15816Re: [infoguys-list] belted - Can we just stick to the applicable law please
- Feb 6 10:22 PMBill -
I cannot speak for TODAY but it was quite dispositive in 1967 in that if
the officer wrote you up for having violated a rule of the road, you had to
post bail. I believe it was only $50 if my memory serves me correctly. I
was shocked as the poor driver from Missouri was begging and pleading with
them to leave me alone. He was truly a basket case.
Common sense dictates that the facts determine the verdict regardless of
who is in the rear. That's a no brainer. Having the case dismissed without
my appearance showed, in my opinion, the stupidity of either the law or
the law officer.
However, you mentioned Miami to Jacksonville. I didn't read anything
whereby Amy had specified any cities or, for that matter, any states. She
could have left from Yulee, FL having gone through all of Georgia and South
Carolina heading for Rowland, NC and still not have traveled 350 miles. On
I-95 the speed limits vary from area to area, urban versus rural, etc.
However, I question your statement of, "Any local juror will know that you
better stay in the slow lane at 70MPH on I-95 during the late night hours unless
you want to get run over".
I truly cannot believe that the traffic is that heavy anywhere on I-95 at
TWO A.M. in the morning. What am I missing here ??
By the way, was the I-95 in existence in Miami in 1967? I only recall US
1. Just curious.
In a message dated 2/6/2010 12:40:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
First of all, this was an I-95 collision and 70MPH on I-95 is the speed
you travel in the slow lane, especially between Miami and Jax in the
of the night, which is where this accident occurred. I cannot begin to
imagine why some of our other contributors are making at fault
based upon the Missouri rear-end doctrine.
HELLLLLOOOOOOO . . . I-95 doesn't go anywhere near Missouri.
My diligent search has found no case so much as arguing that a person
should not drive the speed limit in the slow lane here - but I am
aware that all things are different out there in Kookyfornia, Sue.
Nevertheless, this is a Florida case, so we need not be concerned with the
how they do things.
Presumably, this will be a local jury who each possess a drivers license.
Any local juror will know that you better stay in the slow lane at 70MPH
on I-95 during the late night hours unless you want to get run over -
just drivers compensating for the 3-5MPH speeds during rush hour!
Further, having read thru the 197 Florida cases that Lexis spits out using
the search term "Rear-end collision" I can say with certainty that hitting
someone from behind is not dispositive of guilt here in Florida.
For those inclined to actually look at such things as statutes and case
law, I would suggest that the case, _Eppler v. Tarmac Am._
No. SC91066 , SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, 752 So. 2d 592; 2000 Fla. LEXIS
90; 25 Fla. L. Weekly S 133, February 17, 2000, Decided , Rehearing Denied
March 21, 2000. Released for Publication March 21, 2000, is a pretty good
place to start. The quote:
Directed verdict motion properly denied; presumption of negligence by rear
driver was overcome by evidence of a sudden unexpected stop by the forward
driver; allegations of abrupt, arbitrary braking should have gone to jury.
In other words, it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks, or any other
state says - this is a Florida case, and Florida rear-end cases "go to the
jury" on the issue of negligence. While there is a "presumption of
negligence" here, as virtually everywhere else, that presumption is
factual rebuttal (just like everywhere else including Missouri).
Just as I initially said, I would be having a close look at these folks to
see if there is any evidence that they were out there trying to create an
accident for insurance purposes.
BTW, Anyone who believes that the rear-end doctrine in Missouri is
dispositive in Missouri should take a few minutes to read the jury
(MAI 17.16). The case law there, like here, is very clear that a jury can
find for the defendant who hits someone from the rear if the facts support
Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
Naples, FL 34101
(239) 304-1639 V
(239) 304-1640 F
(239) 641-6782 C
In a message dated 2/6/2010 1:54:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
_suesarkis@..._ (mailto:suesarkis@...) writes:
Based on the fact that the road traveled was a 4 lane highway, she is 100%
in the wrong. Regardless of what was happening with the defendant's
vehicle, she had absolutely NO business being in the slow lane when she
was exceeding the speed limit and nowhere near ready to exit. She should
been in lanes 1 or 2 at that speed.
Sarkis Detective Agency
1346 Ethel Street
Glendale, CA 91207-1826
"one Nation under God" and "in GOD we TRUST"
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English,
thank a military veteran
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>