166. hey people, are we foretting this was just a very tragic ACCIDENT that could happen to anyone at any time, and the only reason we seem to care is because someone very rich and famous was involved? If anyone ele had rearended this woman with the same outcome it wold've been in a teenie tiny article on page two or three of the local newspaper for one day, not front page of all the gossip mags and sites for one year. Besides I didn't see any toxicology reports stating Brandy had anything in her system.also to the person who said that the one doing the rear-ending is always at fault... didn't they just say the woman killed had rear-ended someone else first causing the accident to begin? Maybe the slight trace of marijuana was still affecting her somehow? who knows?! all I know is the only reason people are so upset wanting brandy to be charged is because they want celebs to be made an example of....any regular guy in the same situation as brandy would've been cleared within months after the wreck.

Posted at 12:15AM on Dec 29th 2007 by aprilstar

167. A few questions I need answered. Did the woman die or suffer fatal injuries from impacting with the first car prior to being struck by Brandy's automobile? Was Awatef under the influence of marijuana at the time of the accident? Was she DUI? Many people die and cause tragedy DUI every day.If this woman was DUI, caused her own death and then got struck by Brandy, a person who happens to be a celebrity (could have one of us in Brandy's position ) that Awatef's culpability should be ignored. For those hating on Brandy, is it because she is a talented and beautiful Black person who is also loved, admired, respected and rich?

Posted at 10:32AM on Dec 29th 2007 by damaznblkman

168. One should take caution when making absolute statements because only a single counterexample is needed to disprove its validity. For example, the claim that: "A rear-end accident is ALWAYS the fault of the person behind (Petunia, 11:56am on 12/27/07)" is false.

In order to be negligent under the law, it must first be proven that: 1) one had a legal duty owed to another, 2) one breached that duty, and 3) that breach of duty was the proximate cause of injury and/or damages that resulted therefrom. The CA Vehicle Code recognizes the danger posed by driving in such a manner as to create a hazard for other motorists and prohibits driving too slowly or otherwise unnecessarily impeding traffic [22400(a) C.V.C.]. If you slam on your brakes when doing so is unnecessary or unreasonable, you could be found liable for causing a collision, even when your own vehicle is rearended as a result.

For example, those who engage in insurance fraud will use the popular misconception that a rearend collision is always the fault of the rear vehicle to their advantage by deliberately hitting their brakes unexpectedly so as to cause the otherwise reasonable and prudent driver behind them to rearend their vehicle, then submit bogus medical expenses and make fraudulent demands for compensation. If you impede someone else's right of way, whether by creating a hazard for other motorists by driving too slowly or braking too sharply, or by changing lanes too closely in front of another vehicle and then hitting your brakes because traffic slowed ahead of you, you will be at fault for the accident even though you may have been rearended. These two counterexamples are twice as many as are needed to disprove the claim cited above.

In any accident, the liability of any given motorist will be: 0% (not at fault), 1-50% (contributed to, but did not cause the accident), or 51-100% (proximate cause, but for which the accident never would have happened). Even if Brandy was following behind the other vehicle using the '3-second rule' and at the posted speed limit of 65mph, by the time any typical person would have perceived and then reacted to a hazard, her vehicle would have had to be able to brake at a rate of -0.99g, which is beyond the capabilities of some common vehicles. Therefore, if an unforeseeable collision takes place immediately in front of you (vehicles collide in a timeframe on the order of 1/10th of a second), even if you're driving as any other reasonable and prudent person would, whether or not you successfully avoid an accident of your own has more to do with the laws of physics than those of the State of California.

The party asserting a claim of negligence against another has the burden of proving their case. Whether it's the family of the deceased suing Brandy, or the City Attorney filing criminal charges, in either case Brandy is innocent until PROVEN otherwise. The detection of marijuana in the blood stream of the deceased establishes negligence of the deceased based on Section 23152(a) of the C.V.C. which categorically prohibits the operation of a vehicle while under the influence of any alcoholic beverage OR DRUG. The deceased was DUI, and thus breached a duty she owed to other motorists, including to Brandy. Furthermore, marijuana is known to have physiological effects which are adverse to the safe operation of a motor vehicle.

So the question is, whose actions represented the proximate cause of the collision? To answer that, one must employ the 'but for' argument. But for the deceased previously colliding with the other vehicle immediately in front of Brandy's vehicle, would Brandy have otherwise collided with the deceased's vehicle? Answer: maybe not. Virtually no information is known as to the cause of the prior collision, other than the fact that one of the drivers was DUI as confirmed by the L.A. County Coroner. Given what little information has been made public, it would seem the only grounds upon which the City Attorney could have hung their case against Brandy would have been inattention, which is a pretty flimsy argument, especially without proof.

Posted at 6:40PM on Dec 29th 2007 by 4N6XPRT

169. brandy is hott! i cant wait for her cd!! if she did anything wrong ol gurl would have been in jail last year! That other hoe probably did kill herself with drugs in her system...damn shame `Anywho, i cant wait for brans cd to come out, they gettin on my damn nerves! leave her alone so she can go 3x platinum! :P

Posted at 4:26PM on Dec 30th 2007 by brian B.

170. The PROXIMATE cause of the accident is the other driver's failure to follow at a safe distance therefore striking the rear of a vehicle and starting the chain of events that ended up causing her to then be rearended and knocked across the center lanes into oncoming traffic. Most likely the deceased, in an attempt to avoid rearending the vehicle she was following, swerved as she was braking. This put her steering wheel in a partial turn at the time she, herself, was rearended and allowed her vehicle to basically "turn" into oncoming traffic and she being killed. They teach drivers not to turned their wheels while waiting stopped in a turning or travel lane just in case one gets rearended and pushed "forward", which if the wheels are turned means you will turn into oncoming traffic. Remember the chain of events that led to the woman's death were started by HER, not the woman (Brandy) that ended up being in the wrong place and the wrong time. The authorities are not saying that Brandy isn't responsible for failure to keep a proper lookout, follow a safe distance, et al but she is not guilty or responsible for the death of the deceased as the deceased started the whole chain of events going.

Posted at 7:49PM on Dec 30th 2007 by CRT

171. petunia...you have finally opened your eyes....yes ..you are attempting to bring everyone down to your level....I find it totally amazing that her husband, children and her parents are all trying to hop on the gravy train with their individual lawsuits.......Is their a premature death lottery? I lost both my parents ...my child's father....and a motherinlaw....money will not bring them back...we all have a time to die...some early ...some later...do these people have a crystal ball that promised that she would live to be a 100....?

Posted at 10:10AM on Dec 31st 2007 by intelligent observer from afar

172. I think Brandy at this point should sue TMZ and others of the like for dragging her name through the mud for a whole year. I believe as someone stated earlier that TMZ held on to these facts. It wasn't too long ago that I saw a promo ad on television for TMZ that blatently labeled Brandy as a murderer. And after reading through every single comment (yes every one) I want to shine a little bit of knowledge to those firm believers in the "safe distance" policy. I live in Los Angeles and I have driven on interstae 405 plenty of times with the most recent being last week. You can not drive 6 seconds behind. The freeway is pack and even when not you have to keep up with traffic. Everyone is doing 65 on a clear day. The geography of the city is so spread out that traveling slow will get you nowhere. So hardley anyone is doing this "safe distance" driving. I am a careful driver myself and people will consistently cut you off. So even if you wanted to leave space there will be no way. And I think that the posters coming down on Brandy are the same people here that worship the likes of Britney, Paris, and Lindsey. These girls have done neglegent things and got away with murder (even Paris only serving 27 days). If anything I am surprised to see a black person get fair justice in this town.

Posted at 2:49PM on Jan 1st 2008 by Joe

173. Right on Ruff Daddy

Posted at 9:23PM on Jan 1st 2008 by Tuff Momma

174. How the H did this dirty trash get away with a rear end collision...I hope the dead womans husbands wins his BIG LawSuit....She will suffer as a result of what she did..She does not give a rip but I predct a BAD situation 4 her ..whats her name brandy brady whatever..She will PAY somehow

Posted at 9:25PM on Jan 1st 2008 by Karen

175. Would people be having this discussion if Brandy were not a celebrity? Chances are Awatef suffered the fatal injuries when she slammed into the car in front of her. Plus when a moving vehicle hits a stopped or unmovable object, it stops now rather than the normal distance it takes to stop a car, therefore even if Brandy was following the 3 or 4 second rule, she may truly not have had enough time to stop without hitting Awatef's car.

Posted at 6:08PM on Jan 8th 2008 by Kathy