#1
|
|||
|
|||
Accident
"Retro Bob" wrote:
I was out for a morning ride. Minivan started to turn right in front of me into a small parking lot driveway. I ended up with multiple lacerations to the arm (looks like hamburger, lots of stitches), 3 broken ribs, and a broken scapula (shoulder blade). I hope a police accident report was filed, and that you have contacted an attorney. Art Harris |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Retro Bob 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
SuperSlinky wrote in message et...
Retro Bob 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 awaAnyone 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
matty j said...
just be awaAnyone 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"SuperSlinky" wrote: Interesting. Another one of those laws to protect the guilty. (clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^^ You mean like the Bill of Rights? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
SuperSlinky wrote in message et...
matty j said... just be awaAnyone 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
matty j wrote:
SuperSlinky wrote in message et... matty j said... just be awaAnyone 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?" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Retro Bob
writes: 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. Based on an experience my wife had and considering the extent of your injuries I think you need one right now. We were even dealing with our own auto insurance company and wish now we had hired one right away. Tom Gibb |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Retro Bob says...
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | patrick | Racing | 1790 | November 8th 04 03:16 AM |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | General | 1927 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Lance in Traffic Accident | Jack | Social Issues | 11 | October 9th 04 09:58 AM |
Re legal aid needed after raod accident (by Paul Conyers) | magpie | UK | 1 | December 6th 03 09:55 PM |