Negligence is the issue

June 22,2016

Rutland Herald

Does it matter whether Craig Mosher is a recreational “pet” owner or a farmer? The legal issue and the important moral issue of negligence is what is really in question in this case. Why did Mr. Mosher’s bull roam freely so many times prior to the tragic night when its presence on Route 4 resulted in the death of an innocent traveler? Why did Mr. Mosher go back to bed on that tragic night when he had been alerted to his bull’s presence along the roadway? 

Maybe there are reasonable answers to these questions, maybe not. Some members of our community seem to forget that the grand jury decided that there is sufficient evidence of negligence to bring the case to trial. But for Vito Rasenas in yesterday’s “Responsibility of the driver” to imply that Mr. Bellis was in any way responsible for the accident is repugnant. On behalf of many — and I hope most of the people in Rutland, I would like to express our heartfelt sorrow to Mrs. Bellis for her continued suffering as this case unfolds.

RACHEL ALEXANDER

Thank you Rachel Alexander for confirming what I’ve been trying to convey, that it doesn’t matter whether Craig Mosher is a “pet owner” or a farmer. Kathryn Bellis and her lawyer Jerry O’Neil have repeatedly publicly stated that Mosher is an excavator not a farmer inferring he is somehow more culpable than a farmer would be in a situation where livestock got loose and caused an accident. I agree with Ms. Alexander it doesn’t matter. She points out the troubling “evidence” of  Mosher’s behavior the night of the accident. Yet we have not heard his side of the story. 

I do not why Ms. Alexander feels the need to vilify my wondering if there was not some culpability for the accident on the part of the Bellises. Why are the questions I posed, "was [the driver]distracted, tired..., or because of his age, 62, somewhat night blind?” repugnant. Why is wanting to know the whole story repugnant? Is the American Medical Association  stating that older drivers are a “public health issue because of age-related declines in vision, cognition and motor function” which makes them more  "vulnerable to crashes in complex situations that require good visual perception, attention and rapid response.” repugnant? I think not. 

What I think is repugnant is Ms. Alexander’s ad hominen broadside at me for asking these difficult questions.  

As I stated in my previous letter, I sympathize with Ms. Bellis’ loss. Her statement to the Killington Select Board last night was at times heart wrenching as she related how her idyllic Shangri-la-esque life was shattered. But now a man’s future and the future of all animal owners is at stake. These questions must be asked and answered no matter that Ms. Alexander and her ilk think it “repugnant”.

Vito Rasenas