“Speedy Suzy”

Factual Comparison Chart
A deliberate act?
Facts indicating more likely Facts indicating less likely
Johnny could have chosen a different road

SUZY COULD’VE DRIVEN THROUGH PHOENIX BUT DIDN’T BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL TRAFFIC; DELIBERATELY CHOSE DESERT ROAD SO SHE

COULD SPEED

Johnny thought he had a heart attack; panic can limit deliberation

SUZY’S DOG WAS ILL, PERHAPS DYING; GREATER CHANCE THAT ADRENALINE WAS “DOING THE THINKING” SINCE

SHE WASN’T “USED TO” SUCH AN

EMERGENCY, UNLIKE UNCLE JOHNNY WHO, AS A HYPOCHONDRIAC, HAD PLENTY OF EXPERIENCE WITH HIS “HEART-ATTACK” PANIC

Exceedingly reckless?
Uncle Johnny was riding his motorbike at 70 mph which was over three times the speed limit of 20 mph

SUZY WAS DRIVING AT 110 MPH, WHICH EXCEEDED DOUBLE THE SPEED LIMIT BY 10 MPH.

The golf course is vast; hence, sparsely occupied even at maximum capacity.

THE DESERT RARELY EXPERIENCES TRAFFIC DURING THE DAY; THUS, THE TRAFFIC AT MIDNIGHT WOULD NOT BE EXPECTED.

Is it unreasonably endangering public safety?
The golf course is a recreational facility with revelers conditioned to lower speeds below20 mph

SUZY WAS DRIVING BEYOND DOUBLE THE SPEED LIMIT, WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE ARIZONA LEGISLATION.

No facts to support the claim.

 

SUZY OPTED FOR THE DESERT ROUTE WHICH RARELY EXPERIENCES TRAFFIC BY DAY; HENCE, TRAFFIC BY NIGHT WOULD BE INSIGNIFICANT.

 

Suzy chose the desert route to speed and reach the vet faster compared to using the Phoenix route that experiences traffic, making it a deliberate act. Further, she drove at more than twice the speed limit by 10 mph, making the act exceedingly reckless. Though arguable, the fact that desert route experiences less traffic by day does not make it immune to traffic at midnight; thus, Suzy unreasonably endangered public safety. Suzy’s case met all three elements of Uncle Johnny’s appeal case; she is going to jail (“Uncle Johnny v. State of Arizona,” n.d 1).

 

 

Reference

Uncle Johnny v. State of Arizona. (n.d.).

error: Content is protected !!