Sun Glare

[stanhoc]

What is the name of your state? New Jersey
I am looking for documation on expected driver response to sudden blindness by sun Glare. I have years of driving experience and advise is not being solicited. I need documented references; from similar or associated cases, manuals, State publications, ect.
I will be defending a careless driving citation.
Thanks
stanhoc - [email protected]

 

[Son of Slam]

The proper response to sudden blindness by sun Glare while driving, has always been to put on sunglasses.

 

[JETX]

"I am looking for documation on expected driver response to sudden blindness by sun Glare. "
*** This is a LEGAL forum. If you want information on driver responses, contact the AAA or National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

 

[stanhoc]

The replies are missing an important point in law. Documentation.
In response to Jetx. Stupidly won’t lead to the demise of civilization, and I choose to ignore it. If it would have we would have been gone a long time ago.
In any case I am looking for documentation. I have found some and I am looking for more. I may be lucky and find some unique situation from even you, who is not doing much thinking.

 

[JETX]

What an idiot. Doesn't understand the difference between 'drivers ed' and the law.

 

[stephenk]

there would be no "expected response" that would be a legal requirement for drivers faced with sun glare other than a "reasonable" reaction. Reasonableness depends on the situation.

A common sense response would be to slow down or use your visor or turn your head so the glare is less pronounced, etc.

 

[stanhoc]

Response to StepHank
I asked for documentation and used response, I was thinking of reasonable response. That is all law requires in any action, reasonableness, bound by law. What does a reasonable person do when.....? Common sense is similar to reasonableness and that was my behavior to the situation. I just have to convince a judge, and documentation helps. I did as you suggested and additionally slowed down with caution so as not to skid. I did not turn my head, but shielded my eyes with my hand.
Thanks anyway for responding. But I am still looking for documentation.
Stanhoc

 

[JETX]

"but you have provided no documentation that is useful to me."
*** And you won't get any from this forum. Simply, you are asking in the wrong place for something that is purely subjective.... and doesn't exist.

 

[stanhoc]

Response to Son of Slam
Your legal dissertation is interesting. I do not no what to make of it at this time. Thanks anyway. You gave me nothing that I will use, so I won’t be concerned for any legal restrictions for its use. If you had I would have tried to understand what you were telling me in your dissertation.

 

[ellencee]

[stephenk] "there would be no "expected response" that would be a legal requirement for drivers faced with sun glare other than a "reasonable" reaction. Reasonableness depends on the situation.

A common sense response would be to slow down or use your visor or turn your head so the glare is less pronounced, etc. "

Response to StepHank

stanhoc

My apologies to stephenk, but that was funny!!!! Could it be from sunglare? LOL!!!

EC

 

[stanhoc]

To ellencee

I missed something funny in the thread. Can u respond?
Stanhoc

 

[ellencee]

stanhoc
Yes, I can; and, I can tell you where I think you may find the documentation for which you are searching.

stephenk is (I suppose) stephen K.

Mentally, I used to say his name, step henk, until one day it dawned on me that it was steven, spelled 'stephen', with the initial 'K' at the end.

OK--so, it's dumb humor or maybe only funny to me, but it did make me laugh and for that, I thank you.

Now--on to your request for documentation--stephenk's response led to me to this determination......

If you want documentation, then you need to research case law in your area, searching for case law where 'reasonable action' was successfully used to defend against a wreckless driving charge, and where such a defense was upheld through the appellate court as well. Hopefully, you will find case law that deals with the driver's being suddenly blinded by the sun, or an object flying towards the windshield, or such.

Good luck in your searching and thanks for letting me 'share'.

EC

 

[stanhoc]

ellencee
The humor in the thread went completely over my head, and now I see why. I am wandering but not lost. I have an ego problem. I was charged, appreciate the charge, don’t like the circumstances, appreciate the circumstances, aware of its value both financially and egotistically; and want to, within my rights, plead not guilty, in an arena where everybody pleads guilty for reasons I fully understand. Fear and intimidation. I was looking for documentation, case law being one of them. I said so in my first posting. In my wandering the internet. It is my only useful tool. I wandered into an ellencee located in “my own little corner, in my own little world...” and am delighted.
You are pointing me to case law and I now plan to go there. My resources are the internet, and possibly the local library. Your help to my wandering is appreciated.
Stanhoc [email protected]

 

[ellencee]

stanhoc
I am looking up case law in NJ, wreckless driving offenses, and I realized that I can be of no assistance if I don't know the details of the charges.

If you don't mind, please post how you came to be charged. Did you hit another vehicle? Were there any associated charges, like DUI? Do you have other, recent driving violations for which you were ticketed and received points on your license?

I found some case law regarding swerving to avoid hitting an animal. One of those is tragic; the swerving driver swerved into oncoming traffic and killed a young man. The swerving driver was also DUI.

Thanks!
EC

 

[ellencee]

JETX, stephenk, or any other attorney...

Based on the little info we have, would this case from NJ be an appropriate case from which to cite?

Docket: A5933-96
Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS GARY LUTZ, JR.
Release Date: 16-Mar-1998


Finally, we find merit in defendant's contention that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of careless driving. We agree that the proofs established
essentially that defendant was involved in an accident which happened in the opposite lane of travel. In finding defendant guilty of careless driving, the Law Division judge stated:
The defendant quite clearly operated his vehicle carelessly, failed to exercise appropriate caution in the prevailing circumstances, and endangered both the persons in the other vehicle.
These conclusory remarks, however, were insufficient to establish a careless driving violation.
It appears that both the Municipal Court judge and the Law Division judge applied a res ipsa loquitur analysis in finding defendant guilty of careless driving. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, however, has no application in the determination of careless driving due to the quasi-criminal nature of the proceeding in which the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the offense. See State v. Wenzel, 113 N.J. Super., 215, 216-18 (App. Div. 1971)(the mere fact of an "otherwise unexplained jackknifing" where a tractor-trailer entering a construction area had jackknifed on the wet roadway, crossed into the opposite lane and broadsided another truck fatally injuring the truck's driver, did not establish that the defendant had been driving carelessly.)
The careless driving statute provides:
[a] person who drives a vehicle on a highway carelessly, or without due caution and circumspection, in a manner so as to endanger, or be likely to endanger, a person or property, shall be guilty of careless driving.

[N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.]

Here, other than the accident itself, the State only presented defendant's statement that his vehicle began to slide on the wet highway and continued to do so when he tapped his brakes. Moreover, his apology was not an admission to driving carelessly, but merely a statement that his car had slid on the wet pavement. The State presented no evidence indicating that defendant had been speeding, driving too fast for the wet road conditions, distracted or otherwise driving without due caution and circumspection. Consequently, there was insufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for careless driving, and we reverse that conviction.
We affirm the driving under the influence conviction and sentence under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a) and vacate the stay. We reverse the careless driving conviction under N.J.S.A. 39:4-97 and remand to the Law Division to amend the judgment.

Thanks,
EC