Re: Accident

Retro Bob said...

Quoted message said:

The police were there, the motorist admitted things in front of the
officer as to what she did. I don't think she could have done worse if
she had actually intentionally planned to mow me down. So, I hope her
insurance company will be forthcoming in covering my medical expenses.
If not, I will seek out the attorney.

You will need to consult with an attorney to know what your rights are
and what sort of settlement you should expect. You're looking at 5
figures for pain and suffering and possibly permanent injuries.

SuperSlinky <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Retro Bob said...

Quoted message said:

The police were there, the motorist admitted things in front of the
officer as to what she did. I don't think she could have done worse if
she had actually intentionally planned to mow me down. So, I hope her
insurance company will be forthcoming in covering my medical expenses.
If not, I will seek out the attorney.

You will need to consult with an attorney to know what your rights are
and what sort of settlement you should expect. You're looking at 5
figures for pain and suffering and possibly permanent injuries.

just be aware:Anyone who is involved in an automobile accident
involving injury or death to a person, or damage to property must stop
in order to provide assistance and must also provide certain
information either to the other driver involved n the accident or to a
police officer upon request. In return, however, the information so
given is subject to an "accident report privilege". This privilege
states: "Each crash report made by a person involved in a crash and
any statement made by such person to a law enforcement officer for the
purpose of completing a crash report required by this section shall be
without prejudice to the individual so reporting. No such report or
statement shall be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal.

This law explains why, for those who may have sat on a jury involving
an automobile accident case, why the accident report was never
discussed or entered into evidence.)another law prohibits introducing
traffic tickets as evidence in a trial. Thus, a jury in a civil case
will not see the accident report which describes the accident sued
upon and will not learn which party, if any, was issued a citation for
the accident. There is an exception to the general requirement that
information be provided to an investigating officer. This is where the
officer completes his "accident investigation phase" and begins his
"criminal investigation" into the accident. Where this occurs, a
separate officer from the one conducting the "accident investigation"
may take over the "criminal investigation" or the same officer may
conduct both investigations. Where this occurs, the officer should
clearly inform you that he has completed his accident investigation
and is beginning a criminal investigation. Once the criminal
investigation has begun, the person being interviewed has the right to
refuse to answer any further questions. However, if the person elects
to voluntarily cooperate with the officer and continues to answer
questions, any answers so given may be introduced into evidence in any
subsequent criminal or civil proceeding.

matty j said...

Quoted message said:

just be aware:Anyone who is involved in an automobile accident
involving injury or death to a person, or damage to property must stop
in order to provide assistance and must also provide certain
information either to the other driver involved n the accident or to a
police officer upon request. In return, however, the information so
given is subject to an "accident report privilege". This privilege
states: "Each crash report made by a person involved in a crash and
any statement made by such person to a law enforcement officer for the
purpose of completing a crash report required by this section shall be
without prejudice to the individual so reporting. No such report or
statement shall be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal.

This law explains why, for those who may have sat on a jury involving
an automobile accident case, why the accident report was never
discussed or entered into evidence.)another law prohibits introducing
traffic tickets as evidence in a trial. Thus, a jury in a civil case
will not see the accident report which describes the accident sued
upon and will not learn which party, if any, was issued a citation for
the accident. There is an exception to the general requirement that
information be provided to an investigating officer. This is where the
officer completes his "accident investigation phase" and begins his
"crimina linvestigationintotheaccident.Wherethisoccurs,a
separate officer from the one conducting the "accident investigation"
may take over the "criminal investigation" or the same officer may
conduct both investigations. Where this occurs, the officer should
clearly inform you that he has completed his accident investigation
and is beginning a cri minalinvestigation.Oncethecriminal
investigation has begun, the person being interviewed has the right to
refuse to answer any further questions. However, if the person elects
to voluntarily cooperate with the officer and continues to answer
questions, any answers so given may be introduced into evidence in any
subsequent criminal or civil proceeding.

Interesting. Another one of those laws to protect the guilty. Still, I
would expect any statements made to be mentioned in court, even if the
documents themselves couldn't be entered into evidence. The guilty party
could then lie, I suppose, but a civil case is decided on preponderance
of the evidence, and a jury might be quite unimpressed with a story that
has suddenly changed once money is involved.

"SuperSlinky" wrote: Interesting. Another one of those laws to protect the
guilty. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^
You mean like the Bill of Rights?

[email hidden] (matty j) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

SuperSlinky <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Retro Bob said...

Quoted message said:

The police were there, the motorist admitted things in front of the
officer as to what she did. I don't think she could have done worse if
she had actually intentionally planned to mow me down. So, I hope her
insurance company will be forthcoming in covering my medical expenses.
If not, I will seek out the attorney.

You will need to consult with an attorney to know what your rights are
and what sort of settlement you should expect. You're looking at 5
figures for pain and suffering and possibly permanent injuries.

just be aware:Anyone who is involved in an automobile accident
involving injury or death to a person, or damage to property must stop
in order to provide assistance and must also provide certain
information either to the other driver involved n the accident or to a
police officer upon request. In return, however, the information so
given is subject to an "accident report privilege". This privilege
states: "Each crash report made by a person involved in a crash and
any statement made by such person to a law enforcement officer for the
purpose of completing a crash report required by this section shall be
without prejudice to the individual so reporting. No such report or
statement shall be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal.

This law explains why, for those who may have sat on a jury involving
an automobile accident case, why the accident report was never
discussed or entered into evidence.)another law prohibits introducing
traffic tickets as evidence in a trial. Thus, a jury in a civil case
will not see the accident report which describes the accident sued
upon and will not learn which party, if any, was issued a citation for
the accident. There is an exception to the general requirement that
information be provided to an investigating officer. This is where the
officer completes his "accident investigation phase" and begins his
"criminal investigation" into the accident. Where this occurs, a
separate officer from the one conducting the "accident investigation"
may take over the "criminal investigation" or the same officer may
conduct both investigations. Where this occurs, the officer should
clearly inform you that he has completed his accident investigation
and is beginning a criminal investigation. Once the criminal
investigation has begun, the person being interviewed has the right to
refuse to answer any further questions. However, if the person elects
to voluntarily cooperate with the officer and continues to answer
questions, any answers so given may be introduced into evidence in any
subsequent criminal or civil proceeding.

What state are you in? The fact that you don't seem to realize that
this area of law varies from state to state leads me to believe that
you probably don't know the law well enough to be giving this type of
advice.

SuperSlinky <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

matty j said...

Quoted message said:

just be aware:Anyone who is involved in an automobile accident
involving injury or death to a person, or damage to property must stop
in order to provide assistance and must also provide certain
information either to the other driver involved n the accident or to a
police officer upon request. In return, however, the information so
given is subject to an "accident report privilege". This privilege
states: "Each crash report made by a person involved in a crash and
any statement made by such person to a law enforcement officer for the
purpose of completing a crash report required by this section shall be
without prejudice to the individual so reporting. No such report or
statement shall be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal.

This law explains why, for those who may have sat on a jury involving
an automobile accident case, why the accident report was never
discussed or entered into evidence.)another law prohibits introducing
traffic tickets as evidence in a trial. Thus, a jury in a civil case
will not see the accident report which describes the accident sued
upon and will not learn which party, if any, was issued a citation for
the accident. There is an exception to the general requirement that
information be provided to an investigating officer. This is where the
officer completes his "accident investigation phase" and begins his
"crimina linvestigationintotheaccident.Wherethisoccurs,a
separate officer from the one conducting the "accident investigation"
may take over the "criminal investigation" or the same officer may
conduct both investigations. Where this occurs, the officer should
clearly inform you that he has completed his accident investigation
and is beginning a cri minalinvestigation.Oncethecriminal
investigation has begun, the person being interviewed has the right to
refuse to answer any further questions. However, if the person elects
to voluntarily cooperate with the officer and continues to answer
questions, any answers so given may be introduced into evidence in any
subsequent criminal or civil proceeding.

Interesting. Another one of those laws to protect the guilty. Still, I
would expect any statements made to be mentioned in court, even if the
documents themselves couldn't be entered into evidence. The guilty party
could then lie, I suppose, but a civil case is decided on preponderance
of the evidence, and a jury might be quite unimpressed with a story that
has suddenly changed once money is involved.

nope ,the statements dont count as made to the officer as it still
falls under the fact that nothing you say can be introduced as
evidence in court unless advised that it can be used.besides lets face
it,,saying i did do it to the cop carries no more weight than saying
to him you didnt do it...its merely heresay if he didnt see it..dont
sound right to me but the law is the law i guess

matty j said:

SuperSlinky <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

matty j said...

Quoted message said:

just be aware:Anyone who is involved in an automobile accident
involving injury or death to a person, or damage to property must stop
in order to provide assistance and must also provide certain
information either to the other driver involved n the accident or to a
police officer upon request. In return, however, the information so
given is subject to an "accident report privilege". This privilege
states: "Each crash report made by a person involved in a crash and
any statement made by such person to a law enforcement officer for the
purpose of completing a crash report required by this section shall be
without prejudice to the individual so reporting. No such report or
statement shall be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal.

This law explains why, for those who may have sat on a jury involving
an automobile accident case, why the accident report was never
discussed or entered into evidence.)another law prohibits introducing
traffic tickets as evidence in a trial. Thus, a jury in a civil case
will not see the accident report which describes the accident sued
upon and will not learn which party, if any, was issued a citation for
the accident. There is an exception to the general requirement that
information be provided to an investigating officer. This is where the
officer completes his "accident investigation phase" and begins his
"crimina linvestigationintotheaccident.Wherethisoccurs,a
separate officer from the one conducting the "accident investigation"
may take over the "criminal investigation" or the same officer may
conduct both investigations. Where this occurs, the officer should
clearly inform you that he has completed his accident investigation
and is beginning a cri minalinvestigation.Oncethecriminal
investigation has begun, the person being interviewed has the right to
refuse to answer any further questions. However, if the person elects
to voluntarily cooperate with the officer and continues to answer
questions, any answers so given may be introduced into evidence in any
subsequent criminal or civil proceeding.

Interesting. Another one of those laws to protect the guilty. Still, I
would expect any statements made to be mentioned in court, even if the
documents themselves couldn't be entered into evidence. The guilty party
could then lie, I suppose, but a civil case is decided on preponderance
of the evidence, and a jury might be quite unimpressed with a story that
has suddenly changed once money is involved.

nope ,the statements dont count as made to the officer as it still
falls under the fact that nothing you say can be introduced as
evidence in court unless advised that it can be used.besides lets face
it,,saying i did do it to the cop carries no more weight than saying
to him you didnt do it...its merely heresay if he didnt see it..dont
sound right to me but the law is the law i guess

It's not hearsay if the person is in the
courtoom and can be called as a
witness. Further, the police report can
be used in the questioning and cross
examination of that person; "Ms. Smith,
did you tell Officer Jones that you
struck Mr. Citizen?"

In article <[email hidden]>, Retro Bob says...

Quoted message said:

The police were there, the motorist admitted things in front of the
officer as to what she did. I don't think she could have done worse if
she had actually intentionally planned to mow me down. So, I hope her
insurance company will be forthcoming in covering my medical expenses.
If not, I will seek out the attorney.

The discussion in the thread assumes the van driver was a fault but I do not see
why. Generally it is the responsibility of the trailing driver or in this case
rider to maintain a speed and distance sufficient to stop if the leading driver
does. If you run into someone it is your fault.

Leo Lichtman said:

"SuperSlinky" wrote: Interesting. Another one of those laws to protect the
guilty. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^
You mean like the Bill of Rights?

Not funny, whether or not Mr. Lichtman is being serious.

--
Tom Sherman

In article <[email hidden]>, Ed. <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Retro Bob says...

Quoted message said:

The police were there, the motorist admitted things in front of the
officer as to what she did. I don't think she could have done worse if
she had actually intentionally planned to mow me down. So, I hope her
insurance company will be forthcoming in covering my medical expenses.
If not, I will seek out the attorney.

The discussion in the thread assumes the van driver was a fault but I do not
see
why. Generally it is the responsibility of the trailing driver or in this
case
rider to maintain a speed and distance sufficient to stop if the leading
driver
does. If you run into someone it is your fault.

I've had people pass me and suddenly show down and turn right in
front of me with no warning and very little time to react. Bob's case
could be one of those where "very little time to react" became "not
enough time to react."

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net

Ed. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Retro Bob says...

what state are you in? The fact that you don't seem to realize that

this area of law varies from state to state leads me to believe that
you probably don't know the law well enough to be giving this type of
advice
well the above is a transcript of new york law but 41 states now do
not allow statements or reports given to an officer at the scene as
admisable evidence in court.

[email hidden] (matty j) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Ed. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Retro Bob says...

what state are you in? The fact that you don't seem to realize that

this area of law varies from state to state leads me to believe that
you probably don't know the law well enough to be giving this type of
advice
well the above is a transcript of new york law but 41 states now do
not allow statements or reports given to an officer at the scene as
admisable evidence in court.

Do you have a citation? I just did a search of the NYS code and
couldn't find the passage you quoted. Also, what's your source for the
statement that 41 states have such a law? (They may well, but I
believe there are significant differences in the way that the
privilege is implemented from one state to the next.)

In article <[email hidden]>, Retro Bob says...

Quoted message said:

B.B. said:

I've had people pass me and suddenly show down and turn right in
front of me with no warning and very little time to react. Bob's case
could be one of those where "very little time to react" became "not
enough time to react."

Yes, the evidence is in her statements. She saw me and judged that I
was far enough back for her to turn. Obviously that was not the case.
In addition, she stopped halfway through the turn, obstructing the
roadway.

The first point, combined with the fact that I hit her, proves that
she made the wrong judgement. The second one would probably be enough
to even win the case if I was in a car trailing her. You can't just
stop and obstruct a roadway.

Certainly there are exceptions to the rule that you should not run into someone
and this may be one.

Whatever the traffic code is in a civil case the jury could decide that she was
unreasonable in obstructing the roadway.

But I have had occasions when I made a left turn into a parking lot (in a car)
only to find the entrance blocked by another car so I had to stop in the
oncomming traffic lane. Who is at fault if there is a collision in that case?

Leo Lichtman said: You mean like the Bill of Rights?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tom Sherman said: Not funny, whether or not Mr. Lichtman is being serious.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
And Leo says: I was trying to make a point by being sarcastic. Some people
seem to think the Bill of Rights is un-American. I don't happen to agree.

Leo Lichtman said:

Leo Lichtman said: You mean like the Bill of Rights?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tom Sherman said: Not funny, whether or not Mr. Lichtman is being serious.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
And Leo says: I was trying to make a point by being sarcastic. Some people
seem to think the Bill of Rights is un-American. I don't happen to agree.

No, they only think that Amendments 1 and 3 to 10 are "un-American". 🙁

--
Tom Sherman