Originally Posted by
KenV
The jury concluded that the accident was caused by cognitive impairment, which is totally independent of time/experience in type.
Further, the jury clearly and unanimously decided that a physiological event triggered the cognitive failures in this incident
KenV, I think that the your emphasis is not quite correct. I think that it would be more accurate to say that the jury decided that it was not beyond reasonable doubt that cognitive impairment could have occurred. The judge, in his direction to the jury, said that it was the prosecution's task to demonstrate that cognitive impairment did not occur which is not an easy task! Therefore, it is not as black and white as you have stated; it is the 'beyond reasonable doubt' requirement for this charge which has a great impact on the verdict.