Here’s how an accident that left one man dead in California changed how we think of cars.
For years, the world has been debating whether cars should be made of steel or plastic.
Now, in a landmark Supreme Court ruling, a panel of the high court has made a compelling case that they should be both.
The case concerns a woman who was driving through an accident in 2012 when her vehicle was struck by a car driven by her friend.
The car driver, who was not prosecuted for her actions, pleaded guilty and received a $5,000 fine.
But that fine was later reduced to $5.10, which was reduced to a mere $4,000 after the woman filed a lawsuit.
That’s because the judge, John G. Roberts Jr., found that the fine was not excessive under California law because it was reduced because the crash happened in the middle of the day, and that the car was “not the most prominent or prominent object in the intersection.”
But what does that even mean?
The car’s size did not matter.
The driver was “clearly” traveling a safe distance, and the court found that “the car was not significantly more dangerous than a pedestrian.”
In other words, it was just a few feet in front of the pedestrian when the accident happened.
But because the driver was speeding, the court concluded, it would have been much harder to stop him.
In fact, the Supreme Court ruled, the car’s speed could have been so great that the collision would not have been prevented.
“I have to say, I was blown away,” said Jennifer Kastel, an attorney for the plaintiff.
“The first thing you have to understand about a court’s decision is that it doesn’t matter if you are speeding or not.
It’s just a very, very dangerous thing to do.”
As a result, the judge decided that California’s vehicle-safety laws could be modified.
He ruled that California drivers must wear a seat belt while driving, and any speed-related crashes involving a car are to be investigated.
But it is not just California’s rules that have changed.
Other states, including Massachusetts and New York, have also amended their laws to allow people to wear a helmet while driving.
The change in law has not been widely accepted.
In California, the courts have made it clear that the issue will not be settled by a single case.
The question is whether these changes will lead to more people being killed in car crashes.
“We are not saying that the law will always be the law,” said Kastle.
“But if you don’t change the law, you will just keep changing the law.
So we are looking forward to getting the final word.”