My husband was leaving the parking lot of a restaurant. He stopped and looked before proceeding into the main road. He saw no one on coming. When he pulled out, a woman hit him which caused the car to spin on impact. The police officer's conduct was questionable, talking to the young woman for a considerable more amount of time than my husband and complaining about his day and such while taking report. Is the worth fighting the failure to yield?

Did you get her information and a copy of the police report? Have you reported this to your insurance agent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cangemi

My husband was leaving the parking lot of a restaurant. He stopped and looked before proceeding into the main road. He saw no one on coming. When he pulled out and a woman hit him which caused the car to spin on impact. The police officer's conduct was questionable. talking to the young woman for a considerable more amount of time than him and complaining about his day and such while taking report. Is the worth fighting the failure to yield?

---

I'm a liability investigator. You say your husband looked, saw no one, proceeded into the road and a woman hit him.

I have no idea what his defense to the failure to yield charge might be - he obviously failed to yield and that's why he got hit.

I think it would be a BIG mistake to report the Police Officer for inappropriate conduct (or whatever you are considering). Maybe she was more badly injured, maybe she was more shaken up, I don't know. If you do report the Police Officer and it is determined that your "report" is unfounded he can turn around and sue you.

I don't advise it.

Yes we got her info and no the police officer said we would not have the report for a week which I feel is a bit excessive for a wait. Insurance claim already filed.


My question to the failure to yield.. how is it a failure when he did stop and look to see anyone then proceeded to go when suddenly he was hit. I am not saying the came out of thin air but he did stop before entering with the belief it was safe to enter.. .

As for the police conduct that's just something else... I digressed when I shouldn't have. I just want to understand the failure to yield more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cangemi

Yes we got her info and no the police officer said we would not have the report for a week which I feel is a bit excessive for a wait. Insurance claim already filed.


My question to the failure to yield .. how is it a failure when he did stop and look to see anyone then proceeded to go when suddenly he was hit. I am not saying the came out of thin air but he did stop before entering with the belief it was safe to enter. ...

As for the police conduct that's just something else... I digressed when I shouldn't have. I just want to understand the failure to yield more.

---

He looked and pulled out. In the investigative business that's called looking but not seeing.

It would appear he pulled out in front of her. What is his explanation for the accident?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cangemi

how is it a failure when he did stop and look to see anyone then proceeded to go when suddenly he was hit.

---

This is actually fairly simple. He pulled out into traffic and was hit. The rules of the road are that any vehicle entering traffic needs to yield to vehicles already in the road. The fact that he was hit is proof he did not exercise due caution. Without knowing the layout and where the other driver came from, its hard to see that he has any defense over the physical facts. Even if it were proven that the other driver was traveling at an excessive rate of speed, its still failure to yield.

By the way, were you with your husband at the time, did you see what he saw before pulling out, or are you just taking his word for it?

Hello c:

I'm a VERY good driver. Yet, sometimes, even when I look, a car appears that I didn't see. IF, perchance, one of those cars had hit me or I them, I could have been guilty of "failure to yield".

I'd LIKE to think that the reason I DON'T have tickets is because I'm VERY observant, and VERY good... But, the TRUTH is, I'm just like your husband - maybe a bit luckier.

excon

I hear this ALL the time - "I looked, no one was on the street, I pulled out and he/she hit me." Well, unless the other car dropped out of the sky...

I also have people say, "I looked right and I looked left and then I pulled out and I got hit from the right." Perhaps you should look right, left, right before you pull out - ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cangemi

...
My question to the failure to yield .. how is it a failure when he did stop and look to see anyone then proceeded to go when suddenly he was hit. I am not saying the came out of thin air but he did stop before entering with the belief it was safe to enter. ...
...

---

He was mistaken, obviously.

Look up the statute making failure to yield a traffic violation and I think that you will find his conduct to be prohibited.

I think you will find that it is still failure to yield whether or not he actually saw it. The other car was there. He didn't yield the right of way to it and his not knowing that it was in fact there is immaterial.

This is very easy,

There is nothing to fight, he is guilty, the officer talking to the women for a while ( heck he could ask her out on a date, it does not change the facts)

Your statement shows he is guilty.
1. he pulled out
2. she hit him.

Thus he did not see her, he missed seeing her when he looked.
If a car pulls out in front of the other car, then they did not yield right of way, that is what the law is and means.


If you can prove by evidence that the other car perhaps was speeding you may take some insurance liability away, but it does not take away the failure to lead.

Also the police officer almost always spends more time with the first witness. They often start the drawing, start filling in more of the blanks.

And if they have the police report ready in a week, that is really fast, many departments take up to two.

The officer turns it in, his Sgt or other supervisor reviews it and approves it. Then normally a traffic supervisor such as a Capt or his clerk will again review it for spelling and other info. Then a clerk types it out and records it formally.

So depending on the speed of the department and the such, a week is fairly fast.

Thank you all for your answers. :)

Personal – I BELIEVE – that there is a difference between – Driving & Traveling (exercising one’s right to travel).



**** moderator FC*** I have deleted the rest of this rant, they went on about everything but the simple facts of traffic law in that area.

I have also given a warning for this person asking them not to answer legal questions they are not qualified to answer

Jason

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycanadian

ALSO, DO NOT use a lawyer. Study the rules & procedures and do this yourself.

Firstly, when you get a lawyer, you are stating that you are either a child or of unsound mind, that is why you have this guy talking for and representing you.

---

This is a law forum. Answers here need to conform to statutory law. Not your totally off the wall ideas about what the law should be.

The law in the OP's case is simple. A vehicle, when entering a road either from a side street or private road/driveway, must yield to any vehicles already in the road. If the driver entering the road gets hit, it is evidence that they did not yield properly. Evidence any traffic court will agree with.

I don't know what the legal system has done to you to but your bad legal advice will not fly here.

Factually speaking, when using a lawyer, is one stating that they are either a child or of unsound mind, to handle their legal affairs? I believe the answer is yes, but if no - then why would one appoint someone else handle their legal affairs. I am not talking about consulting, but being represented - as in taking control by way of 'Power of Attorney'. Please provide your facts as evidence as proof of your position.

These are my free arbitrary opinions & suggests - use with caution and perform your own due diligence. (These mean I am not authorized by law, to make legal determinations, as I am not a member of the Bar.)


Also, please provide the Rules of a Statutory Court - I have the Rules for both Civil & Criminal, but of all the research I have performed - I have not come across said Statutory rules. Of course you has facts as evidence to back up your statements of - conforming to statutory law, correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycanadian

Factually speaking, is this website restricted to Members of the Bar, as they are the only people, authorized by law to make/give legal opinions, determinations, conclusions, advice, etc. and/or quoting statutes/acts?

---

Hello, canadian:

Factually speaking, NO. There's a few of us exconvicts.. Speaking FACTUALLY again, I am NOT precluded by law from offering legal opinions, determinations, conclusions, and/or the ability to quote statute.

If you don't know THAT part of the law, which is really a SIMPLE part of the law, how can anybody trust ANY of what you say?? Of course, the answer is, they can't. So, why don't you go away?

excon

Isn't this the stuff of a discussion thread instead of posting on a legal board?

I see NO help whatsoever to the OP - factually speaking, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycanadian

Factually speaking, when using a lawyer, is one stating that they are either a child or of unsound mind, to handle their legal affairs? I believe the answer is yes, but if no - then why would one appoint someone else handle their legal affairs.

---

No, one engages an attorney because they have spent the time and had the training to deal with the law. While one doesn't need to be an attorney to understand some of the law, The law is a complex field and not everyone is trained or sufficiently knowledgeable to deal with it without legal counsel.

As to people appoint someone to fully handle their affairs, that's a personal decision based on their own knowledge, their trust of the attorney and the time they want to devote to handling their affairs.

In the case of this thread, the law on failure to yield was cited by several respondents. What you posted was your own opinion on how the law should work, which runs counter to the actual law. That's why your posts were wrong and edited.

And, again, I will warn you that promoting your own biased agenda will not be allowed on this site. Unless you can provide answers that conform to statutory law that apply to the question being asked, those answers will be removed.