I have never, ever, seen anyone drive this section of Rte 4 at "35 to 40 mph". This may be found to be in error as Mosher's attorney has stated they are doing their own accident reconstruction.Rutland Herald wrote: June 15,2016
On July 31, 2015, at 10:10 p.m., an 1,800-pound pet bull was standing in the darkness of the westbound lane of Route 4 in Killington. What was the bull doing there?
At approximately 10:10 p.m., my husband, Jon Michael Bellis, was killed when our Subaru, traveling at approximately 35-40 mph, crashed into this massive beast as it stood in the middle of our travel lane on Route 4.
Kathryn Barry Bellis is a resident of Woodbridge, Conn., and Killington.
Ms Bellis twice states the bull was standing, and did not jump out onto the road with no time for her husband to react. This is an admission of inability to avoid a fixed large object clearly in view on a wide straight section of state highway. Furthermore, the tractor trailer driver, likely traveling faster than 35mph, demonstrated the ability to "stand on his brakes" and not even touch the bull. An impartial second driver, driving a wider, heavier 2 part tractor trailer, in the same section of road, in the same visibility and weather and road conditions, demonstrated that for an alert driver this did not present a hazard that was unavoidable. He did not run his truck off the road to avoid collision. How does this present criminal liability for Mr Mosher for a less alert driver?
I don't see the difference between one pet bull, two pet bulls, or a hundred pet bulls. There is no difference between not-for-profit farming and for-profit farming.
The accident is tragic, and I am profoundly sorry for the loss of a lifetime friend and husband. However looking to blame the bull's owner, when the cause of escape was an apple tree, when the accident was a few minutes later, and when it is a common expectation in rural Vermont that cows get out (or any other normal road hazard), is placing criminal responsibility in an entirely wrong direction.