ADVERTISEMENT

Updated: Jack McCaffery Found Guilty In Fatal Pedestrian Crash

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.

images
 
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.
Yes. Don't stop and let people cross.

You're not being a jerk, and you don't know what every other driver is thinking.
 
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.
I think you've nailed it.
 
I 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.
Maybe because more pedestrians think they have the right to be in a crosswalk at anytime. They don't
 
Maybe because more pedestrians think they have the right to be in a crosswalk at anytime. They don't
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
 
A non-jury trial is scheduled for next week.

Failure to yield to a pedestrian at a crosswalk is a simple misdemeanor, which allows Jack McCaffery to waive his right to appear on the first day of his trial.

A judge has not yet responded to the request.


the full story with video of where the collision occurred:

 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

You should live in Clarke County. We had a situation where a teenage driver with 3 passengers was racing a train to a crossing which was popular game here, was hit killing 3, charged with vehicular manslaughter, and the County Attorney dismissed the charges with no possibility of criminal or civil recourse.

Some pissed off people around here. Really strange situation.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Franisdaman
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.
IMO, that ^^ is very wise advice. I taught my boys similarly FWIW.

This case proves that point well. Very, very unfortunately, the jogger was in the "right", in terms of having the right of way and yet he ended up dead. Ugh.
 
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 approaching intersections, I always look both ways, making sure someone isn't coming, running a red light, etc; some things from driver's ed stick with you

another dangerous thing to be mindful of: stranded cars on the shoulder of interstates. It seems like there are a lot of them lately. Think of drivers distracted by their phone or something else; all it takes is a slight veering to the right and you could hit the parked car
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carlton
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.
This tragic accident had multiple failures.
- jogger crossing street w/o fully looking for oncoming traffic and possibly assuming they will yield or stop.
- allegedly driver stops to yield and waves pedestrian to cross multiple lanes.
- Driver Education programs which today put more of an emphasis on operating the vehicle rather than "educating" the drivers to potentially dangerous situations that might occur w/ people who have little experience. As a retired instructor we used to cover countless possibilities that could occur and stress to always expect the unexpected. Young JM could/should have applied some logic as to why a car in an adjacent lane had stopped at a pedestrian crossing. Very high probability the driver was indeed stopped for a pedestrian. Slow down, look and make sure.
 
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
Ok, agree- except in this instance he was not "within" the crosswalk until the the other driver stopped and induced him to enter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AuroraHawk
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.
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.
 
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. 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 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.
 
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 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.

I 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/
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Obviously Oblivious
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.
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.
 
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.

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).
 
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).
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.
 
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.
Agreed. 2 people paid a high price and very unfortunate.

So are you saying that the pedestrian had the ROW since he had obviously entered the crosswalk before young JM arrived at the crosswalk?
 
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.
If JM hit the pedestrian standing on the corner, the JM certainly would be at fault.

But if a driver hits a pedestrian "IN" a marked crosswalk at an intersection, then it's still the driver's fault. (according to the law you sited)

(Certainly, the jogger wasn't fast enough to be on the curb when the driver entered the crosswalk and then be able to dart in front of the car before it exited the crosswalk)
 
The verdict is guilty.


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.”
 
The verdict is guilty.


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.”
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.
 
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.

Techinically, young McCaffrey is guilty of the infraction. But I still say that 95%+ of all of the rest of the population, myself included, would be VERY vulnerable to making that very same mistake under those same circumstances.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT