An Apache Junction teacher was hit and killed by a car Wednesday morning after he was injured in an earlier accident while on his moped.
Sat Guru Singh Khalsa was riding his moped to work at the Mountain Shadows Education Center when he was hit by another vehicle and sustained minor injuries, Apache Junction Unified School District Public Information Officer Brian Killgore said.
A bystander went to check on Khalsa when the two were struck by another vehicle, authorities said. Khalsa died at the scene. The other bystander was transported to a local hospital in unknown condition, said Battalion Chief Chuck Fitzgerald of Rural Metro Fire Department.
Killgore said Khalsa worked with special-education elementary students at Mountain Shadows as a language-arts and reading teacher since July 2005.
"This is a great loss to the AJUSD family and to the community as a whole," said AJUSD Superintendent, Dr. Chad Wilson in a press release. "Sat was well-known and well-liked across the District, and regarded as an innovative and energetic instructor who touched the lives of his students and co-workers alike. Our thoughts are with his family during this difficult time."
Counselors will be available to students, and the district will send a letter home to parents, Killgore said.
Here is the legal question that I find interesting: Could the driver who was responsible for causing the first collision ALSO be held responsible for the second collision that resulted in the death of Mr. Khalsa?
I would need to know more facts, but the simple response is, yes.
If the first collision put Mr. Khalsa in the position whereby he was able to be hit by the second vehicle, then yes, BOTH the first and second accident-causing-drivers could be held responsible for the damages sustained by Mr. Khalsa’s family.
More facts would need to be known, such as, what was the amount of time and/or distance between collision #1 and collision #2? What if anything did Mr. Khalsa do after the first collision, that he could have avoided to keep him from the position of being hit again? Would it have been within reason for him to do so? Was it within reason to do what he did in this case?
A lot of unknown facts and unanswered questions. Ultimately, these issues might be decided by a jury, which is sometimes called the “conscience of the community”.
What do you think?