Old Lady Braked For No Reason

[Let the DJ try]

And you guys wonder why I'm so quick to disregard your opinions. This inanity belongs on Fark, not FreeAdvice. But, what else should I expect from failed/wannabe lawyers?

I'm not listening, not anymore
The more I learn, the more I ignore
I'm not listening, not anymore
The more I hear, the more I ignore
I'm not listening, not anymore, No

Cause You gotta be bigger, and be faster, and be stronger
if your gonna survive any longer
in this lifetime it better be the right time
the first time might be your last time
am I a failure if I got nothing to lose
No, I'm not a failure, I've got something to prove

Chorus:
I'm not listening, not anymore
The more I learn, the more I ignore
I'm not listening, not anymore
The more I hear, the more I ignore, the more I ignore

Cause I've lost my innocence
and I'm a stranger, A life changer
I'm a man thats not afraid of danger
I walk my own path, and blaze my own trail
because I'm not afraid to derail
I won't get in line or be a middle man
so **** you I'll make my own plan
and I got respect and I dont neglect
the people that i really care to protect
am I a failure if I got nothing to lose
No, I'm not a failure, I've got something to prove

Chorus

I told you before, wont listen nomore
I told you before, lets settle the score
I told you before, wont listen nomore
I told you before, lets settle the score

If not me then who?
If not now then when?

Chorus

I told you before, wont listen nomore
I told you before, lets settle the score
I told you before, wont listen nomore
I told you before, lets settle the score

Set it off right now
Blow it up, set it off
**** it up, set it off
Blow it up, Blow it up right now


Papa Roach

 

[Lynx 36]

And you guys wonder why I'm so quick to disregard your opinions. This inanity belongs on Fark, not FreeAdvice. But, what else should I expect from failed/wannabe lawyers?

Look, no one gives a rats ass if you listen to our opinions or not. As far as my credentials I've never listed them but I am a claims adjustor not a lawyer. I make liability calls all day long. You are at fault f/ the accident f/ the reasons explained in my previous postings. I've read your replys and your reasons are irrelevant.

Now, if you say you're not at fault, why hasn't the insurance co. from the car you rear ended paying f/ your claim then? Huh? It's b/c a claims adjustor just like myself told you to go pound salt, that's why. By the way when you and file your lawsuit be ready to see the insurance co. provide the woman free legal counsel f/ her defense. So it will be you against an experienced atty. As no lawyer will take your case, you must go it alone.

You're the type of person myself and my colleagues talked about in the office b/c you're so dense. I wish I could be a fly on the wall and see that stupid expression, on that stupid head, that houses your stupid little brain of yours, when the judge rules against you. Just make sure you keep the drool wiped from your chin when you're in front of the judge. They tend to frown on such things.

Lastly, enjoy your rate increase when your insurance co. pays to have her car fixed as well. It's funny, the insurance co. of the person you rear ended is denying your claim and your own insurance co. isn't even helping you. Shouldn't that tell you something there Cooter? Well enjoy those rate increases and the loss of your filing fees in court. Ya know, some people you just can't reach, no matter what you do.

 

[seniorjudge]

...Just make sure you keep the drool wiped from your chin when you're in front of the judge. They tend to frown on such things....

You ain't just whistlin' Dixie there, pard!

 

[You Are Guilty]

And bonus points for properly using the word "Cooter"!

 

[seniorjudge]

And bonus points for properly using the word "Cooter"!

If Frugie would read other posts on this forum, he would see that the posters in this thread often cannot agree which way is up.

He should then also realize that since EVERYONE on this thread agrees (mirabile dictu!) that he has no defense/no case, that he should pause to consider what we are telling him.

 

[Yuke]

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.

Quote:
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.


Soooo....

Let me get this straight....

When driving through an intersection that has WORKING traffic signals, you look at the traffic signals the entire time you are in the intersection, not at the traffic and cross traffic both infront/behind/beside you???

Tell THAT to the judge in your little courthouse adventure, and see where that gets you. The truly bottom line is that you are responsible to maintain control of your vehicle at all times. PERIOD.

Running into the back of someone, who only has to tell the judge (assuming you make it to a trial in the first place) "I was making sure the officer's hand signals were clearly directed towards me", is your fault.

Let the little old lady tell her story and you will get a "aww, I am so glad you were trying to obey the officer's directions MRS. Smith" response from the judge towards her, and a "EXACTLY what were you doing looking around instead of paying attention to the traffic flow when you came upon this dangerous intersection Mr. Frugie???"

Your logic is flawed b/c you think she is "liable" for you:

A. Not controlling your car
B. Running into the back of her
C. Not paying attention to the traffic around you (notice I said traffic, not officer!)
D. Having a vehicle that you do not know how to operate properly
E. Having her "unlawfully" stop, even though the officer OBVIOUSLY did not find it unlawful: she has no ticket!
F. Thinking that an officer standing in the intersection is a "green light"



Good luck.

Best answer so far. I hope you understand now. I hope you understand that just because the police officer waved you forward, you still had the responsibility to look where you were going. You are at fault because you drove in a manner that made too many false assumptions, including that the old lady would understand the police officer's instructions as well as you did. You are supposed to drive with enough space between you and the car in front of you that allows you stop in time, even when the driver in front of you does not drive according to a police officer's instructions.

 

[ENASNI]

yeah.. but swee... I mean Judge

If Frugie would read other posts on this forum, he would see that the posters in this thread often cannot agree which way is up.

He should then also realize that since EVERYONE on this thread agrees (mirabile dictu!) that he has no defense/no case, that he should pause to consider what we are telling him.

I think one of the traits of JW syndrome is the NPD. Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Diagnostic Criteria

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
6. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
7. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

 

[Starry809]

is there a record of longest forum post/reply yet?
we have GOT to be bordering on it with this one.

I think one of the traits of JW syndrome is the NPD. Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Diagnostic Criteria

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
6. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
7. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

 

[seniorjudge]

I think one of the traits of JW syndrome is the NPD. Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Diagnostic Criteria

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
6. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
7. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

How did you get a hold of my résumé?

 

[The Frugie]

When driving through an intersection that has WORKING traffic signals, you look at the traffic signals the entire time you are in the intersection, not at the traffic and cross traffic both infront/behind/beside you???

That's what makes this case extraordinary. When driving through an intersection with working signals, if you're looking at the signals, you pretty much have no choice but to look at the car directly in front of you. In my case, the signal was to the left. And it's not like I was just staring leftward. It only took me a moment to see if the cop was giving new directions. Unfortunately, it also only took a moment for the other driver to slam on brakes and these moments happened at the same time. I was keenly aware of what traffic was doing. It was moving freely, as was the driver in front of me. She was not slowing down or showing any indications that she would. It was this knowlege of what the others were doing that allowed me to shift my focus to the direction-giver (which is necessary in such a situation).

Your logic is flawed b/c you think she is "liable" for you:

A. Not controlling your car

Controlling your car is obeying traffic laws and directions and following general driving guildelines. I was doing all of those, which is why I was under the speed limit and the state's recommended distance away from her. In fact, had I seen her brake lights the exact moment she applied them, I could've braked without hitting her. But, like I said, at that exact moment I was watching for directions from the officer (a necessary action) and my awareness of the traffic around me indicated that it was an appropriate moment to do so.

B. Running into the back of her

That's right. I'm saying she's liable for me hitting her, just like how if a person fails to yield the right of way and gets hit, its their fault (even insurance co.'s know that).

C. Not paying attention to the traffic around you (notice I said traffic, not officer!)

I had been watching her and traffic, and at the moment I looked at the officer, I knew what traffic was doing and what she was doing. I just didn't know she would go against the officers' directives, and that she'd do it so abruptly. Just like failing to yield the right of way, it's something that people aren't supposed to do, and aren't expected to do.

E. Having her "unlawfully" stop, even though the officer OBVIOUSLY did not find it unlawful: she has no ticket!

By that logic, any notion that I was following too closely or driving carelessly gets blown out of the water, as I wasn't cited for anything either. And another detail: When I asked the officer why she wasn't cited he said, "There's no law against stopping at a green light." Well, turns out there is, he simply wasn't aware of it. And I don't really expect him to either; he's a cop, not a lawyer. He only knows what he's familiar with, like laws against following too closely and careless driving. The fact that he didn't cite me for those more recognized offenses speaks volumes.

F. Thinking that an officer standing in the intersection is a "green light"

No. His signal to proceed is equivalent to a green light.

 

[seniorjudge]

...That's what makes this case extraordinary....

No, this is actually a very common and dull case with an extraordinarily simple answer that BB gave you in the first response.

Hey, folks...let's not feed this guy's ego anymore, okay?

Bye-bye....

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Well, so now you admit, that the officer had CHANGED the signals, as is so often the case, so she was comming to a stop before she had a chance to prodeed through the intersection,
"It only took me a moment to see if the cop was giving new directions. Unfortunately, it also only took a moment for the other driver to slam on brakes and these moments happened at the same time. I was keenly aware of what traffic was doing."
No you were not keenly aware. because you slamed into an elderly lady. Your insurance isn't paying to repair your muscle care becaus eyou don't carry comprehensive and with your driving record it would be too expensive, right?
I wonder what you are going to do when she sues you, remember that if she dies within one year of the accident, YOU could be charged with manslaughter

 

[seniorjudge]

Well, so now you admit, that the officer had CHANGED the signals, as is so often the case, so she was comming to a stop before she had a chance to prodeed through the intersection,
"It only took me a moment to see if the cop was giving new directions. Unfortunately, it also only took a moment for the other driver to slam on brakes and these moments happened at the same time. I was keenly aware of what traffic was doing."
No you were not keenly aware. because you slamed into an elderly lady. Your insurance isn't paying to repair your muscle care becaus eyou don't carry comprehensive and with your driving record it would be too expensive, right?
I wonder what you are going to do when she sues you, remember that if she dies within one year of the accident, YOU could be charged with manslaughter

Hey, folks...let's not feed this guy's ego anymore, okay?

 

[Yuke]

.

Using Frugie's logic, if the car behind Frugie hit him, Frugie would be at fault if that driver, thought Frugie should have been driving faster.

 

[seniorjudge]

Using Frugie's logic, if the car behind Frugie hit him, Frugie would be at fault if that driver, thought Frugie should have been driving faster.

Hey, folks...let's not feed this guy's ego anymore, okay?