving/speeding or other speed offenses, which the lawyer is going to use as a strong point of his argument - that they were known speeders who have been convicted of it before.

 

 

That could be right....

 

Either way, it was clumsily worded....

FWIW... Van Brackel, His wife, and his company have been sued by the victims family....

 

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/dock...r=CV2008-003896

 

 

And the criminal case is on-going.... I bet hes had a fun six months already... How much do you suppose all this is costing him???

 

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/dock...r=CR2007-182613

 

 

And the "Friends of Cal Holman" has a website...

 

http://www.friendsofcalholman.com/friends/...rd=news.pagedef

"The prosecution did not object as there is evidence that Van Brakel had trace amounts of Marijuana in his blood at the time of the accident. This could mean more charges and a new Grand Jury will allow the expansion of charges."

"The prosecution did not object as there is evidence that Van Brakel had trace amounts of Marijuana in his blood at the time of the accident. This could mean more charges and a new Grand Jury will allow the expansion of charges."

 

 

And the winner is SKOKOS!!!! (wanted to see how long that little tidbit would take...)

and just when you thought your problems were bad...... I don't know how I would sleep at night.

"The prosecution did not object as there is evidence that Van Brakel had trace amounts of Marijuana in his blood at the time of the accident. This could mean more charges and a new Grand Jury will allow the expansion of charges."

holy crap.

 

 

They must have named his arse crack by now

They must have named his arse crack by now

 

Sheila

They must have named his arse crack by now

 

Sheila

holy crap.

i heard that juicee63 sold him the weed.

 

"The prosecution did not object as there is evidence that Van Brakel had trace amounts of Marijuana in his blood at the time of the accident. This could mean more charges and a new Grand Jury will allow the expansion of charges."

Talk about bending over before you actually you get sentenced!

Actually can someone refresh my memory on your US judicial system, would releasing such information about the toxicology report of one of the parties involved affect a free trial?

Actually can someone refresh my memory on your US judicial system, would releasing such information about the toxicology report of one of the parties involved affect a free trial?

Nope.

You'd think by forty-two years of age, someone would be beyond doing drugs and street racing.

Nope.

 

 

But couldn't the jurors be exposed to this info therefore prejudicing the trial ?

have you not heard its the latest craze! even the celebs are doing it! lol fcuking Idiots!

But couldn't the jurors be exposed to this info therefore prejudicing the trial ?

Thats the chance we take...

 

The U.S. justice system has a higher fundamental protection for defendants in this regard. Criminal trials are PUBLIC matters. The trial, documents filed, etc is (except in extraordinary and limited circumstances) open to the public, and the Freedom of The Press protects those who publish the public documents- The idea being that trials held in secret are BAD...

 

There are steps judges will take (Voir Dire of Jurrors, gag orders of participants, sequestration of jurors, change of venue, etc) to protect a FAIR TRIAL, but publicity isnt the BIGGEST issue we worry about.

 

I know this is much different from the Canadian system in particular, where defendants names are protected from the press, etc... I wrote a law review article on the differences between the Canadian system and the US System in Law School.... I like the U.S. system more.