I Swerved to Opposite Lane to avoid a child - NYC Summons Issued.... - Page 5

crosvs · #41 08-10-2009, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Your take on my situation based on your relgious views is quite interesting. However, it begs the question of another example - "If a good samaritan endangers his/her life while saving Person A from a burning house, but in doing so is sued by Person A for causing physical harm to Person A. Should the good samaritan simply plead guilty?"

Actually, YES -- if you're rescuing someone and cause them to be WORSE off, you CAN be sued by the very person you were trying to rescue. This is why, sadly, there is in fact a DISincentive to be a good samaritan. Sad, but true.

Classic case law example (sadly, I cannot begin to remember the case name, let alone the citation) -- Ok so there's a guy on the side of the road with a flat tire. Let's call him P. A second guy stops to help him, we will call him D. As D is helping P, a third person -- let's call him 3P, skids out of control on the icy road and strikes D's car, causing D's car to hit P, injuring P. P sues D and WINS!

Now let me address in another response to the subsequent (non-religious) responses to this thread.......

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE; IT MUST NOT BE INTERPRETED OR CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE; AND THIS CORRESPONDENCE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.

Sponsored Links

Tleong · #42 08-10-2009, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crosvs

Actually, YES -- if you're rescuing someone and cause them to be WORSE off, you CAN be sued by the very person you were trying to rescue. This is why, sadly, there is in fact a DISincentive to be a good samaritan. Sad, but true.

Classic case law example (sadly, I cannot begin to remember the case name, let alone the citation) -- Ok so there's a guy on the side of the road with a flat tire. Let's call him P. A second guy stops to help him, we will call him D. As D is helping P, a third person -- let's call him 3P, skids out of control on the icy road and strikes D's car, causing D's car to hit P, injuring P. P sues D and WINS!

Now let me address in another response to the subsequent (non-religious) responses to this thread.......

By worse off... wouldn't "death by fire" be worse off than any possible physical harm?...

crosvs · #43 08-10-2009, 04:42 PM

JCL: it looks like I should make some clarifications.

First, I agree with you -- if the child was indeed still in the road, then it's debatable as to what the reasonable person would have done. First of all, how fast were the cars travelling? What kind of a road was it? Would it have been the normal human reaction to stop on the opposite side of the road rather than swerve back into the correct lane AFTER passing the child? I honestly don't know what I would do, but I can't imagine stopping in the oncoming traffic lane would be my default reaction upon passing the child. I don't know.

Additionally, I erred: ok so the citation wasn't for reckless driving, but rather for simply being in the oncoming lane.

I pulled up the statute:

Quote:

§ 1124. Limitations on overtaking on the left.

No vehicle shall be driven to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless authorized by the provisions of this chapter and unless such left side is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking and passing to be completely made without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle overtaken. In every event the overtaking vehicle must return to an authorized lane of travel as soon as practicable and in the event the passing movement involves the use of a lane authorized for vehicles approaching from the opposite direction, before coming within two hundred feet of any approaching vehicle.

Emphasis added.

Without researching the rest of NY's vehicle code, and going simply by the words of the statute pursuant to which the citation was issued, I do not see anything wrong with what he did.

On the one hand, if he stopped and remained in the oncoming lane, he would be in breach of the statute. On the other hand, returning to his original lane also got him the citation. What was he to do?

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE; IT MUST NOT BE INTERPRETED OR CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE; AND THIS CORRESPONDENCE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.

crosvs · #44 08-10-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

By worse off... wouldn't "death by fire" be worse off than any possible physical harm?...

Yes of course- I was just being thorough, and suggesting that, if he were able to escape the fire on his own, but rescuer still attempted to rescue him, and injured him in the process, then rescuer would be liable.

But you're right: if the guy trapped in the house could have otherwise NOT escaped, then of course rescuer (should be) totally off the hook for any resultant injuries.

Tleong · #45 08-10-2009, 05:03 PM

crosvs - the road itself was a 2 lane city street and both cars (myself and the other one) were traveling 30-35 mph (within the speed limit).

- Going back to the citation, the more I think about it, the more I feel that it is an improper citation given the circumstance. In my personal opinion, it does not adequately describe the violation. I am not familiar with traffic law so I do not have an alternate suggestion.

- I do plan to fight this court, and although I am a good public speaker; I do not believe i can explain this situation in terms of the law, in such a manner that will appeal to the judge.

*I want to thank everybody for their comments, suggestions, and advice.

primetime · #46 08-10-2009, 05:27 PM

Tleong. I fully understand and comprehend what your situation is. Unfortunately the glaring fact that you followed too closely will eventually nail you...Everything else you stated makes perfect sense and shows how you were concerned for the child etc. However all of that would have been avoided had you followed with proper distance. You would have been able to stop with ample space in between you and the car in front, and there would have been no need for evasive maneuvers.

Having said all that I commend you for your quick thinking and concern for the child. but I fear that if you go through the charades with this thing, it might end up costing you more $$ with little success. GL.

Tleong · #47 08-10-2009, 06:54 PM

primetime - thank you for your advice, but I feel that the points would hike my insurance up. I'm not so much worried about the fine, as I am about the insurance.

satzinger · #48 08-11-2009, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viperfreak2

Sounds similar to South Carolina. Reminds me of a story a friend told me:

She got a traffic ticket, and showed up to court. The judge announced loudly "everyone who wants to plead guilty, move to the right side of the room. Everyone who wants to plead not-guilty move to the left" They did as instructed. "Now, everyone on the right, your fine and points will be cut in half, step out and pay the clerk. Everyone on the left, (slams the gavel) GUILTY. Your fines and points are now double, step to the back and pay the clerk!"

That judge (IMHO) is an lazy SOB and does not take his job serious.
But not all of them are like this.
I once had a speeding ticket of 72 in a 35 (on an empty country road).
I took a lawyer, he told me to dress light because I go to jail.
I explained to the judge that the car was new and I wanted to see what it can do. I picked the country road on purpose, because I would not endanger anybody and I haven't had a ticket in 10 years.
The judge studied a few pictures I made from the location. He then smiled and said: "Don't do this anymore". He cut the ticket down to 9 over the limit (regular speeding ticket) and wished me a good day.

I'd say, take a lawyer because that shows the judge that you are serious about this incident, and try to explain in plain English what happened, don’t try to be a smart a$$.

Viperfreak, you as a "believer" should not find pleasure in this. I am not in that church stuff at all anymore, but "god" would do just the opposite.
In your “religion” it is all about "forgiveness", isn't it?

Tleong · #49 08-14-2009, 07:48 PM

*Just an update* - I contacted a traffic lawyer (Terri Kalker) who will charge $250. Unfortunately... there were not many reviews on her services, but then again, I'm not sure if lawyers are rated like restaurants.....

Sponsored Links