Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sideoutshu

Once again, none of this addresses the question posed.

---

Really, try reading it again. I did answer them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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

[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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dumbo22

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dumbo22

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scottish2008

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scottish2008

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scottish2008

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

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.