Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

run over

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    If the defendant wore corrective lenses and wasn t supposed to drive the truck then the accident would not have happened. Pedestrians have the right of way. It
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 10, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      If the defendant wore corrective lenses and wasn't supposed to drive the truck then the accident would not have happened. Pedestrians have the right of way.
      It was a bad judgment call on everyone's part. Perhaps when he blew his horn the victim thought he was letting him go.
      Who does not let the?pedestrian walk, cross or do whatever after the pedestrians wave?
      This was a case of misinterpreted signals
      .

      The very reason a pedestrian can lose their balance is the very reason you let them walk past you and stay away from them.



      The plaintiffs


      In this case, the plaintiffs are Mary, mother and natural guardian of Clem, and
      JL. Green, as guardian of the property of Clem, now 19 years old.




      Clem was 16 as a pedestrian in the parking lot of Joy=s Ministries on December
      15, 2006.? Joy's Ministries was a church and rehabilitation center when
      defendant driver,? Simon, had been a client during the first 8 months of 2006
      for cocaine usage. Clem's grandfather, (Mary's father), Joeseph? was the
      founder.??





      The defendant





      Simon drove his tractor-trailer onto the property, parked and went to have
      lunch. Ten minutes later he left the property.

      He proceeded at a speed under 5 mph in the same direction Clem and Tiny Tim?
      were walking.? He blew his horn 2-3 times. The two pedestrians turned and
      waved.? Simon moved toward the curb.? Tim and Clem continued walking westerly.?
      Tim stepped onto the curb with Clem facing him within an arms length. The truck
      passed them but as it was Clem, who was telling adirty joke to tim, took 1-3
      steps backward lost his balance and fell into the very rear tire of the trailer
      and was knocked face down and run over by the tires.

      ?
      The area of impact was an undetermined distance west of actual impact and just
      over 8 feet from the curb edge where Tim and Clem had been standing.? Clem
      sustained ligament damage to one knee, multiple pelvic fractures, multiple jaw
      fractures, lost several teeth, and had a subarachnoid hemorrhage in the brain.?
      He has seizures now and is controlled with medication. He has undergone
      multiple facial surgeries for the jaw and dental work. The pelvis has healed as
      has the knee.

      ?





      Plaintiffs contend defendant driver was an unqualified truck driver.? He was not
      wearing corrective lenses as required by his driver=s license.? He admits after
      his cab passed Clem and Tim that he took his eyes off of them for five seconds
      to negotiate the left hand turn out of the parking lot.?


      Plaintiffs= trucking expert contends that Simon should not have proceeded past
      Clem
      while he remained on the driving surface, and created a blind spot by
      swerving left and looping right
      *** MESSAGE TRUNCATED ***



      .




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jurydoctor@aol.com
      ... Pedestrian has right of way. Simon is at fault. If I were on the jury I would side with the plaintiff for sure. And with Simon not wearing his glasses, he
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 11, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        :


        Pedestrian has right of way. Simon is at fault. If I were on the jury I would side with the plaintiff for sure. And with Simon not wearing his glasses, he obviously couldn't see them. How dangerous. He should have waited for them to cross the street and then moved forward. Also, does he have a CDL license? It says below that he was not qualified to drive a tractor trailer. What's the deal on that?


















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • suesarkis@aol.com
        Good morning all - For starters, pedestrians do NOT have the right of way on private property. No one was crossing any street but rather were within the
        Message 3 of 3 , Aug 11, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Good morning all -

          For starters, pedestrians do NOT have the right of way on private
          property. No one was crossing any street but rather were within the confines of a
          parking lot. Right of way laws are for highways and intersections, marked
          or otherwise. Each state has their own specifics. Even in FL a pedestrian
          ONLY has the right of way when crossing at marked crosswalks or
          intersections and must yield the right of way to vehicles at all other times. FS
          316.130 (10) That does not mean that commonsense should not be used at all
          times.

          However, I do know that in FL the law specifically says at Section 316.130
          (8), " No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety
          and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is
          impossible for the driver to yield." Although this was an apparent accident,
          and although this was private property and not a highway, it would appear
          that that is precisely what Clem did.

          Simon was not so impaired as stated by the allegation he was not wearing
          his glasses as implied since he DID blow his horn a couple of times which is
          all FL law truly requires.

          Drivers are to exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian.
          That truly is what Simon did. Clem fell or tripped and it was an accident.
          Simon states that there was absolutely nothing he could have done to avoid
          this under the circumstances and Clem's friend who was with him, Tim,
          agreed with Simon.

          Of course he had a driver's license. That speaks for itself.



          Sincerely yours,
          Sue
          ________________________
          Sue Sarkis
          Sarkis Detective Agency

          (est. 1976)
          PI 6564
          _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

          1346 Ethel Street
          Glendale, CA 91207-1826
          818-242-2505


          "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]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.