Okay so here's the case I broke a bone in my wrist 2 weeks ago and was put on case to prevent further injury aka.. surgery.. I went back to hospital today to get a check off I been of work for 3 weeks.. turns out I need to get surgery. From surgey I have 6 weeks off unpaid.. because my work a bunch of cheap you know what's.. than 3 to months heal time on light dutys I don't have lite duties its all labour.. I'm wondering if I can sue this one person and here's the story.. I was drunk and I sat on this chicks hood as a joke while it wasn't moving.. while I was sitting on it she thought it be funny to rip up to 15 kms and turn. I flew off the car put my hands out to prevent me from hitting my head and broke my wrest.. here's the thing me and my friend both drunk and the 2 girls driving were sober. I was wondering if I have a case rather than going to the firms and looking like an idiot thank you for your time

okay so heres the case i broke a bone in my wrist 2 weeks ago and was put on case to prevent further injury aka.. surgery.. i went back to hospital today to get a check off i been of work for 3 weeks.. turns out i need to get surgery. from surgey i have 6 weeks off unpaid.. because my work a bunch of cheap u know whats..than 3 to months heal time on light dutys i dont have lite duties its all labour.. im wondering if i can sue this one person and heres the story.. i was drunk and i sat on this chicks hood as a joke while it wasnt moving.. while i was sittin on it she thought it be funny to rip up to 15 kms and turn. i flew off the car put my hands out to prevent me from hitting my head and broke my wrest.. heres the thing me and my friend both drunk and the 2 girls driving were sober. i was wondering if i have a case rather than goin to the firms and lookin liek an idiot thank you for ur time
I would think you could sue, since that was wreckless of her to move a car knowing you're on the hood. Since she was sober, she can't say she didn't know what she was doing. Basically she endangered your well being.

So you are saying that even though you were drunk, you are not responsible for what happened to you. Isn't it always someone else, something else, that causes all our woes and sorrows and we NEVER are to blame for being foolish.

That being said, sure, take your claim to an attorney and see what happens.

You probably do have a case. Even though your own indiscretion contributed to your injuries, that really has no legal bearing. You can file a lawsuit and see what comes of it. Be sure to document your losses and damages.

Damges that I have is broken wrist with surgey 6 weeks off no pay.. 3-4 months heal time with light dutties my work has no light duties so I probably lose my job

If you were sitting on a car's hood and the driver started the car moving while you were doing it, that would be negligence and you would have a case against the driver. Contact a solicitor.

If you were sitting on a car's hood and the driver started the car moving while you were doing it, that would be negligence and you would have a case against the driver. Contact a solicitor.

Unless, of course, the person who was driving can claim that she felt threatened. If some drunk guy was just sitting on the hood of my car, that's one thing. If he's sitting on my car and being obnoxious (sexual comments, aggressive gestures, etc.) and I feel like my safety is in danger, guess what? I'm going to do what it takes to remove myself from that situation. And if he gets hurt in the process, well, that's something he should have thought of before he started it.

And as a non-drinker that has been around some serious drinkers, I will point out that what seems like "fun" to the drunk is often not all that amusing to a sober person.

Just pointing out that there may be more to this story than what the OP thinks, and a likely defense that the driver may use.

You have a case, but you will not get full payment, since you will be held partly at fault for your actions. And of course expect a counter suit for possible damage to their car when you sue them.

There no damage to the car at all.. and she my friend like I knew her I was drunk sat on hood as a joke and she drove going 15 km and turned and I flew off I laying on the ground for a bit while they ahead sitting in car laughing at me.. I went over was mad kicked the car made some ruid remarks and walked away. Since I live in canada sugery was paid for.. I just wondering if I have a case where id win or if its even worth going to court.. I know I'm at fault to I shouldn't have went on hood but you should realise going 15 with someone on the hood is dangerous.. and funny thing is she said she only went 15 and that's not fast at all. What if I had hit my head on the payment she could have killed me

I think... if she is a friend, why would you consider suing? When you're (obviously) young, doing dumb things and drinking you should take responsibilities for your own actions. If I were sitting on someone's hood and they cranked their car... I would get off. So in a way it's your own fault. You better hope a judge doesn't think like a sober person if your going to sue!

If I were sitting on someone's hood and they cranked their car....I would get off. Hello dumbo:

I agree with rpg. I don't think you have a case at all.

If you were sitting in the middle of a road, drunk as a skunk, and somebody hit you, do you think you would have a case against them? I don't.

excon

How can I get off a car when she rips and I did try to get off and do you know what happen I broke my wrist and had to get surgery.. do you suspect me to jump off that would have been even worse.. I'm 19 years old but the fact that I'm going to lose my job and be broke and how she's bing a about it makes me want to sue and when everyone I know is telling me to sue but I've been holding back because of it I have bills to pay and all that fun stuff how am I going to offered it for 3-4 months with no work and do you think I can any job with one arm I live in alberta you need that arm... just if I win how much you think I can get outa it and if its even worth it...

Well don't go to judge Judy 'cause I think the girl would say that you wouldn't get off the hood which is why she did it. Then judge Judy would tell you your stupidity is going to cost you. If I were her and you got on the hood of my car I'd do the same and if you did any damage to my car I would be the one suing you. You would in fact look like an idiot.

how can i get off a car when she rips and i did try to get off and do u know what happen i broke my wrist and had to get surgery.. do u suspect me to jump off that woulda been even worse.. im 19 years old but the fact that im goin to lose my job and be broke and how shes bing a about it makes me wanna sue and when everyone i know is tellin me to sue but ive been holding back because of it i have bills to pay and all that fun stuff how am i goin to offered it for 3-4 months with no work and do u think i can any job with one arm i live in alberta u need that arm... just if i win how much u think i can get outa it and if its even worth it...

I'm going to be brutally honest here. There's something called "learning from your mistakes". You shouldn't have been sitting on her car in the first place. It's rude, and depending on how well the car is made, can actually damage it. Second, you shouldn't be drinking so much that you decide to do stupid things like this, or so that you are so impaired that you can't process what's going on around you and make rational decisions. Yes, you could have wound up hurt a lot worse. And yes, you are going to be hurting financially because of this. But you were the one who set the entire sequence of events in motion. So think seriously about what you are doing with your life, because the decisions you make today will have consequences tomorrow.

I can say that if I were the judge and this case came in front of me, I'd only be willing to give you damages for the medical bills. And even there, it will probably only be a partial judgement, depending on what reason the girl gives for her actions. The rest of it I would say is your problem to deal with.

She did it because she thought it was funny... why do you think they were laughing there es off when I was laying there bleeding and injured.. it happened in a madder of secondss its not like I sat on her hood for ten minutes and she was yelling at me to get off and slowly progressed speed. She probably drove about a 3 feet if that and I flew of in a second.. she went from 0-15 and my buddy was in the back seat and was like wow I can't believe you just did that and welling to go to court as my witness but the way you guys are taking it I don't think I will be going

Have you contacted an attorney yet?

No I haven't

Expect a counter suit. A car is private property. You were sitting on it. You admitted kicking it, and on top of everything you were guilty of public intoxication.

If I was the judge the verdict would not be pretty based on the reasons I just gave. While I am not a lawyer, pushing the issue can end up being a costly mistake for you based on what has happened.

Sometimes the best thing to do is lick your wounds and learn from the experience. Basically don't get drunk and respect other peoples property.

From Sept. 13th to the 19th you had not contacted an attorney but you had plenty of time to do that.

I was chillen with these girls all night they were at my house it happened in front of my house on my block she in the car I went across to do a starshy and huch move as a joke... she was driving us to the bar how is it drunkin in public when it is in front of my house 2 secs out the door

i was chillen with these girls all night they were at my house it happened infront of my house on my block she in the car i went across to do a starshy and huch move as a joke...she was driving us to the bar how is it drunkin in public when it is infront of my house 2 secs out the door

Was it on a public street? Essentially, if you are not in your house, you are in public.

You definitely have a case, and despite the comments above, will probably not have a recovery reduced due to contributory negligence. Drunk or sober, there is nothing unreasonable or reckless about sitting on the hood of a stationary car. Tell me what state you are in and I can point you in the right direction.


Expect a counter suit. A car is private property. You were sitting on it. You admitted kicking it, and on top of everything you were guilty of public intoxication.

If I was the judge the verdict would not be pretty based on the reasons I just gave. While I am not a lawyer, pushing the issue can end up being a costly mistake for you based on what has happened.

Sometimes the best thing to do is lick your wounds and learn from the experience. Basically don't get drunk and respect other peoples property.
This is complete nonsense. Never in a million years would you be subject to a viable "counter suit" for kicking a car and causing no damage. Further, a private citizen cannot bring you up on charges of "public intoxication" as they have no standing to do so.

People should remember that this is a LEGAL forum for people seeking advice on THE LAW and interpretations of THE LAW. Leave your moral judgments, personal agendas, and life advice out of the legal forum as it is clearly not what the author is seeking.


Hello dumbo:

I agree with rpg. I don't think you have a case at all.

If you were sitting in the middle of a road, drunk as a skunk, and somebody hit you, do you think you would have a case against them? I don't.

excon
Actually, you would have a case, and a very good one. Unless in your drunken state you put yourself in a position not to be seen by a reasonably cautious driver. Everyone is focusing on the drunk aspect, but that is not the applicable standard. The standard to be applied is whether conduct was reasonable on the part of THE DRIVER. The operator of a motor vehicle has a affirmative duty to see what there is to be seen and drive with caution and care. If you run someone over that is standing in the road, it is your fault.

The forgoing rationale gave rise to the "dart out" defense in cases where cars hit children playing in the road. In order to defend a case where you hit someone(and overcome the presumption of negligence that comes along with it), the driver must allege that a sudden and unexpected event occurred (the child darting out) which cause the accident because if the child was just sitting in the road and you hit them, it is your fault.

It is the same principle that applies to drunk driving in civil cases. For example, if I am intoxicated, and sitting at a stop sign where I am rear-ended, I will win the lawsuit every time. My intoxication has no bearing on whether the other driver was acting negligently.

Here is the bottom line, and it is the only issue that matters from a legal standpoint.

In the absence of some type of threat, there is no excuse whatsoever for a driver to set a motor vehicle in motion with someone on the hood. That fact, and that fact alone wins the case.

Okay thank you very much.. I live in canada alberta and I didn't have to pay for surgery it all paid for alberta health ca re

Here is the bottom line, and it is the only issue that matters from a legal standpoint.

In the absence of some type of threat, there is no excuse whatsoever for a driver to set a motor vehicle in motion with someone on the hood. That fact, and that fact alone wins the case.

I am in no way a legal expert, I'm just going on my gut here.

Wouldn't a judge think about the fact that it takes common sense to know that you don't sit on someone's car? I mean the OP has to know that cars do in fact move. I would personally never sit on someone's car. That is disrespectful, and duh, I could get hurt.

The OP wouldn't be at any fault whatsoever?

I am in no way a legal expert, i'm just going on my gut here.

Wouldnt a judge think about the fact that it takes common sense to know that you dont sit on someone's car? I mean the OP has to know that cars do in fact move. I would personally never sit on someone's car. That is disrespectful, and duh, I could get hurt.

The OP wouldnt be at any fault whatsoever?

First, a judge would have no say on that matter unless the plaintiff waived a jury trial. Judges can only rule on points of law.

Second, people do sit on cars all the time. If the car is turned off there is a resonable expectation that the driver is not going to move it.

sideoutshu disagrees: Please leave the legal advice to those who know the law. If you want to preach, don't do it in the Law forum.

Really, I'd like to see how based on his actions he can be absolved from any liability. WHat he admits to is several violations of the law. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Try this on my car and trust me, you would be doing time. I take my property rights extremely seriously. And trust me, I have prosecuted people for doing less in the past and won.

Cars are private property, not public park benches. Sit on my car I will take a photo and file charges. Now will a judge agree or not.. thats a toss of the dice. But I'd wager the odds are he would side with my claim than the guy sitting on the car.

Someone rummaging inside your car is no less innocent than someone lounging on top of it.

You definately have a case, and despite the comments above, will probably not have a recovery reduced due to contributory negligence. Drunk or sober, there is nothing unreasonable or reckless about sitting ont he hood of a stationary car. Tell me what state you are in and I can point you in the right direction.


This is complete nonsense. Never in a million years would you be subject to a viable "counter suit" for kicking a car and causing no damage. Further, a private citizen cannot bring you up on charges of "public intoxication" as they have no standing to do so.

People should remember that this is a LEGAL forum for people seeking advice on THE LAW and interpretations of THE LAW. Leave your moral judgments, personal agendas, and life advice out of the legal forum as it is clearly not what the author is seeking.


Actually, you would have a case, and a very good one. Unless in your drunken state you put yourself in a position not to be seen by a reasonably cautious driver. Everyone is focusing on the drunk aspect, but that is not the applicable standard. The standard to be applied is whether conduct was reasonable on the part of THE DRIVER. The operator of a motor vehicle has a affirmative duty to see what there is to be seen and drive with caution and care. If you run someone over that is standing in the road, it is your fault.

The forgoing rationale gave rise to the "dart out" defense in cases where cars hit children playing in the road. In order to defend a case where you hit someone(and overcome the presumption of negligence that comes along with it), the driver must allege that a sudden and unexpected event occured (the child darting out) which cause the accident because if the child was just sitting in the road and you hit them, it is your fault.

It is the same principle that applies to drunk driving in civil cases. For example, if I am intoxicated, and sitting at a stop sign where I am rear-ended, I will win the lawsuit every time. My intoxication has no bearing on whether or not the other driver was acting negligently.


I've taken people to court for sitting on my car, Ever hear of vandalism? Ever hear of my right to not have people tampering with my personal private property? I've done it twice, once in the state of MD and a second time in the state of Virginia. Both times in communal parking lots. I won both times... now in some seriously left leaning communities its possible people have no property rights and vandals can lounge on peoples cars... But I can state that where I lived and live now that constitutes tampering and the owner has the reasonable expectation that his property will not be touched much less damaged. Like I said... a car is not a park bench. If its not yours you don't have a right to touch it.

Same with public intoxication... being a drunk does not absolve you from liability for the actions you take. Many jurisdictions will hold you partially at fault particularly when you are under the influence. Want to drink, drink in your house or a bar, want to sit down and you aren't in your house... then sit on the ground or a park bench. Not the car someone else worked hard to buy and pay for.

I have little use for people that don't respect my rights, or my property. My car or my house... whats mine is mine, not someone else's.

Part of the reason I moved far from any apartments. It seems many people there share the same lack of respect for other peoples property. From extensive personal experience, and countless door dings to prove it.

sideoutshu disagrees: Please leave the legal advice to those who know the law. If you want to preach, don't do it in the Law forum.

Really, I'd like to see how based on his actions he can be absolved from any liability. WHat he admits to is several violations of the law. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Try this on my car and trust me, you would be doing time. I take my property rights extremely seriously. And trust me, I have prosecuted people for doing less in the past and won.

Cars are private property, not public park benches. Sit on my car I will take a photo and file charges. Now will a judge agree or not..thats a toss of the dice. But I'd wager the odds are he would side with my claim than the guy sitting on the car.

Someone rummaging inside your car is no less innocent than someone lounging on top of it.
Let me explain a few things to you:

1. As a private citizen, you can't "prosecute" someone for anything. Any remedy you have against someone who has wronged you will come in CIVIL court where you have to prove DAMAGES. What damages have you suffered by someone sitting on your car? How would you quanitfy them?

2. Please explain how someone would "be doing time" for sitting on your car. This is more for my own amusement then antyhing as I am sure no one here is taking you seriously any longer after this response. Further, please expand on your "property rights", explaining what those rights are, how you "take them seriously", and what remedies you are prepared to "enforce". Again, this is for my amusement more then anything.

3. How do you go about "filing charges" for someone sitting on your car? When you take the picture, who do you give it to? What do you request when you give it to them? How do you identify the "perpetrator"? You do realize that in most states, a police officer cannot make an arrest for a violation that did not occur in his presence right?

I've taken people to court for sitting on my car.
No you haven't.

Ever hear of vandalism? ever hear of my right to not have people tampering with my personal private property? I've done it twice, once in the state of MD and a second time in the state of Virginia. Both times in communal parking lots. I won both times....now in some seriously left leaning communities its possible people have no property rights and vandals can lounge on peoples cars...But I can state that where I lived and live now that constitutes tampering and the owner has the reasonable expectation that his property will not be touched much less damaged. Like I said...a car is not a park bench. If its not yours you don't have a right to touch it.
I don't know why you continue with these obvious fabrications. I guarantee that you have never taken anyone to court for leaning on your car. You may have taken someone to court for dinging your car in a minor fender bender, but not leaning or touching. You see, those of us in the legal community, who have a basis for our opinions, know that you can't have a recovery in a lawsuit without damages. We further understand a private citizen cannot "bring charges" against someone for leaning on their car. I am absolutely certain you are going to mumble something about a "Citizen's arrest", but do yourself a favor and don't embarrass yourself any further.

Same with public intoxication....being a drunk does not absolve you from liability for the actions you take. Many jurisdictions will hold you partially at fault particularly when you are under the influence. Want to drink, drink in your house or a bar, want to sit down and you aren't in your house...then sit on the ground or a park bench. Not the car someone else worked hard to buy and pay for.

You obviously didn't read my responses above. Read them again, then try to formulate a rational response. Or better yet, just stop posting in the law forum when you don't know anything about the law.

Let me explain a few things to you:

1. As a private citizen, you can't "prosecute" someone for anything. Any remedy you have agaisnt someone who has wronged you will come in CIVIL court where you have to prove DAMAGES. What damages have you suffered by someone sitting on your car? How would you quanitfy them?

2. Please explain how someone would "be doing time" for sitting on your car. This is more for my own amusement then antyhing as I am sure noone here is taking you seriously any longer after this response. Further, please expand on your "property rights", explaining wht those rights are, how you "take them seriously", and what remedies you are prepared to "enforce". Again, this is for my amusement more then anything. Sratches and dents that "were not there before I swear officer" does wonders, cars dent easily, then there is the fact that he doesn't own it and does not have any right to sit on its hood.

3. How do you go about "filing charges" for someone sitting on your car? When you take the picture, who do you give it to? What do you request when you give it to them? How do you identify the "perpetrator"? You do realize that in most states, a police officer cannot make an arrest for a violation that did not occur in his presence right?
Boy are you one of these people that have a right to sit on my car and damage its paint and dent its body ( or think they do)?

1. Ever hear of filing charges? Photos make pretty good evidence, very damning in front of a judge. Like I said, I don't live in leftytown where everyone but property owners have rights.

2. Vandalism - you don't get a ticket for vandalizing someone's car. Not outside of Berkley anyway. My car, my ownership, my rights... You do not have the right to camp on my front yard, use my bathroom, front porch or lounge on or inside my car. Sit on your own car.

3. Like I said, sit on my car... or try to move my car and the cops in any rational community will be knocking on your door. Trust me, someone with an attitude moved my motorcycle across a parking lot once because they decided they wanted my parking space... they never did it again.

Boy are you one of these people that have a right to sit on my car and damage its paint and dent its body ( or think they do)?

1. Ever hear of filing charges? Photos make pretty good evidence, very damning in front of a judge. Like I said, I don't live in leftytown where everyone but property owners have rights.

2. Vandalism - you don't get a ticket for vandalizing someones car. Not outside of Berkley anyway. My car, my ownership, my rights....You do not have the right to camp on my front yard, use my bathroom, front porch or lounge on or inside my car. Sit on your own car.

3. Like I said, sit on my car...or try to move my car and the cops in any rational community will be knocking on your door. Trust me, someone with an attitude moved my motorcycle across a parking lot once because they decided they wanted my parking space......they never did it again.
You are so completely wrong, that I don't even know where to begin. Hopefully the more you write, the more people will realize that you are not a legal expert and disregard your "advice".

Well, I won both times... that proves more than you have.

State your statutes that you claim allow anyone to destroy your car by treating it like a park bench. Do you even own a car? I'll bet if you do it's a heap and not something nice. You wouldn't be defending people for vandalism of private property.

Well, I won both times....that proves more than you have.

State your statutes that you claim allow anyone to destroy your car by treating it like a park bench. Do you even own a car? I'll bet if you do its a heap and not something nice. You wouldn't be defending people for vandalism of private property.
What did you "win"? What court was the action in?

Look guy, I don't need to cite statutes. What I am referring to are general principles of litigation that you would easily grasp if you had any legal training whatsoever. The OP came hear seeking legal advice, not to hear stories and personal anecdotes that don't relate to his question.

He asked a question, you gave bad advice, I corrected you. I am not going to debate you about something you are so clearly wrong about. If you had any valid points at all, I would address them, but you have given me nothing worth wasting my time.

You made the claim car owners have no rights against people lounging all over them denting the body and scratching its paint. Prove it.

Where do you live, because by god I want nothing to do with that town if my $40K car has young punks and homeless people lounging all over it and I have no rights at all.

You guys really are hijacking this person's thread. The OP came here to get advice, you both gave it to him/her, just leave it at that. It is up to the OP which route he/she takes at this point.

You made the claim car owners have no rights against people lounging all over them denting the body and scratching its paint. Prove it.
Please read my posts. I never made that claim. That is your own creation.

What I said was that there is never a situation (absent a threat of physical harm) that justifies the operator of a motor vehicle setting the car in motion with someone on the hood. Note that I am speaking strictly from a LEGAL STANDPOINT because this is the LAW FORUM.

If the OP wanted unsubstantiated personal opinions from people with no legal training or experience, he would have gone to the "unsubstantiated personal opinions form people with no legal training or experience" forum.

Read the following statement, and then take a minute to think before responding:

Your opinion about whether sitting on someone's car is right or wrong is completely and utterly irrelevant to this question. This question was an inquiry about whether a viable CIVIL action exists on the part of the OP against the driver. It has nothing to do with CRIMINAL liability for any of the OP's actions. While your original answers were completely erroneous, I corrected them in order to help the OP.

You recent ramblings regarding "pressing charges", "property rights", "vandalism", etc. have nothing to do with helping the OP. I visit this forum to give accurate and helpful answers to those who need them, not to preach or impose my personal values on others, or to hear myself speak. Hence, unless your ramblings relate to the original topic, I'm not going to waste billable time responding to them.

You guys really are hijacking this person's thread. The OP came here to get advice, you both gave it to him/her, just leave it at that. It is up to the OP which route he/she takes at this point.
Well, the argument goes to the greater good of the law forum that I have addressed in other posts in the past. I said it pretty well several months ago, so I will just post that:


I completely agree with the above opinions on sticking to what you know when it comes to technical issues. My personal experience as an attorney posting in the "Law" category leaves me very concerned with the so called "experts" who seem to answer any question in any category just to build up reputation points (I am new, and haven't really figured out the system yet).

Some of the answers I have seen on the "Law" forum have made me want to vomit. There are "experts" on that forum giving completely erroneous information to people who don't know any better than to accept it. Now mind you, these are not questions like "I am thinking of buying a new fluffy cat, what should I name her?".....they are questions like, "I am going to lose my house in 3 days...what should I do?"

Here is a recent thread where someone had important and time sensitive questions. Scroll down to my post entitled "disregard 90% of this thread" to see that nearly every person who replied to this post had NO IDEA what they were talking about, and in many instances, were just dead wrong.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=62530#post62530

I mean these people are throwing around legal jargon that they hear on Law & Order and have no idea what it means.

In the forgoing post, we have people who are "experts" in not only this type of law, but "relationships"; "pregnancy and motherhood"; "bankruptcy and debt"; "teens";"family law"; "divorce"; "dating"; "etiquette"; "spirituality"; "careers"; "crime"; "medical conditions and diseases"; "death and dying"; "labor unions"; "ethics"; and "adoption". Ever hear the phrase about being an expert in everything and nothing?

Now I can tell you, based on my personal experience, and the hours that an ACTUAL LAWYER has to work, that we don't have time to be "experts" in such a diverse array of fields. Things to consider when taking advice from the "expert in everything" on technical questions:

1. Where does someone find the time to acquire the qualifications to be an expert in 20+ different fields?

2. What kind of "expert" has 12-14 spare hours a day to post on an internet forum for no pay? If someone were qualified to answer your legal questions.....don't you think they are probably EMPLOYED at an extremely demanding and high stress job? I don't think that anyone coming to this forum for legal advice is looking for the "personal opinion" of a stay at home mom who takes a break from posting about "nursery decorating" to peruse the "Law" forum.

3. Do you want your legal questions being answered by someone who thinks the First Amendment addresses the "right to bear arms"? (no...I'm not joking, it has happened).

Now I don't have a problem with non-lawyers who think they may have something valuable to add to a topic posting on the topic. There are plenty of people who may know something about the law, and not be lawyers.(ie: landlords, paralegals, court employees, cops, etc.) BUT DISCLOSE THIS UPFRONT! There are many non-lawyer landlords out there that know more about landlord/tenant law than I do, and there are many criminals who may know more about the penal system than I do, but let people know where the information is coming from.

If it means starting every post with "Let me start by saying that I really have no idea what I am talking about, I have absolutely no experience or education in the field, however, I do have "street smarts" and "eighty years on this planet" in addition to having watched a lot of "LA LAW"............then so be it.

Also, perhaps the most irritating thing I have seen on here........ the individuals who respond to EVERY SINGLE question on the law board with an answer like, "you should consult an attorney". Now what possible value does that answer have, other than adding to some blowhard's posting numbers?

The point is, the law is a very techinical and fact based area of expertise that does not lend itself to armchair lawyers coming in and shooting from the hip about what they saw on Boston Legal last night. The questions people come in here to ask are often times sensitive and extremely important such that an incorrect answer could have dire consequences. If you want to guess about something, go to the home decorating forum and guess what color drapes go with brown carpeting. Don't guess about how much time someone has to make a motion regarding custody of their children.

OK, I'm going to step in here before this gets too personal.

Smoothy,
From what I know of the law, Sideoutshu is making extremely good points. A citizen cannot "prosecute" someone for a crime. They can press charges, but the decision to prosecute is up to the DA or county prosecutor. This leaves you with bringing a civil suit and to win a civil suit you would have to show damages. I'm not saying you didn't in fact, win such a suit, but it was not because someone merely sat on your car, it was because they damaged your car when they sat on it.

The main point here is that while what you are saying about personal property is essentially correct, it does not come close to dealing with the OP's situation.

I'll take this one step further. By parking your car in a public place, you are asuming a risk that someone will lean against it or even sit on it. Unless that person was negligent and causes some tangible damage, you would not be able to sue.

Now both of you calm down. You have each made your points and let readers judge, no more fighting. Any further such posts will be removed.

OK, I'm going to step in here before this gets too personal.

Smoothy,
From what I know of the law, Sideoutshu is making extremely good points. A citizen cannot "prosecute" someone for a crime. They can press charges, but the decision to prosecute is up to the DA or county prosecutor. This leaves you with bringing a civil suit and to win a civil suit you would have to show damages. I'm not saying you didn't in fact, win such a suit, but it was not because someone merely sat on your car, it was because they damaged your car when they sat on it.

The main point here is that while what you are saying about personal property is essentially correct, it does not come close to dealing withthe OP's situation.

I'll take this one step further. By parking your car in a public place, you are asuming a risk that someone will lean against it or even sit on it. Unless that person was negligent and causes some tangible damage, you would not be able to sue.

Now both of you calm down. You have each made your points and let readers judge, no more fighting.
As I stated I filed charges, they were prosecuted, the case went to court, I won. This isn't about parsing words, its about the fact car owners have rights, and others do not have the right to lounge on others property their cars in particular. Not in PA, not in MD not in VA.

Leaning against a car is one thing and nobody is arguing that point. Sitting on top of it is well beyond what is reasonable, or legal (where I live anyway) and other thing entirely, nobody has that right. That being the point I was making. And the only point that mattered to me.

Incidentally, one of my cars has a factory aluminum hood that is extremely costly to replace and would not survive someone sitting on it.

as I stated I filed charges, they were prosecuted, the case went to court, I won. This isn't about parsing words, its about the fact car owners have rights, and others do not have the right to lounge on others property their cars in particular. Not in PA, not in MD not in VA.


Ok, so what EXACTLY were they prosecuted for? What specific crime? Do you have docket numbers and the court where we can look the cases up? I'm not doubting that you pressed charges, nor that you won. But I do doubt that any prosecutor would waste valuable court time prosecuting someone simply and solely for sitting on someone's car.

Unfortunately, the law is very much about parsing words. And when giviing legal advice we sometimes need to be very specific about what the law allows and doesn't allow.

as I stated I filed charges, they were prosecuted, the case went to court, I won. This isn't about parsing words, its about the fact car owners have rights, and others do not have the right to lounge on others property their cars in particular. Not in PA, not in MD not in VA.

Leaning against a car is one thing and nobody is arguing that point. Sitting on top of it is well beyond what is reasonable, or legal (where I live anyway) and other thing entirely, nobody has that right. That being the point I was making. and the only point that mattered to me.

Incidentally, one of my cars has a factory aluminum hood that is extremely costly to replace and would not survive someone sitting on it.
Once again. Whether you are right or wrong about someone's right to sit on a car. It has absolutely nothing to do with answering the question posed.

Ok, so what EXACTLY were they prosecuted for? What specific crime? Do you have docket numbers and the court where we can look the cases up? I'm not doubting that you pressed charges, nor that you won. But I do doubt that any prosecutor would waste valuable court time prosecuting someone simply and solely for sitting on someone's car.

Unfortunately, the law is very much about parsing words. And when giviing legal advice we sometimes need to be very specific about what the law allows and doesn't allow.
Additionally, as I stated before, in most states, a person cannot be arrested or "prosecuted" for a violation committed outside the presence of a police officer. (fyi smoothy, a "violation" is just a fancy legal word for a minor infraction, as opposed to a misdemeanor or felony).

For example, if I saw you jaywalking, then went to a police officer who didn't see you jaywalk, and asked him to "prosecute" or "press charges", after he got done laughing at how petty I was, he would explain to me that it doesn't work that way. However, if I continued to pester him about it, he might charge me with disorderly conduct (since it was done in his presence).

The thing is though.. she doesn't care I sat on her car there is no damaged she ripped ahead thinking it waas funny and my buddy sitting in the car said it was a madder of 2 sec I was sitting on the car and she ripped.. like I said she didn't go slow and than go fast she riped up

smoothy you don't get it the only damaged that was done.. was done to me... and not only that she was going 15kms with someone on the hood do you know how dangerous that is what if I had hitting my head instead of hands... were on pavement too not driving on grass or pillows... I didn't threatin her sexual harass her or anything.. she my friend I with her all night she is 17 not passed legal limit wasn't drinking.. went out my house to go bar she was driving us and that's when it happened.. ON MY BLOCk.. I wouldn't be suein her or even thinking about it but for what it has done to me I thinking I have to.. I got bills and I'm going to have no money soon.. I have 6 weeks off with fun visits to the hospital every once andwhile than 3-4 months recovery.. pretty sure I'm fired and if I'm not.. that's a hole time of not getting paid and not only that this surgery isn't 100 perecent satisfactory on healing right if it doesn't well the re break it do the surgery again and what does that to puts me back on my as s for another 3 -4 months so as you can see I pretty much have to sue.. and smoothy you in my case what would you do worry about the owner sueing me about an imaginary dent on the hood or sit there take the fact that you a crippel that is losing his job and going threw surgey

And I not asking for oppions... pretty much my main consurn is if I sue how much you think I could get.. or if I is even worth it I live in canada my surgery was paid for I didn't have to pay and if this could end up lasting years.. thanks for your help and time

You know you having been p****** and moaning about this since Sept. 13th and you have yet to make an appointment with an attorney. An attorney could tell you about the possible success of a suit and the monetary award possible.

Yeah.. but the thing is since I already going down to my last penny I thought you guys would maybe know because I scared I end up wasting all this money on lawyer and be in more debt than I am now or what if I lose and just waste all that money

We cannot predict the future. We only know what you are telling us and not the other side.

We do know that you generally can't sue for more than the damages you incurred. If you are looking at this as some big payday, forget it.

What you need to do is sit down with an attorney and tell them the whole story and get their opinion.

Hello again, dumbo:

I don't know. IF you have a case, an attorney wouldn't charge you anyway. Don't you watch TV?

excon

Ok, so what EXACTLY were they prosecuted for? What specific crime? Do you have docket numbers and the court where we can look the cases up? I'm not doubting that you pressed charges, nor that you won. But I do doubt that any prosecutor would waste valuable court time prosecuting someone simply and solely for sitting on someone's car.

Unfortunately, the law is very much about parsing words. And when giviing legal advice we sometimes need to be very specific about what the law allows and doesn't allow.We are talking events that happened 20+ years ago... I've moved 5 times domestically and 3 times internationally since then.

I don't have ANY records dating that far back of any kind. Some things had been lost during the moves, thank god that was before the days of identity theft.

What were they charged with?. vandalism... where did this occur, Gaithersburg, Maryland, and again in Fairfax Virginia. Mid 1980's. Paint and car bodies are not built with delinquents using them as park benches in mind, dents and paint work are very costly.

Nobody is going to argue bumping or leaning against a car unless a group of keys are hanging off your belt scratching the paint. Which then becomes vandalism. Its reasonable for someone to bump against or brush against your car, without damage. Nobody has any more right to sit on you car than has a right to sit on the front porch of your house. That's not a reasonable expectation any more than someone backing into the side of your car and driving off intentionally. Both damage your car, and neither is reasonable or justified. A lightweight person might get away with it if they are wearing clean and soft clothes. Wear dirty pants or weight more than you average young kid paint or sheet metal get damaged, and you can be certain if they don't show respect to others property they aren't going to leave a note with their name and contact info saying while I was lounging on the hood of your Mercedes SL500 I scratched the paint and dented the hood, please contact me at XXXXX so I can make restitution.



Sit on a police cruiser sometime... lets see what happens. It's a car. I personally don't wish to give it a try. I know what will happen. I value the integrity of my cranium and don't wish to be ventilated or zapped with a Tazer.

And incidentally on parsing words... depending on what part of the country you live. You can be asked by police "do you wish to prosecute XXXXX for doing XXXXXX?" For instance in the SW PA northern WV and SE Ohio area you will hear this by the State Police, not the local yokels. And yes that is the particular dialect of American English I speak. Where Dr. Pepper or Sprite is called POP and rubber bands are known as Gum bands among quite a few other variations. And it is an officially recognized regional dialect. So no intention of appearing to be a smart*** just saying that as an FYI.

We are talking events that happened 20+ years ago...I've moved 5 times domestically and 3 times internationally since then.

I don't have ANY records dating that far back of any kind. Some things had been lost during the moves, thank god that was before the days of identity theft.

What were they charged with?... vandalism....where did this occur, Gaithersburg, Maryland, and again in Fairfax Virginia. mid 1980's. Paint and car bodies are not built with delinquents using them as park benches in mind, dents and paint work are very costly.

Nobody is going to argue bumping or leaning against a car unless a group of keys are hanging off your belt scratching the paint. which then becomes vandalism. Its reasonable for someone to bump against or brush against your car, without damage. Nobody has any more right to sit on you car than has a right to sit on the front porch of your house. That's not a reasonable expectation any more than someone backing into the side of your car and driving off intentionally. Both damage your car, and neither is reasonable or justified. A lightweight person might get away with it if they are wearing clean and soft clothes. wear dirty pants or weight more than you average young kid paint or sheet metal get damaged, and you can be certain if they don't show respect to others property they aren't going to leave a note with their name and contact info saying while I was lounging on the hood of your Mercedes SL500 I scratched the paint and dented the hood, please contact me at XXXXX so I can make restitution.



Sit on a police cruiser sometime...lets see what happens. Its a car. I personally don't wish to give it a try. I know what will happen. I value the integrity of my cranium and don't wish to be ventilated or zapped with a Tazer.

And incidentally on parsing words......depending on what part of the country you live. You can be asked by police "do you wish to prosecute XXXXX for doing XXXXXX?" For instance in the SW PA northern WV and SE Ohio area you will hear this by the State Police, not the local yokels. And yes that is the particular dialect of American English I speak. Where Dr. Pepper or Sprite is called POP and rubber bands are known as Gum bands among quite a few other variations. And it is an officially recognized regional dialect. So no intention of appearing to be a smart*** just saying that as an FYI.
Once again, none of this addresses the question posed.

Once again, none of this addresses the question posed.Really, try reading it again. I did answer them.

What were they charged with?... vandalism....where did this occur, Gaithersburg, Maryland, and again in Fairfax Virginia. mid 1980's. Paint and car bodies are not built with delinquents using them as park benches in mind, dents and paint work are very costly.


And thereby you prove our point. They were prosecuted for vandalism. The act of sitting or leaning against your car resulted in damages to the vehicle.

But that is NOT the case we are talking about. You presented this that the simple act of sitting on someone's car was illegal and could be prosecuted. What Side and I were saying is that was not accurate. Something else had to have happened for the situation to result in prosecution.

Now its time to drop this.

I think if I were the judge you brought this case in front of, I would throw the case out and charge you $500.00 for contempt of court, in an effort to put an end to frivolous lawsuits.

Depends on which statement you are answering... mine or the OP question...

But in either case, look up contempt of court... it would not apply.

CONTEMPT OF COURT - Any willful disobedience to, or disregard of, a court order or any misconduct in the presence of a court; action that interferes with a judge's ability to administer justice or that insults the dignity of the court; punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. There are both civil and criminal contempts; the distinction is often unclear.

Contempt Of Court -- Civil Or Criminal

A judge who feels someone is improperly challenging or ignoring the court's authority has the power to declare the defiant person (called the contemnor) in contempt of court. There are two types of contempt - criminal and civil. Criminal contempt occurs when the contemnor actually interferes with the ability of the court to function properly - for example, by yelling at the judge. This is also called direct contempt because it occurs directly in front of the judge. A criminal contemnor may be fined, jailed or both as punishment for his act.

Civil contempt occurs when the contemnor willfully disobeys a court order. This is also called indirect contempt because it occurs outside the judge's immediate realm and evidence must be presented to the judge to prove the contempt. A civil contemnor, too, may be fined, jailed or both. The fine or jailing is meant to coerce the contemnor into obeying the court, not to punish him, and the contemnor will be released from jail just as soon as he complies with the court order. In family law, civil contempt is one way a court enforces alimony, child support, custody and visitation orders which have been violated.

However, many courts have realized that, at least regarding various procedural matters such as appointment of counsel, the distinction between civil and criminal contempt is often blurred and uncertain.

A Willful Disregard Or Disobedience Of A Public Authority.

By the Constitution of the United States, each house of congress may determine the rules of its proceeding's, punish its members for disorderly behaviour and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member. The same provision is substantially contained in the constitutions of the several states.

The power to make rules carries that of enforcing them, and to attach persons who violate them and punish them for contempts. This power of punishing for contempts is confined to punishment during the session of the legislature and cannot extend beyond it, and it seems this power cannot be exerted beyond imprisonment.

Courts of justice have an inherent power to punish all persons for contempt of their rules and orders, for disobedience of their process, and for disturbing them in their proceedings.

In some states, as in Pennsylvania, the power to punish for contempts is restricted to offences committed by the officers of the court, or in its presence, or in disobedience of its mandates, orders, or rules; but no one is guilty of a contempt for any publication made or act done out of court which is not in violation of such lawful rules or orders, or disobedience of its process. Similar provisions, limiting the power of the courts of the United States to punish for contempts, are incorporated in 28 U.S.C.

When a person is in prison for a contempt, it has been decided in New York that he cannot be discharged by another judge when brought before him on a habeas corpus; and it belongs exclusively to the court offended to judge of contempts and what amounts to them; and no other court or judge can, or ought to undertake in a collateral way, to question or review an adjudication of a contempt made by another competent jurisdiction.

This way be considered as the established doctrine equally in England as in this country.
--b--


Borrowed from "Contempt Of Court" Defined & Explained (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c118.htm)

[QUOTE=smoothy]Depends on which statement you are answering... mine or the OP question...

But in either case, look up contempt of court... it would not apply.

CONTEMPT OF COURT - Any willful disobedience to, or disregard of, a court order or any misconduct in the presence of a court; action that interferes with a judge's ability to administer justice or that insults the dignity of the court; punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. There are both civil and criminal contempts; the distinction is often unclear.


Oh but I think it does apply - because the judge is outright wasting his time reviewing this frivolous lawsuit - His ability to administer justice, in non-frivolous cases, is being directly interfered with - and being interfered with tremendously. Discounting the length of the trial which is unpredictable - Days, in some cases weeks, are wasted by the judge and his staff in the judicial system prepping to hear these cases.

The constitution grants the right to a speedy trial, but nowadays to even get on court dockets takes a month, if you're lucky, and routinely even longer.

With the elimination of these (to borrow the term) "Stella Award" type frivolous lawsuits the ability to administer justice will be allowed to flow smoother.

Now I agree it has not been done before, and I also agree it has the potential to be misused. But these frivolous lawsuits are costing us hundreds of millions if not billions in costs passed onto our consumers and in many cases they are nothing more than people like this guy "Look am me - I was stupid but I think I might be able to get paid for it!"

By standing up against the stupidity of some of these lawsuits and defraying SOME of the costs of wasted time by the fining the plaintiffs (because $500 will in NO WAY cover the loss). Frivolous suers will be given notice and will pause to consider "action that interferes with a judge's ability to administer justice" or in my opinion (which you obviously don't share) "insults the dignity of the court"

"Oh I spilled hot coffee in my lap and it burns - pay me!"
"Oh and don't just pass my payment and your lawyer's fees onto the customer, why don't you also add all your cost of goods sold fees (for adding "Caution Hot" to your cups)."
"Oh and to prevent a similar suit all your competitor should do the same"
"and on, and on, and on...

I agree it was a really dumb act (pure stupidity for several reasons actually) but you have to be in defiance of a court order or officer of the court for Contempt of court to apply. Because there has been none of these it may be many things but not contempt of court. Frivolous I'd agree. Waste of the courts time because they created the situation, and were not just a victim of it.

Trust me in that I hope people that sit on other peoples cars like this one day own a nice car themselves and that they have a crew of equally disrespectful kids doing the same to them to their car. That would be true Karma.

And hopefully the parties involved realize how their own dumb actions (and there was more than one dumb act committed by more than one person) culminated in this happening and that nobody was permanently crippled or killed. Yeah not being able to wipe your own butt or spank the monkey for a while is a hard lesson, but perhaps a hard learned lesson that won't be forgotten about responsible drinking and personal accountability, and assuming responsibility for the results of your own actions.

Learning lessons are part of maturing. Some people just take longer than others.

Well do u think I could get compensation and would it go directly threw her or her insurance

In all this, have you contacted legal counsel yet and found what your options are?

well do u think i could get compensation and would it go directly threw her or her insurnace
Depends on where you live. If they recognize shared blame in your area the fact you were drunk and sitting on her car may or may not preclude you from getting anything. In some areas you wouldn't get anything. In some others you might. If you pay for a lawyer and lose you would end up with less money than you had in the beginning.

If you really need an accurate answer you would need to talk with a lawyer that practices in your area, he would know what the local laws are. They do vary and what applies in one city and state may not apply in your city and state. Many will give a free initial consultation.

dumbo22
I have read all the posts added and let me tell you it was getting out of hand.
I would like to add that this matter is in Alberta, Canada. The laws are more enforced then people are led to believe. I do have a few questions to ask you?
How many people where in the car when this happened?
Do they all have the same story?
Do you have any witnesses out side of the car that would cooperate with your testimony?
What time of day was it?
And how can you prove that she went 15 km within 3 feet?
Was she your designated driver for that evening?
You need to post more information on this matter to get better advise.
I on one hand see in your favour for reckless driving. If she did not won't you on the hood she should have asked you to get off the hood. Not drive off and cause bodily harm to others. If I was you I would contact the RCMP in person and ask to speak to a constable about bodily harm. You could go this direction. You can also look into legal aide. From the sounds of your money problems you very much fit the criteria for legal aide.
You can call a lawyer in your area and ask if you have grounds for a law suit. It may or may not cost you a cent.
Keep in mind that the longer you wait the harder it will help in your favour.
This is only advise. I am not a lawyer.

damges that i have is broken wrist with surgey 6 weeks off no pay..3-4 months heal time with light dutties my work has no light duties so i probably lose my job
Damages- I.E. Medical expenses like medication, Lose of wages from being off work, There is more but this is what I think people are trying to tell you.

dumbo22
I have read all the posts added and let me tell you it was getting out of hand.
I would like to add that this matter is in Alberta, Canada. The laws are more enforced then people are led to believe. I do have a few questions to ask you?
How many people where in the car when this happened?
Do they all have the same story?
Do you have any witnesses out side of the car that would cooperate with your testimony?
What time of day was it?
And how can you prove that she went 15 km within 3 feet?
Was she your designated driver for that evening?
You need to post more information on this matter to get better advise.
I on one hand see in your favour for reckless driving. If she did not wont you on the hood she should of asked you to get off the hood. Not drive off and cause bodily harm to others. If I was you I would contact the RCMP in person and ask to speak to a constable about bodily harm. You could go this direction. You can also look into legal aide. From the sounds of your money problems you very much fit the criteria for legal aide.
You can call a lawyer in your area and ask if you have grounds for a law suit. It may or may not cost you a cent.
Keep in mind that the longer you wait the harder it will help in your favour.
This is only advise. I am not a lawyer.


Your questions have very little to do with assessing fault for this accident - this person is technically a pedestrian, not another driver. And, yes, there are grounds for a lawsuit - at least in NY and, from what I understand, in Canada.

Do you think the RCMP is going to get involved in this now - or ever? The investigate crimes (which this possibly was - reckless driving); they do not investigate injury claims.

Legal aid does not handle personal injury.

Your questions have very little to do with assessing fault for this accident - this person is technically a pedestrian, not another driver. And, yes, there are grounds for a lawsuit - at least in NY and, from what I understand, in Canada.

Do you think the RCMP is going to get involved in this now - or ever? The investigate crimes (which this possibly was - reckless driving); they do not investigate injury claims.

Legal aid does not handle personal injury.
I have worked with the RCMP and I am on the east part of Canada. Yes the RCMP can do something for the fact that a pedestrian got injured from a vehicle in motion. The police can investigate this matter. Look I am not here to argue I just added advise.
I assure you that from the sounds of what was stated the driver is at fault.
If you see different please tell my why?

I have worked with the RCMP and I am on the east part of Canada. Yes the RCMP can do something for the fact that a pedestrian got injured from a vehicle in motion. The police can investigate this matter. Look I am not here to argue I just added advise.
I assure you that from the sounds of what was stated the driver is at fault.
If you see different please tell my why?
The "Pedestrian" was not walking when struck, and had in fact mounted the car on his own free will.

Being a pedestrian does not automatically make you right and the driver of a car wrong. Drivers that hit pedestrians that illegally cross the street mid block and NOT in a Cross walk for instance are very rarely ever found at fault for the accident for example. And Even when in a cross walk if they did not have a walk signal when crossing.

That being said there was a huge lapse in judgment buy the individual by not jumping off the car immediately when it started to move (the driver depending on the circumstances may have had one as well unless they felt threatened). In many jurisdictions that will be a large factor in any case brought in front aof a judge and jury.

Let me point out that this question was posted over 4 months ago

I have worked with the RCMP and I am on the east part of Canada. Yes the RCMP can do something for the fact that a pedestrian got injured from a vehicle in motion. The police can investigate this matter. Look I am not here to argue I just added advise.
I assure you that from the sounds of what was stated the driver is at fault.
If you see different please tell my why?


Also not here to argue - disagreeing with your conclusions doesn't mean I'm arguing with you, just stating my opinion - which I believe I said is true in NYS, possibly in Canada.

This is a September 2007 accident - the RCMPs are not going to get any more involved now than they were then and they are not the final word in accident investigations. They are after the fact witnesses, just like anyone else who pulls onto the scene following the accident and didn't actually see it. It is possible that the RCMPs you work with are more cooperative about civil lawsuits than those I have worked with.

And, yes, I have worked in Canada -

Your questions such as how many people were in the car, the distance the driver her speed, who the designated driver was (?) (it doesn't matter - he was on the hood), whether the driver was acting recklessly, are immaterial to this type of accident investigation unless the driver is alleging this is not how the accident happened and that he either fell off for no reason without her behind the wheel OR he was a pedestrian and she ran him over.

If someone is on the hood of your car you cannot dislodge him - by starting and stopping, by driving away, by any means, at any time, at any speed. And if you don't realize the person is on your car - front, back, side - you are negligent for not noticing. The driver had an even higher standard of care if she realized he had been drinking - or was intoxicated.

Every year I do at least 3 of these accidents - most of them people who jump into the beds of pickup trucks - and "kids" never seem to learn it is not a good idea. I also worked one fatality last year, almost the same scenario.

And legal aid does not represent people for personal injury.

Again - I cannot specifically address Canada but these are the rules "here" and I would think they are pretty universal. If you have contradictory info, I am always open to hearing it.

The "Pedestrian" was not walking when struck, and had in fact mounted the car on his own free will.

Being a pedestrian does not automatically make you right and the driver of a car wrong. Drivers that hit pedestrians that illegally cross the street mid block and NOT in a Cross walk for instance are very rarely ever found at fault for the accident for example. And Even when in a cross walk if they did not have a walk signal when crossing.

That being said there was a huge lapse in judgment buy the individual by not jumping off the car immediately when it started to move (the driver depending on the circumstances may have had one as well unless they felt threatened). In many jurisdictions that will be a large factor in any case brought in front aof a judge and jury.


Maybe in Virginia - and I do a lot of pedestrian accidents. Drivers are not allowed to run pedestrians over whether they are in the crosswalk or not -

Perhaps in Virginia a person sitting on your hood becomes a threat and you are allowed to knock them off, but not in NYS.

I investigate well over a thousand accidents a year and do not agree with your conclusions but that's what makes the World go 'round.

Let me point out that this question was posted over 4 months ago


WHOOOPS - !

He is asking if he has a case and can he sue.
To answer this question Yes you have a case. The car is considered a weapon.
To answer Can you sue. Yes you can. Get a lawyer but it will cost you.
That's all I would like to add. This person is asking for advise. I would like to add that if you do not know about the laws in Canada please stop. If you read all the information that dumbo22 added. You would notice that he has a case. Yes he was drinking that night and was sitting on top of a hood of a car. As a prank/joke or what ever you won't to call it the driver has no right to due harm to others ( assault- Charges can be laid) She was not threatened in anyway. She should have told dumbo22 to get off the car but she didn't.
This can be proven due to the two girls in the car where laughing at him after it happened. That's to the point and straight forward.

Maybe in Virginia - and I do a lot of pedestrian accidents. Drivers are not allowed to run pedestrians over whether they are in the crosswalk or not -

Perhaps in Virginia a person sitting on your hood becomes a threat and you are allowed to knock them off, but not in NYS.

I investigate well over a thousand accidents a year and do not agree with your conclusions but that's what makes the World go 'round.It's that way in, MD, PA and DC as well as VA.

Pedestrians have the same responsibility to follow traffic laws as drivers do. And the same applies to bicycle riders.

And that means crossing at designated crosswalks and respecting walk and don't walk signals as well as red and green lights where and when they apply.

When you get somebody that thinks traffic laws don't apply to them the result can be a fatality. And that's pedestrian, Bicycle rider or driver alike.