Sueing hit-and-runners?

It would seem to me 'hit and run' is a crime and the DA has little leeway to not prosecute. I can't
imagine mitigated liability in a hit and run - how could the cyclist be at fault in the criminal
portion of the event?

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

Quoted message said:

The only time I've been hit by a car, it was a hit-n-run. Very minor collision, no biggie. Next
time, I'll remember to have the presence of mind to ID the car and driver if I'm able.

I've also been reading quite a few stories of hit-n-runs in other threads/groups. Is there a good
success rate of lawsuits against the cretins who drive off after hitting cyclists? For example,
just because the district attorney doesn't hold the SUV driving dipstick fully accountable doesn't
mean you can't.

--
--
Lynn Wallace xmission.com~lawallOpen ↗ "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP
in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

Quoted message said:

It would seem to me 'hit and run' is a crime and the DA has little leeway to not prosecute.

=v= The D.A. won't prosecute if it seems the case isn't "clean cut" enough to win. In San Francisco,
at least, I've known the
D.A. to drop hit-and-run cases on any feeble pretense. Here are three that I know of:

(1) When seeing a pack of bicyclists on a group ride, the motorist was understandably afraid and
disoriented and tried to flee the scene. By driving into the pack of bicyclists.

(2) Motorist hits cyclist. The cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, proving that she was reckless, so
the motorist was frightened and left the scene for her own safety.

(3) Motorist doors cyclist. Another cyclist was wearing a helmet, which made him thus menacing in
appearance, so the motorist was frightened and left the scene for his own safety.

I wish these were bad jokes, but they're all real.

=v= The good news is that you could have more success with a civil suit. I was the "menacing in
appearance" cyclist in case #3, and a witness in the civil suit, and she won it. <_Jym_

Jym Dyer said:

Quoted message said:

It would seem to me 'hit and run' is a crime and the DA has little leeway to not prosecute.

=v= The D.A. won't prosecute if it seems the case isn't "clean cut" enough to win. In San
Francisco, at least, I've known the
D.A. to drop hit-and-run cases on any feeble pretense. Here are three that I know of:

(1) When seeing a pack of bicyclists on a group ride, the motorist was understandably afraid and
disoriented and tried to flee the scene. By driving into the pack of bicyclists.

(2) Motorist hits cyclist. The cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, proving that she was reckless,
so the motorist was frightened and left the scene for her own safety.

(3) Motorist doors cyclist. Another cyclist was wearing a helmet, which made him thus menacing
in appearance, so the motorist was frightened and left the scene for his own safety.

I wish these were bad jokes, but they're all real.

=v= The good news is that you could have more success with a civil suit. I was the "menacing in
appearance" cyclist in case #3, and a witness in the civil suit, and she won it. <_Jym_>

Good to hear. Is she rich for life, and/or is the driver poor?

--
--
Lynn Wallace xmission.com~lawallOpen ↗ "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[Civil suit won against hit-and-run driver.]

Is she rich for life, and/or is the driver poor?

=v= She got damages, which are typically triple one's expenses, minus legal fees. It was paid for by
car insurance, so the driver's rates did go up.

=v= The worst part of the outcome is that the hit-and-run is not on the driver's record, but that's
the D.A.'s doing. <_Jym_

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It would seem to me 'hit and run' is a crime and the DA has little leeway to not prosecute.

=v= The D.A. won't prosecute if it seems the case isn't "clean cut" enough to win.

In CA hit-and-run is only a felony if a person is killed or severely injured. Otherwise it is
just a misdemeanor which DA's won't spend precious resources prosecuting. The law really needs to
be changed.

My obligatory H&R story: A driver ignored a stop sign on MLK in Berkeley and broadsided a car. He
tried to escape but the woman he hit had the presence of mind to box him into a driveway as he was
attempting a u-turn (he also hit a _second_ car while backing into the driveway). There were five
eyewitnesses.

At first, the Berkeley PD didn't even want to write the guy a ticket! Several neighbors then
complained and forced a supervisor to come to the scene of the accident. The supervisor confirmed
that it was BPD policy not to arrest or prosecute in a H&R unless injuries were involved.

Doug Huffman said:

It would seem to me 'hit and run' is a crime and the DA has little leeway to not prosecute.

My foot they haven't. Been in that situation myself in Leicester, England. Brushed by a lorry
passing in a narrow street with excess speed (no damage, fortunately), who than left without
permission. According to the Prosecution Service, driver had commited "only a minor error of
judgement". Lazy buggers.