traffic law vs small claims court?

What is the name of your state? New Jersey.

I was involved in an accident some months ago. While I believe that the other driver was at fault, it was ultimately, between errors in the police report and steps taken by the insurance companies, that I was somewhere in the vicinity of 60-80% at fault (according to one insurance company) or completely at fault (according to the other).

A diagram of what happened is at:

mywebpages.comcast.net/king-v/accident/reportsupp3.gif

the only inaccuracy is that the road is curved in the shape of "(" rather than straight as I drew it.

I am vehicle #1, and was hit by vehicle #2.

For full, long drawn out details, see:
mywebpages.comcast.net/king-v/accident/policerpt1.gif
mywebpages.comcast.net/king-v/accident/policerpt2.gif
mywebpages.comcast.net/king-v/accident/reportsupp1.gif
mywebpages.comcast.net/king-v/accident/reportsupp2.gif
mywebpages.comcast.net/king-v/accident/reportsupp3.gif

(in addition, the officer got my address and license plate number wrong, though it's not stated in the report supplements. Also the officer didn't arrive until 20 minutes after the event occurred . . he wasn't at the scene when it happened)

For reference, there is no shoulder on this road. At the point the driver of vehicle#2 hit me, the westbound lane of that road was only 1 lane, and doesn't become 2 lanes on the westbound side until further west (where it's marked "START OF DIVIDING WHITE LINE" Vehicle #2 passed at least 3 or 4 vehicles to their right, while they were stopped in traffic.

Ok, all that's in the past thus far..... I tried to file an "improper passing" ticket against the other driver, but she brought a lawyer. Her lawyer just out and told me the accident was my fault, and the prosecutor, while not saying that, did say that improper passing was not applicable, though careless driving might have been and I probably would've been better off having filed careless driving instead.

Anyway, the long and short of it is that the charge had to be dropped.

BUT . . I was told by the prosecutor, as well as someone else (I don't remember who), that I should take the driver of vehicle #2 to small claims court.

What I don't understand is how/why that works? I can't figure out for the life of me why the law and/or insurance companies seem to think it's my fault. But so far that's the conclusion.

But if it is in fact my fault, as it seems to have been determined, then how can I have a chance in small claims court? I mean, if I do have a good chance to recover damages, I'm all for it.... I'm just confused as to why/how that can possibly work?

Thanks for any clarification you can give.

[abezon]

An insurance company's determnation of fault is not binding on a court and is not even admissible in court. You get to try the whole thing all over again. However, since she has a lawyer, you'll need one too, unless they are not allowed in small claims. Investigate the FAQs for hints on how to prepare.

Thanks! I'll definitely look into the details, but I'm fairly certain that NJ doesn't allow lawyers in small claims.

On the other hand, the police report indicates my fault as well. Is the police report also inadmissable? Or is there a separate set of rules regarding that?

Thanks again.

[abezon]

Unless the officer witnesses the accident, anything in his report is hearsay. You should object & ask the judge not to admit the report because it is hearsay. All the report contains is the officer's opinion as to what happened. Deciding what happened is the judge's job. Just like the insurance company's opinion, it's not admissible or relevant.

[lwpat]

"Unless the officer witnesses the accident, anything in his report is hearsay."

The officer can testify as to what you said and also any other party provided that they are in court. He can also testify as to what he observed, skid marks etc. and his deductions from those observations.

[abezon]

Almost. Hearsay does not include statements made by a "party-opponent". For example, unless the cars were still in contact when the officer arrived, he can't even testify that they collided, unless he's quoting the opposing party. He can't say that car A left skid marks or dents in car B; he has to say that there were fresh skidmarks that had treads matching car A's tires or dents in B that contained paint consistent with car A. He can present facts he observed and things you said that were admissions. He cannot give an opinion as to what caused the accident unless he's qualified as an expert witness in accident reconstruction. (If you admitted fault, you're toast.) You can probably get the actual report barred, since it will contain LOTS of hearsay & conclusions .