question about a ticket

Look,

I'm not going to sit here and try and convince you I'm right or your wrong...I can tell you from the many accidents I've worked and yes some of them involving tractor trailers, I've made that charge, the other party showed up, I was asked why I made my determination the way I did, and they were found guilty. The boundaries of the lane are the boundaries of that lane. Their is implied common sense by what a lane is defined as. You show me in there where it is explicitly says go into another marked lane if need be to make a turn. According to your logic if they need to swing all the way over to the median in an 8 lane intersection this law somehow applies. If you think that you're seriously mistaken. I don't know that he did or did not have his turn signal on. If the driver needed to stop all traffic in the right lane, wait for the on coming traffic to clear the left turn lane to safely make the turn than so be it. Any maneuver you make has to be done in a safe and prudent manner. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Because you are WRONG.

And I'd bet that on a jury trial.

 

Okay I'm so wrong you didn't read the first sentence. I've already proved what the intended interpretation of the law is in a court so I'm pretty sure you'd be on the losing side of your bet.

 

How can your department justify a finding of civilly at fault when you cannot even use accident reports as evidence in a civil trial in SC? Exactly where does your departments finding of fault come in to play?
If they do so, in effect your department injects itself in to virtually all accident/crash civil suits as a defendant, and is a party to virtually all determinations virtually in all litigation? Your department must have a heck of a budget.

So they do, but it doesn't mean anything?

Actually there is no need to know departmental policy on civil matters. If what you are saying is true, the policy violates state law. I would think that any reputable department would attempt to avoid what you are saying your department embraces.

Actually you did. The OP never mentioned any finding of fault for the accident, but in post #5 you stated "but I can tell you since your husband was found to be at fault for the accident". No one but you stated there was a finding of fault.

I was using negatively in the manner that you were taking the posts of some others, which were negative to your posts, and you were negative towards theirs. In other words you seem to believe you can counter the remarks of others, but how dare they not take your word as gospel.
What you stated was "A lot of it boils down to which judge hears the case. I'd plead my case, but expect to pay the fine", which is not what we are discussing. Even a finding of guilty by a judge on a traffic violation does not determine "fault". It can assist in paving the way for a determination of fault but does not determine fault.

Best regards

 

I'm not talking civilly as in a civil suit. I'm talking about the person who violates a traffic law and causes an accident is in fact at fault for the accident. The OP was wondering if they should just pay the fine and if it was legit. She didn't say nor inject anything in her post about being civilly liable So I don't even know why we're discussing that anyways. Officers are commonly called by insurance companies, other peoples attorney's etc when they are preparing for a civil suit. One side or the other will call you to testify. So yes it is possible for you to be brought before a civil court so they understand how you came to your determination. You are not a defendant or prosecution, you are called as a witness. My last post about this will be I hope I gave the OP some useful advice and insight. If the OP thinks they did nothing wrong and acted within all reason, by all means exercise your rights and attempt to prove your innocence. Finally, if a judge does find you guilty of traffic violation it means that yes, you are at fault and caused the accident. We are not trying to determine "fault" as it pertains to a civil matter and I've never claimed such.

 

Such a lucid answer to such a facetious question. I now feel a bit contrite for my sarcasm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I have to disagree with you here based on the statute posted earlier. Sometimes it is not practicable to maintain just one lane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm sorry I took it when you stated " It is the police officers responsibility to determine at that point in time which of the two parties are civilly at fault based upon their training and informed opinion," that you knew what you were stating and meant what you stated.

Certainly, been invited to hundreds of cases.

If you testify that you determined fault or guilt you will receive more than a request to explain how you made the determination.

If you tell a civil jury that you determined fault, all by your lonesome you will very likely become a defendant. If you tell a traffic judge that you already made the determination of guilt...well you now where that will get you.

Best regards

 

I'll allow you all to continue to argue amongst yourselves and play the game of semantics.

 

Well even if one cannot make a right turn without giving up too much of his lane he still has the responsibility to protect his right side. If this cannot be done there are other options, such continuing ahead finding a turn around and come back for a left turn, or making a left turn, find a turn around and come back straight through the intersection.

I have made right turns that were so tight that I had to get the entire tractor and trailer all the way to the left curb and then some, but I knew when I did it there was no other option and that I was placing myself and my rig as well as other traffic in jeopardy. I knew I had better pay attention. When there were other options, I explored those.

Best regards