[froggy7]

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.

[sideoutshu]

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.

[sideoutshu]

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.

[dumbo22]

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

[nauticalstar420]

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?

[ScottGem]

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.

[smoothy]

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.

[smoothy]

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]

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?

[sideoutshu]

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.

[smoothy]

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.

[sideoutshu]

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".

[smoothy]

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.

[sideoutshu]

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.

[smoothy]

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.

[nauticalstar420]

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.

[sideoutshu]

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.

[sideoutshu]

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/showth...2530#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.

[ScottGem]

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.

[smoothy]

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.