I'm Betting She Will Not Miss Wimbleton

[Exhibitman]

Well, no. Negligence does not equal criminality. Williams may be held civilly liable for damages for negligence without being criminally liable. The case is partially defensible, though, given the facts as stated by the drivers. According to Williams, she was nearly stopped in the intersection due to traffic in front of her. Whether she actually violated the right of way is an open question. I am not going to blindly accept the hearsay opinion of the police, who were not there and rely on less than comprehensive analysis in these cases. Also, the nature of the collision, with the smaller car going pretty fast and t-boning a nearly stopped vehicle, opens up the possibility that the driver of the car was also negligent. The driver of the other car stated that she slowed when approaching the intersection then sped up when the light changed. Had she been in the intersection when the SUV entered it her car would have been hit on its side. Instead, she ran into the side of the SUV, indicating that Williams got there first. She might have missed the SUV entering the intersection or she might have wrongly assumed it would stop. Her deposition should answer that question.

And what is Williams supposed to do, not go to work? That's ridiculous. Tennis is her career and a grand slam event is a major work event for her. She isn't under arrest, she isn't out on bail, she hasn't even been charged with a crime. She has the right to pursue her trade, same as any of us would if we had been in the same situation.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Well, no. Negligence does not equal criminality. Williams may be held civilly liable for damages for negligence without being criminally liable. The case is partially defensible, though, given the facts as stated by the drivers. According to Williams, she was nearly stopped in the intersection due to traffic in front of her. Whether she actually violated the right of way is an open question. I am not going to blindly accept the hearsay opinion of the police, who were not there and rely on less than comprehensive analysis in these cases. Also, the nature of the collision, with the smaller car going pretty fast and t-boning a nearly stopped vehicle, opens up the possibility that the driver of the car was also negligent. The driver of the other car stated that she slowed when approaching the intersection then sped up when the light changed. Had she been in the intersection when the SUV entered it her car would have been hit on its side. Instead, she ran into the side of the SUV, indicating that Williams got there first. She might have missed the SUV entering the intersection or she might have wrongly assumed it would stop. Her deposition should answer that question.

And what is Williams supposed to do, not go to work? That's ridiculous. Tennis is her career and a grand slam event is a major work event for her. She isn't under arrest, she isn't out on bail, she hasn't even been charged with a crime. She has the right to pursue her trade, same as any of us would if we had been in the same situation.

If it was a left turn, here in Mass the turning traffic must yield to traffic heading straight through. Not that we do that all the time, but that's how its supposed to work.

Steve B

[pokerplyr80]

Hasn't video evidence confirmed that she entered the intersection legally? You guys seem very quick to judge and condemn someone with no evidence at all around here. This is a good example of why I tend to wait until the facts are clear before passing judgement.

[clydepepper]

Just to clarify- it was never my intent to pre-judge Venus Williams, rather I was hoping that the facts of the case, whatever they may be, should not be glossed over due to her celebrity...as it has been is so many other cases.

Truth is I'm just as troubled by the possibilities a 78-year-old driver might create.


But Hey, perhaps 78 is the new 50.

.