[SteveA]

Though I can understand that usage of the roads could have restrictions on them, if those restrictions disqualify your father, then they shouldn't be expecting him to pay for the roads. I assume this is state law though so I have fewer complaints but at for whatever state I lived in, I'd prefer to see something where if someone doesn't have a drivers license or otherwise don't plan on driving on the roads, they shouldn't be expected to pay for that service either. On the other hand, states should be able to determine what are the proper uses for the roads and enforce them ... at least roads paid for by the state, so that wouldn't apply to all roads. But if I were a juror in this case, I don't hold him accountable for anything other than the accident, simply because that's the mood I'm in. (My dad is currently getting reamed by the IRS) Basically though it just seems unfair to have someone pay for a service they're unwilling to take advantage of. If somehow he was excluded from paying for the roads then it would be easier to say he's guilty of using them illegally, because in that case it would have been a scenario where he'd made a more voluntary decision over what form of transportation he was willing to invest his resources into.