truth1...I do not disagree with the things you are saying but I need to clarify. I recently looked at an accident (traffic crash) report. The report REQUIRES an opinion by the investigating officer. So the State Patrol had to give an opinion by the state mandated form, I do not agree with that it should be done but thats the way it is. The State Patrol did not decide to charge or not charge, DA Oleary made that decision. I blame him.

Let's please put our energies into contacting city hall about installing a stoplight at the corner of Milwaukee St. and Wuthering Hills. My sister deserves that much! I can see how passionate the citizens of Janesville are about this accident, and I certainly do not want to see any other family suffer as we are. Thank you.

In case anyone cares, the Oct 2006 inattentive driving charge was also an accident. It was actually in MY pickup truck that I let him borrow that day. Inattentive driving led to a slight rear-ending of someone stopped and waiting to pull in a parking lot.

Prison? No.
A couple lousy traffic tickets? Whoopty-doo
Revoke license? Most definitely

Under these circumstances, which god-forbid the court system actually takes things case by case, I think he should have his license revoked for a minimum of 1 year and be required to take driver safety courses, along with being required to pass a new driving test.

They should be treating traffic accidents just like OWI's. Each time you are involved in one and cited for breaking a law, you should be required to take a class for it and earn your way back. Obviously, if you drive like an idiot, you can be just as dangerous as a drunk driver. Unfortunately, this was the case here.

I understand what you are trying to say,but the part you are leaving out is that none of us knows what is going on inside a persons head at the time of, or preceeding an "accident."
.
I would say that "ignorance" is indeed a major component. Although that ignorance is not a defense, nor does it relieve one of responsibility.
.
So, that being said, you call it what you want, and the rest of us will call it what we want. After all, it's only a word.

Lately we have seen examples of "accidents", such as when someone doesn't see a child in the driveway and backs over them .... tragic, heartbreaking accidents....These are accidents.
*
Has anyone seen the tv commercial by the law firm Lawton&Cates where they show a glass of milk knocked onto the floor and they say "THIS is an "accident", then they show a reckless driver and say THIS is NOT ..?
*
I apologize for my verbal demeanor on this subject sometimes, but its not likely to change, this stuff gets me riled.
*
As I said before, I'm no particular fan of lawyers, but Lawton&Cates hit it right on with their commercial.
*

No, wisconsinheat, the definition of "accident" does NOT fit.
*
carelessness??? ...... ignorance???
*
No, I don't think so...
*
Why don't you try "wanton disregard for human life" which is not found in the definition for "accident".
*
Better luck with your dictionary next time.
*

FYI...He was ticketed for inattentive driving in Oct of 2006 and unreasonable and imprudent speed in October of 2005. Hmmm.

fldpan.. what does the model of the vehicle have to do with it? I don't care what you are diving, if someone t-bones you at 60 mph it will kill you. He should be charged with manslaughter, he was extremely irresponsible and it wasn't his first time speeding, in a previous article they spoke that it was the norm for him. I have thought for years that a stop light belonged there, always has been a dangerous intersection.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Accident: 2 a: an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance.
.
Yep, sure seems to fit, regardless of what truth1 thinks.
.
I do agree however that even "accidents" have consequences and don't relieve one of responsibility.

The Gazette is nothing like the National Enquirer and has a fine reputation along with the thousands of other papers that use anonymous posting boards....If and when the Gazette requires public identification, then we will know who we are debating with and I will have no problem with it.

Once again, I take issue with some posters.
*
Driving recklessly and speeding IN EXCESS is not an "accident", these are deliberate actions a driver DECIDES TO DO.
*
This was NOT an "accident".
*
Same thing goes for those that drive drunk and thereby kill and maim.
*
They CHOSE to drive drunk and thereby CAUSE injury and death.
*
"Accident" in no way describes these cases.
*
You kill or maim, you get held responsible is the way it should be, whatever weapon is used in the crime.
*
I don't understand why killing and maiming is allowed as long as the weapon is politically correct.
*

Unknown 2008:
Get a grip. The Caddy driver may not be held legally responsible for the fatality, and is fortunate in that respect. But the posters on this site don't need to know the driver personally to have an opinion about the crash and his contribution to it. The evidence is overwhelming that his driving that morning was irresponsible and lacked good judgment. A responsible driver simply does not exceed the speed limit by 20+ mph while "jockeying back and forth between two eastbound lanes, taking turns passing one another, slowing down and talking back and forth" with a buddy in another car. This is youthful immaturity and bad judgment at its worst, displayed while in control of a 3,000-pound machine on a busy arterial road. I'm sure he didn't intend to have a crash that day - who does? But his driving that morning was well beyond the limits of good judgment. Pushing the envelope like that greatly increases the likelihood of an accident, and this time had tragic results. Legal findings aside, the driver's conscience will punish him far beyond the ability of the legal system to do so. Ditto for his buddy.

If it is that bad of an intersection then there should be NO TURN ON RED and then it wouldn't matter if idiots are driving twice the speed limit. I just can't believe he didn't even hit his brake. I feel horrible for the Bladorn family and that those children have to grow up without their mother because of a stupid decision someone made. And yes he should definitely be charged with manslaughter.

unknown2008
I have suggested on many occasions that the Gazette not allow anonymous comments on such topics, but unfortunately, they are no better than the National Enquirer.
My condolences to the family.

ok so first of all my condolences go out to the Bladorn family. The driver of the cadillac was a member of my family now im not going to sit and agree that he is in the right for anything that happened that day but thats why people say ACCIDENT because thats just what it was.It wasnt something he did on purpose yea he was speeding by far no thats not right but he did not intend on killing somebody that day.It just makes me mad how some of you people can sit on here and judge but what if that same situation were to happen to any of you the same exact way? Dont say it cant or never will because chances are you will be one of those people.I understand her family is going thru alot and i feel so bad for them its a horrible tragedy. All Im saying is dont sit on the computer and trash talk somebody you dont even know. I will call the gazette and have all comments on this removed.

Obviously you didn't graduate because "cum laude" is not a class ranking. It is a "superfluous" term without academic standard.

Cum Laude :)

Just wondering where all you commenters ranked in your graduating class from law school?

I say hold lawbreakers, criminals, and reckless killers responsible for their actions

Voice:

I agree with your assessment of the need for a stoplight. Once that far east on Milwaukee St traffic really tends to pickup speed. People would be much safer entering the intersection with the security of a red light for East Milwaukee traffic. The tree you speak of should be cut or removed if it is a problem. I would think the city is aware of it now.

What we need are stop lights at that intersection of Milwaukee St and Wuthering Hills for the following reasons.

1- People are never going to travel the posted speed limit on Milwaukee St.
2- When turning left onto Milwaukee St. from Wuthering Hills there is a large pine tree that obstructs the driver the view of the on coming traffic unless the driver pulls past the stop sign.
3-This is a dangerous and busy intersection and this type of accident will happen again unless something is done about it.
4-Marguerite Bladorn was my wife and the mother of my children. I do not want this to happen to anyone else. So please call our city leaders and tell them to put in stop lights at that intersection.

This accident happened at a dangerous and busy intersection. These near accidents happen several times a day at this intersection. Had the speeder been going slower it could have been a minor fender bender. What about his texting? Have the police looked into his cell phone activity at the time of the accident?

devils- Its no problem that other agencies are involved in the investigation, I understand all that.
*
What I don't understand is how the "state patrol" gets to determine the fault or non-fault right then and there.
*
Their job should be to determine the ACTIONS of both drivers, NOT to make a pat determination as to guilt or non-guilt right on the spot...That would be a job for a jury.
*
Such as...:"Driver "A" was exceeding the speed limit by so much, and driver "B" entered the intersection"....taking into account witnesses that CLEARLY saw driver "A" driving recklessly and speeding in EXCESS.
*
As it was, the "state patrol" got the privilege of just killing the case right on the spot ......I didn't think things were done that way in the United States of America.
*

Truth1:

On the state patrol....I believe they were included because they have the expertise in accident reconstruction, which gives you speed estimates etc. Typically local agencies don't engage in accident reconstruction, in any meaningful way.

I still don't understand how the "state patrol" gets to be judge and jury.........
*
??????????????

devils- I don't believe too many people are interested in playing with technicalities when their family members are killed by others.

Truth1:

Your logic on negligence is so skewed it would take a court 2 weeks to unravel it :)

I have just one question for the state patrol .........
*
Was there possibly less paperwork involved in finding both parties at fault???????
*

janesvillean, the "circumstances", as you put it, were that he was going WAY over the speed limit and killed someone.

The term "negligence" was mentioned here.
*
Actually, "negligence" doesn't come into play in this case at all.
*
The driver knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he CHOSE to act that way and TOOK ANOTHER PERSON'S LIFE.
*
It wasn't negligent, it was DELIBERATE.
*
No offense to anyone that makes that mistake, but I just wanted to clarify.
*
Reckless homicide fits here exactly.
*

Obviously, rather than investigating the circumstances of the accident, the state patrol should have held a poll to determine who was at fault.

Lovestoscrap, if you would look twice at the cars barreling down on you, you would be able to determine their speed. If you look once, of course you will have no idea how fast a car is coming at you.
People,when you pull out in front of a car that has the right of way, it is your responsibility to know how fast that car is going. If you cannot judge that before you pull out, you are pulling out way too soon, and endangering lives.
He didn't even hit the brakes? What an idiot. Too bad she was driving a Camry. If she had been in the Cadillac, she would probably be alive today...
He should be held responsible. What if this was a convicted felon or other person looked down upon by society? They would be sent up the river as an example.

And just WHO voted DA David O'Leary into office? The people of Rock co.

My suggestion would to be to remember his name come next voting time.

I agree with the DA. The yield violation on the part of the victim does figure into the equation. The DA has a rather high standard "a high degree of negligence" to meet, to make the charge good. It is reasonable for him to conclude all the proof necessary, isn't there. That won't make it a popular decision though.

Then comes the city attorney. They will also have to prove "a high degree of negligence" same thing the DA thought wasn't present.

We need to remember an important footnote:

The DA needs to prove his case to a judge/jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" where the city attorney need prove his case by "clear and convincing evidence" a substantially lower standard.

The "State Patrol" is actually the entity that is negligent in their failure to investigate properly.
*
It is THEY that camu up with the utterly ridiculous conclusion that she was partially "at fault"...Have you heard anything so ridiculous??!!!!
*
Crime victim "partially at fault" in the crime.
*

Exactly right w8mc, thats what it is.
*
The politically correct weapon strikes again.
*
"Click it or ticket", or rather, "kill someone and get ticket".

w8nc - you hit it right on the head. This case is unbelieveable! How do you operate recklessly, and then kill somebody in that same act, and not be liable? If you now are charged with speeding and endangering safety (which was violated with a death), can the D.A. now go back and charge him with the crime of the death? Any legal eagles out there that can help explain?

How is this NOT Vehicular Manslaughter??? His actions were illegal (reckless driving and speeding) and they caused death. I truly feel for the family of the victim. Her children will NEVER forget what happened and will be affected by it for the rest of their lives. If you kill someone because of negligence, even if it is done unintentionally, you should be held accountable.

She may have pulled out in front of him thinking she had more time than she did. If he was going almost double the speed limit he would have been upon her far faster than if he was going the speed limit. Then, there would have been no accident. How many of us have done the same thing and by the time you are actually in the intersection or lane, the car is upon you much quicker than anticipated due to their speed.

I'm sure when she pulled out she did not think any car was going 55-62 mph....Yes, most people go 40-45 on that road but to do highway speeds in a residential area? Wherever he was going sure was important....I have an idea - plan your day and leave 5 minutes earlier.
I have dealt with this intersection daily my entire life and it has always been sketchy, especially with other vehicles pulling along side to turn so they don't have to wait, nearby residents parking vehicles at the end of the driveway and this past winter with the snowbanks so high you were in the first lane of traffic before you could even see oncoming traffic. Less than a week after this accident more cars were back to speeding down the road and weaving through traffic, it's unfortunate nobody took this as a wake up call.

Reckless driving sounds like a good charge. The additional speeding charge seems superfluous, speeding should be included as proof of the reckless driving charge, not an additional charge itself.

Uh, she pulled out in front of him... Not to say that her death isn't tragic, but do you think that kid left his house that morning thinking gee, i'll speed and kill someone today?

no reason why they cant go after him in CIVIL court!! oj won criminal but lost the civil.

This decision gives every speeder in Janesville a free pass to break the law. Because this kid ignored the speed limit, he killed a mother. How is that NOT homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle?