One thing that is clear is that Jack needs to get out of town. He's going to be haunted by this for the rest of his life.
Yep, I always thought the odds of Jack playing for Fran were slim, but this seals it...
One thing that is clear is that Jack needs to get out of town. He's going to be haunted by this for the rest of his life.
One thing that is clear is that Jack needs to get out of town.
Yes. Don't stop and let people cross.Very well said. Again I say to those who are focusing on the fact that he did not yield...while he technically did not yield...he did not yield because he wasn't able to SEE the jogger.
A nice person that stops on a multi-lane road to wave someone across multiple lanes of traffic is actually setting a trap for the pedestrian AND the other nearby drivers who cannot see what the "waver" can see.
I think you've nailed it.If you are familiar with where the accident took place and factor into the equation that McCaffrey was driving in the left lane and someone driving in the right lane stopped and waved the jogger into the crosswalk. From what has been described to me, McCaffrey never saw the jogger because of how the vehicle in the right lane was positioned and the jogger failed to see McCaffrey's vehicle approaching.
A convergence of truly unfortunate circumstances but, from a criminal charging perspective, I'm not sure that charging McCaffrey with anything other than a misdemeanor failure to yield would be warranted.
Personally, I think round-abouts are dangerous for pedestrians also.
YepI would agree with this,.. The things that make roundabouts so effective for cars is exactly what makes them so dangerous for pedestrians..
Maybe because more pedestrians think they have the right to be in a crosswalk at anytime. They don'tI read a week ago that 2023 has the highest pedestrian deaths from automobiles in 41 years. Yikes. National safety board says ear buds and cell phones are two key factors. Personally, I think round-abouts are dangerous for pedestrians also.
321.327 Pedestrians’ right-of-way.Maybe because more pedestrians think they have the right to be in a crosswalk at anytime. They don't
What bothers me the most is people walk right out into a crossing without even looking to see if a vehicle is coming. At leased look. it doesn't do any good if my brakes fail or I miss seeing a person and kill them. Teah my insurance will pay the family monies but still doesn't do any good to the person I killed. Show me some respect and look before crossing like we're all taught as kids by our parents.Maybe because more pedestrians think they have the right to be in a crosswalk at anytime. They don't
Thank you for this perspective. It didn't look good. This makes sense now on why charges weren't more serious abd probably shouldn't be more serious.If you are familiar with where the accident took place and factor into the equation that McCaffrey was driving in the left lane and someone driving in the right lane stopped and waved the jogger into the crosswalk. From what has been described to me, McCaffrey never saw the jogger because of how the vehicle in the right lane was positioned and the jogger failed to see McCaffrey's vehicle approaching.
A convergence of truly unfortunate circumstances but, from a criminal charging perspective, I'm not sure that charging McCaffrey with anything other than a misdemeanor failure to yield would be warranted.
When I was teaching my kids to drive I hammered into their brains you can be 100 percent right and still be 100 percent dead. Always drive with the assumption the semi doesn't see you or drive to accommodate the mistakes of other drivers.What bothers me the most is people walk right out into a crossing without even looking to see if a vehicle is coming. At leased look. it doesn't do any good if my brakes fail or I miss seeing a person and kill them. Teah my insurance will pay the family monies but still doesn't do any good to the person I killed. Show me some respect and look before crossing like we're all taught as kids by our parents.
I am no lawyer but I think that he would have had to be doing something reckless (drinking, street racing, maybe looking at his phone) in order to be charged with something more serious like involuntary manslaughter.
Neither you nor I are saying Jack got preferential treatment, of course, but you raise good questions. The victim's family probably is scratching their heads, too. Not sure who the prosecutor is but hopefully that person gets asked why a more serious charge (or charges) was not filed.
IMO, that ^^ is very wise advice. I taught my boys similarly FWIW.When I was teaching my kids to drive I hammered into their brains you can be 100 percent right and still be 100 percent dead. Always drive with the assumption the semi doesn't see you or drive to accommodate the mistakes of other drivers.
Yep. Always better to be a defensive driver......When I was teaching my kids to drive I hammered into their brains you can be 100 percent right and still be 100 percent dead. Always drive with the assumption the semi doesn't see you or drive to accommodate the mistakes of other drivers.
When I was teaching my kids to drive I hammered into their brains you can be 100 percent right and still be 100 percent dead. Always drive with the assumption the semi doesn't see you or drive to accommodate the mistakes of other drivers.
Yep. Always better to be a defensive driver......
This tragic accident had multiple failures.Very well said. Again I say to those who are focusing on the fact that he did not yield...while he technically did not yield...he did not yield because he wasn't able to SEE the jogger.
Ok, agree- except in this instance he was not "within" the crosswalk until the the other driver stopped and induced him to enter.321.327 Pedestrians’ right-of-way.
1. Where traffic-control signals are not in place or in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
2. A person convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of a simple misdemeanor punishable as a scheduled violation under section 805.8A, subsection 7.
[C39, §5027.03; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §321.327]
2000 Acts, ch 1203, §13; 2001 Acts, ch 137, §5; 2010 Acts, ch 1190, §48 Referred to in §321.325, 321.482A, 805.8A(7)(h)
Additional penalties for violations causing serious injury or death, see §321.482A
Lol. I hope you don’t drive.Ok, agree- except in this instance he was not "within" the crosswalk until the the other driver stopped and induced him to enter.
My daughter told me after this happened that her best friend's aunt was apparently driving not far behind himThank you for this perspective. It didn't look good. This makes sense now on why charges weren't more serious abd probably shouldn't be more serious.
My daughter told me after this happened that her best friend's aunt was apparently driving not far behind him
and saw it happen. The aunt said the jogger seemed to come from nowhere.
If I understood the testimony correctly, someone else waved the jogger through the cross-walk without apparently being able to see oncoming traffic.
When I was in law school we learned in torts class that when you wave someone through traffic (another driver or pedestrian) you can be held responsible civilly for any accident that happens. In this case whoever waved Hite through without making sure there was no oncoming traffic is more at fault than McCaffrey in my opinion. I don't think he should have been charged based on what I've read. Tragic situation all around, but not criminal in my opinion.
It's not like the other driver waived him across in the middle of the street, it was at a crosswalk. She was yielding as required by state law.
It doesn't matter if it was in a crosswalk or not - by waving him on without being able to see (that was my understanding) what was coming the other way you are legally assuming responsibility for him being able to cross safely IMO. The victim's family is understandably upset. I don't feel like the kid is mostly at fault here. Sounds to me like both him and the jogger were at the wrong place at the wrong time. The finder of fact here is a judge - I don't think they will be swayed one way or the other by who was in the courtroom as a jury might.It's not like the other driver waived him across in the middle of the street, it was at a crosswalk. She was yielding as required by state law. You could say the design of the intersection could be improved, and I would agree. But it's still always the driver's responsibility to be prepared to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks.
One of the articles stated that the victim's family were the only attendees in the courtroom (other than media). In my opinion, it's unfortunate a member of the McCaffery family did not attend in lieu of Jack attending himself.
It's not like the other driver waived him across in the middle of the street, it was at a crosswalk. She was yielding as required by state law. You could say the design of the intersection could be improved, and I would agree. But it's still always the driver's responsibility to be prepared to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks.
One of the articles stated that the victim's family were the only attendees in the courtroom (other than media). In my opinion, it's unfortunate a member of the McCaffery family did not attend in lieu of Jack attending himself.
I think that's exactly what the poster saidI think you misread the article, because none of the McCaffery’s were in attendance, INCLUDING Jack himself.
https://dailyiowan.com/2023/08/24/judge-rules-jonathan-mccaffery-will-not-appear-at-trial-next-week/
As was pointed out, the law statesIt's not like the other driver waived him across in the middle of the street, it was at a crosswalk. She was yielding as required by state law. You could say the design of the intersection could be improved, and I would agree. But it's still always the driver's responsibility to be prepared to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks.
One of the articles stated that the victim's family were the only attendees in the courtroom (other than media). In my opinion, it's unfortunate a member of the McCaffery family did not attend in lieu of Jack attending himself.
It doesn't matter if it was in a crosswalk or not - by waving him on without being able to see (that was my understanding) what was coming the other way you are legally assuming responsibility for him being able to cross safely IMO. The victim's family is understandably upset. I don't feel like the kid is mostly at fault here. Sounds to me like both him and the jogger were at the wrong place at the wrong time. The finder of fact here is a judge - I don't think they will be swayed one way or the other by who was in the courtroom as a jury might.
Maybe I misread it. Even so, in that case you can't wave someone into another lane if you don't see that the other driver has noticed them in the crosswalk and stopped.I'm fairly certain that the "other driver" and McCaffrey were heading in the same direction. The "other driver" was in the lane closest to the curb (outer lane) and McCaffrey was in the lane closest to the center line (inner lane).
Agreed. 2 people paid a high price and very unfortunate.You misunderstand the statute. The other driver was not required to yield by state law. The other driver must only yield if the pedestrian has entered the crosswalk. If a pedestrian is standing on the sidewalk and waiting for traffic to pass before crossing the street, a driver does not need to stop, to yield or even slow down. The pedestrian's right of way only exists when he first enters the crosswalk.
Really unfortunate set of circumstances.
If JM hit the pedestrian standing on the corner, the JM certainly would be at fault.As was pointed out, the law states..
"to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection"
Being at the corner is not within the marked crosswalk. Drivers are not required to yield to people standing on a corner.
Ultimately it's a simple misdemeanor. Maybe they get sued by the estate in civil court. Coach is rich, it will settle. Move on. Sad to see someone die though.The verdict is guilty.
![]()
Jack McCaffery, son of Iowa basketball head coach found guilty for fatal accident in May
Jonathan “Jack” McCaffery, son of University of Iowa men’s basketball coach Fran McCaffery, was found guilty in court filings Tuesday for failing to yield to a pedestrian. McCaffery was charged with the crash on May 22 at Melrose Avenue and Kennedy Parkway in west Iowa City that led to the...dailyiowan.com
From the article:
Sixth Judicial District Judge Mark Neary wrote that he “did not comply with common law requirements under the circumstances,” and that McCaffery should have known to slow down considering there were other cars stopped at the crosswalk.
“Mr. McCaffery’s failure to approach the crosswalk with care, either by slowing down and/or stopping when approaching the crosswalk in such a way to be able to avoid any contact with a pedestrian lawfully within the crosswalk, indicates that Mr. McCaffery failed to meet the requirements of a reasonable driver in such a situation.”
If Jack did not at least slow down when the other driver was stopping, even if he did not see the jogger, then he probably did not use appropriate caution. Mostly, just a very sad, unfortunate accident.
At the risk of dragging this discussion out even more...take a look at the aerial pic in post #118, it is entirely plausible that someone could have seen a car slowing down in that area and assumed that they were preparing to turn right.If Jack did not at least slow down when the other driver was stopping, even if he did not see the jogger, then he probably did not use appropriate caution. Mostly, just a very sad, unfortunate accident.