Old Lady Braked For No Reason

[JarMow]

JarMow:
I really envy you. When I make an assertion, I always feel this uncontrollable urge to explain it logically. You, on the other hand, can spew out whatever inane thought you come up with, not back it up with any kind of reasoning, and be completely comfortable with that. Must be nice.

rmet4nzkx:
Oh hell, why bother?

To everyone else, keep the posts coming, so long as you can put some kind of reasoning behind your opinion. And if your reasoning is one of the points I've already countered, spare your fingers the effort of typing it.

There is no need to justify what I said. You are blatantly at fault. Period. There is nothing to "reason" or "justify". You asked for my opinion, and I gave it to you.

 

[seniorjudge]

...Also, I wonder why seniorjudge hasn't weighed in on this yet. I'd like to know his opinion on the matter....

Thank you. The reason I haven't posted anything is because BB answered the question clearly, correctly, legally, and totally in the first response:

If you were a safe distance behind her AND paying attention, you would have had plenty of time to stop. You have no case except for negligence.

 

[ylen13]

frugi you totally right and every single person is wrong. Go ahead and sue, after its over let us what judge told you before dismissing the lawsuit

 

[teflon_jones]

The joke's on Frugie because he's going to get laughed out of court. Nobody here needs to justify anything they've said, the judge will do more than an adequate job of that!

 

[You Are Guilty]

I can't wait for the update after the court date.

 

[The Frugie]

I think most of you are getting too caught up in the term "fault." As I said from the beginning, I'm trying to establish liablity. Not liability in the sense that insurance companies use it, but the kind of liability that's determined in civil court (like say, a cigarette company being liable for a life-long smoker's early death). State and Insurance Co. policies are rigid and predictable. Civil court rulings are neither. And to all of you who are so certain I'll be "laughed out of court," how many times have you heard of someone suing the person they rear-ended?

 

[ylen13]

I think most of you are getting too caught up in the term "fault." As I said from the beginning, I'm trying to establish liablity. Not liability in the sense that insurance companies use it, but the kind of liability that's determined in civil court (like say, a cigarette company being liable for a life-long smoker's early death). State and Insurance Co. policies are rigid and predictable. Civil court rulings are neither. And to all of you who are so certain I'll be "laughed out of court," how many times have you heard of someone suing the person they rear-ended?

rule of thumb, you're guilty if you hit someone from behind. You have to show them doing something wrong. What do you think she did wrong, she can say she thought she saw a cat run thru the lanes so she stopped etc.

 

[stephenk]

"how many times have you heard of someone suing the person they rear-ended?"

I did a 5 day trial in December 2003 defending a client who was hit from behind. The person suing claimed my client backed up into his vehicle and injured him. Defense award against the plaintiff plus the cost bill I submitted for over $3000.


If the lady had stopped because someone ran in front of her, would you still be suing?

 

[The Frugie]

You have to show them doing something wrong. What do you think she did wrong,

I repeat: Cops were directing traffic and were clearly telling us (the cars heading North and South) to proceed. Traffic was flowing smoothly. However, for some reason, the woman in front of me decided that a Go signal was actually a Stop signal, so she did the prudent thing and slammed on brakes (didn't even slow to a stop, just floored the brake pedal), disobeying a police officer's directions. That's what she did wrong. That's what precipitated the accident. That's why I say she's liable.

Also, I just gleaned this nugget from Florida's statutes:

316.074 Obedience to and required traffic control devices.--

(1) The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official traffic control device applicable thereto, placed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, unless otherwise directed by a police officer, subject to the exceptions granted the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle in this chapter.

(6) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318.

So, as it turns out, what she did was unlawful, although the officer who wrote the report didn't realize that. He was under the impression that there's no law against stopping for a green light. But, that's no big deal. What matters is that she did commit a wrong action that caused this accident to happen. Therefore, she is liable.

If the lady had stopped because someone ran in front of her, would you still be suing?

I was about to answer that question until I realized it's not really applicable to my situation. I didn't see when she put hit the brakes because, at that moment, I was paying attention to the cops' directions. In the event that we were driving along (not approaching an intersection) and she braked for what seemed to be no reason (which would in fact be a cat running into the road), I would see it immediately, giving me the parts of a second necessary to brake and not hit her. In that event, there would be no crash and no reason to sue.

 

[ylen13]

I was about to answer that question until I realized it's not really applicable to my situation. I didn't see when she put hit the brakes because, at that moment, I was paying attention to the cops' directions. In the event that we were driving along (not approaching an intersection) and she braked for what seemed to be no reason (which would in fact be a cat running into the road), I would see it immediately, giving me the parts of a second necessary to brake and not hit her. In that event, there would be no crash and no reason to sue.

You should have been paying attention to both the officer and the women. For all you know something ran in front of the car and you didn't see it as you were not paying attention on what car in front of you is doing.

 

[The Frugie]

For all you know something ran in front of the car and you didn't see it as you were not paying attention on what car in front of you is doing.

As I said in the original post, this was a six-lane highway. We were in the left lane. If something ran in front of her from the left, I would've seen it before it even got in front of her, as I was looking leftward (which is where the officer was). Nothing could come from the right, as traffic was moving freely (as it should have been) in the other two lanes. As I said in a previous post, a responsible driver shouldn't focus on one car the entire time. You have to have some knowlege of what's ahead of that car, what's to your sides, what the street signs are telling you, and occasionally, what's behind you. And as a responsible driver you must know when it's a bad time to shift your focus from the car directly ahead of you. Nothing about her driving indicated that she was about to do something crazy (I mean, illegal crazy). Nothing about the road conditions allowed for the possiblity that something might obstruct her car's path. The only thing that could've possibly stopped her was a Stop signal from the officer controlling traffic, which is what I was watching for. In short, all valid factors indicated that this was an appropriate time to shift my gaze from her car. What fouled up the situation was her misconstruing an officer's signal, unwittingly disobeying orders, and obstructing traffic. So, like I said, any responsible driver in my position probably would've hit her also. Disobeying a traffic signal violates the trust other drivers put in you and endangers people and their vehicles. What happened to our cars proves this.

 

[JETX]

As I said in the original post, this was a six-lane highway.

Why are you still here whining and bitching?? You have already been told what you wanted to hear....
"Of course, you are correct and everyone else (no matter how legally experienced) is incorrect.
By all means, go to court. Fight for your rights... and let us know how it comes out. Best of luck to you in your wonderful 'adventure'"

 

[seniorjudge]

Why are you still here whining and bitching?? You have already been told what you wanted to hear....
"Of course, you are correct and everyone else (no matter how legally experienced) is incorrect.
By all means, go to court. Fight for your rights... and let us know how it comes out. Best of luck to you in your wonderful 'adventure'"

JETX, does the term "tempest in a teapot" conjure up any images?

Or, to be Shakespearean, how about Much Ado About Nothing....

 

[teflon_jones]

Geez, some people just don't get it!

Frugie, you were completely at fault and liable and any other word you want to use to describe this. There's no statute you can cite that will say otherwise, including the one above, which has absolutely no bearing on this btw.

I'm done trying to explain this. Go ahead and sue and get ready to lose.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Geez, some people just don't get it!

Frugie, you were completely at fault and liable and any other word you want to use to describe this. There's no statute you can cite that will say otherwise, including the one above, which has absolutely no bearing on this btw.

I'm done trying to explain this. Go ahead and sue and get ready to lose.

And for the dismissed speeding tickek to be re issued now that the superbowl is over, and he better wait until after Spring Break to sue.