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


Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    as usual excellent questions.. my response is in CAPS, I am not yelling.. just computer illiterate
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 6, 2010
      as usual excellent questions.. my response is in CAPS, I am not yelling.. just computer illiterate

      hat type of a road were they travelling? INTERSTATE I-95 GOES ALL THE WAY UP THE EASTERN STATES OF THE US
      how many lanes? 4
      Road conditions? OK

      I would place Whitney at fault, unfortunately of, and regardless of the fact
      hat Perre was possibly unrestrained, for the following reasons.
      1. Whitney was 100% responsible for the safe operation of her vehicle at
      ll times before and during the collision.
      2. Whitney's failure to maintain responsible control of her vehicle
      i.e. rear ended the Plaintiff) was the proximate cause of
      he collision. Even assuming that the Defendant can prove that the Defendant's
      ehicle was traveling below Highway speeds, this is not a good
      eason to rear end it! The Plaintiff did not lose her obligation to operate with
      due regard" for the safety of other motorists around her, just
      ecause the Defendant was driving slow. If I were the Defendant, I'd simply say
      I was operating at what I felt was a reasonable and safe speed for
      he conditions of the roadway". Who's going to try to argue the fact, that the
      efendant was operating with "extra" care?
      . If the State Law says you don't have to wear a seatbelt, and the
      laintiff is Haitian, what's the Haitian customs/education
      egarding seatbelt usage??? Assuming he had not been in our Country very long,
      e may not have ever been educated to the dangers of not wearing
      . If I were the Plaintiff, I'd argue the Mechanism of Injury (MOI) ! You
      uggest that the MOI is from striking his head on the roof of the
      ehicle, however, I'd argue that his injury was the result of a "Whiplash" type
      otion, resulting from the Plaintiff striking the back of the
      ehicle at a high rate of speed. Consider the forces which occurred here (again
      ssuming somewhat). The KIA Minivan is somewhat wedge shaped on the
      ront end, and the Corolla is somewhat squared on the rear end. Both sit fairly
      equally) low to the ground, so, if the Corolla was traveling slow, and the KIA
      s traveling fast, and the KIA strikes the Corolla, one of two
      hings are likely to happen. Either the KIA's front end is going to under ride
      he rear of the Corolla (lift Corolla off the ground) OR, it's
      imple going to "Q-Ball" it forward and away from the KIA (which post-impact is
      osing speed / energy). Eith
      er way, the occupants of the Corolla were traveling at a given
      peed, and suddenly were struck with substantial force (70 MPH),
      ausing their vehicle to suddenly increase speed. Now, think of your
      ead....it's bobbing around on top of your neck. Your head is
      ery heavy (try picking up someone's head, when they are completely relaxed).
      t's largely unsupported by the neck, so when the Corolla was shoved
      orward violently, the Plaintiff's body was shoved forward (along with the car),
      ut his head (unless very properly supported by a headrest)
      idn't speed up with the rest of the car (unsupported), so now it's whipped
      ackward violently, and most probably sheered off (fractured) the back side of a
      igh C-Spine Vertebra (C1-3) if very high speed difference)
      r (C4-7) if lower speed difference. Unfortunately, in this case, a seatbelt
      ould not have prevented this
      "suggested" MOI. I think you're fighting a losing battle with a
      loading" injury such as from hitting the roof. If' you're going to
      rgue a loading injury vs. a sheering injury, you'd better get some really good
      rauma Surgeon's in there to examine X-rays.
      . Also, I'd argue that despite the fact that my Plaintiff may have been
      nrestrained, but he'd still be walking around today, had the
      efendant not rear ended him for no good reason.
      6. Has an accident investigator/reconstructionist (not routine patrol
      fficer) examined the seatbelts? Were they in use or not? It's
      airly easy to determine if a seatbelt was "loaded" with energy during a
      ollision. Has anyone offered any opinions as to the damage (or
      ack thereof) which would actually determine seatbelt usage? Also, has anyone
      ecovered the CDR Modules (if equipped) on the vehicles to
      etermine speed? Has anyone done crush analysis to determine speed? Tire mark
      nalysis? Does either vehicle show evidence of an under ride by
      he KIA? All of these things need to be determined.

      belted in the back? I'd Look At This Closely
      How do you know she was at fault?

      oes it not seem odd to have the sort of damage you would expect in a head
      n collision consequent to what should have been a minor impact? If they
      ere traveling the legal minimum, the impact should still have been pretty
      inor unless she was speeding dramatically.

      f the passenger was belted, did the belt fail - is there potential third
      arty liability

      f he wasn't belted, and had no obligation to be belted, how do you
      ttribute fault to him? I wouldn't buy that.

      hat other accidents may these people and/or their family members have
      een involved in? Could this be a traveling road show case?

      ould the surrounding environment be consistent with a road show scheme -
      ust over a hill, or around a corner, where a vehicle sitting in your lane
      ould pop up unexpectedly.

      o racist intent here, but it is well documented that there are Haitians
      ho are like gypsies - notorious for setting these things up.

      'd be doing some serious investigative work on this one.

      he is at fault because the law assumes the driver of the rear-ending
      ehicle is at fault.
      That is not to say, that there isn't concurrent causal relationship between
      he actions of the driver Perre was riding in (negligent driving,
      nattentive driving, etc.) and the rear-ending driver, but with the facts
      resented here there is no way to make that determination.
      From what I read here there is no dispute that Perre was injured as a
      esult of the accident, and that there is simply mitigating circumstances
      hether he was belted or not. I am not sure there is a way to definitively
      etermine that the seat belt or lack thereof was the reason for his injury,
      ut there is a proximate causal relationship between at least the female
      river, and possibly the driver of the car Perre is in... but either way,
      ottom line is the collision caused his injury. Had there been no collision
      n Highway 95 between those two vehicles, he would not be injured at this
      oint and as such any way you slice the blame between the drivers, the
      ollision caused the injury either directly or proximately.
      Of course, this is a lay opinion.


      hings that matter:

      :00AM - were the exterior lights on the Corolla working? The middle
      aitian - is he of normal weight or would he have required an extender to get
      he belt across his lap? Was it a lap belt or a 3-point? How tall is he?
      as the car mechanically sound or was it in the right lane because it was
      xperiencing difficulties? Did the car or driver have a history of accident

      as Pierre/Perre alone in the back seat? NOT SURE
      Was he sitting or lying down? NOT SURE
      as he awake or sleeping? NOT SURE

      hen you say "2 am on 12 31 08" do you mean the night before New Year's Eve (YES)
      or 2:00AM ON New Year's Eve?
      Why was Whitney on the road at 2AM with a
      Had she been drinking? NO How long had she been driving without
      rest prior to the accident? NOT SURE
      Was she on a cell phone?
      hings that shouldn't matter:

      hitney's marital status, age, how far she was driving unless she was close
      to her destination and had NOT taken a rest break.

      If the Defendant can prove that the Plaintiff deliberately set up the
      ccident, or otherwise created a situation such that it was unavoidable, the
      act that she rear ended the Plaintiff is no longer dispositive of fault --
      xcept maybe in Kookyfornia . . . anything could be possible there.

      f a car is traveling below the minimum freeway speed, and positioned just
      ver a hill, or just around a corner, it is entirely possible that a rear
      nd collision could be their fault. You are not allowed to set up an
      ccident and then collect.

      imilarly, in a contributory negligence jurisdiction, I deliberately slam
      n my brakes in front of you to make you hit me, it is not your fault. See
      octrine of "Last Clear Chance."


      n Missouri if you rear end someone, even if they are immobile on the
      reeway you are assumed to be at fault.
      The precedent cases were justified by the language of the law regarding
      river licensing that state that
      "The driver is solely responsible to maintain control of their vehicle at
      ll times" this includes being aware of the roadway
      and maintain a safe speed and stopping distance based on terrain, weather
      nd other inclement conditions.
      My brother-in-law was held at fault in this very situation.
      An off topic story. Back in September, 1967 I was staying at the Johnina
      otel in Miami Beach. I was on my way to Flagler Race Track in my rented
      amborghini stopped at a red light. When the light turned green, the hot
      ellow Vette in front of me wound up in my lap as the driver from Missouri
      ad shifted into reverse instead of drive; not an easy feat at that. Anyway,
      olice are there; an ambulance is there for me; off to the hospital I go
      s the driver kept exclaiming my innocence; and, how it was all his fault.

      ast forward to the E.R. and as soon as the x-rays were finished as I had a
      couple broken ribs from the steering wheel, on go the handcuffs and I'm
      uffed to the bed rail. However, within minutes they are removed and I'm
      nformed my bail was made. Now I was really confused. This was WAY pre-cell
      hone and I hadn't called anyone. I didn't give any contact information
      o anyone as they barely got my name and vitals.

      fter my ribs were wrapped and I was given some pain meds, I was free to
      o. I put my clothes back on, grabbed my purse and slowly departed. As I
      as leaving the police officer told me there was a gentleman waiting for me
      nd he walked me over to him. It was a rep from Hertz who had rented the
      ette to the guy from Missouri who hit me. He was nice enough to drive me
      irst to the local police station and then back to the Johnina. I wasn't in
      he mood to go to the track. At the police station I discussed my dilemma
      ith the officer because I was leaving the next day for Barbados and
      ouldn't be back for 6 months.

      e explained how I would warrant but if I kept my nose clean for 3 years I
      ould have nothing to worry about as the warrant would disappear since it
      as only a misdemeanor. That was alright by me. However, upon my return
      o Miami Beach I came to learn that Hertz had actually had an attorney
      ppear for me and the case went away.

      andcuffed because the driver in the rear is always presumed guilty
      egardless of common sense when an honest driver is fessing up !!!!!!! UGH !

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • RanchoAttySvc@aol.com
      In a message dated 2/6/2010 9:05:01 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, Jurydoctor@aol.com writes: Why was Whitney on the road at 2AM with a small child? WHY IS
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 6, 2010
        In a message dated 2/6/2010 9:05:01 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
        Jurydoctor@... writes:

        Why was Whitney on the road at 2AM with a
        small child? WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT? (JUST CURIOUS)

        If he was sick or crying it would be a distraction. Was she trying to
        get help for her child, maybe? Was her mind on the safety of her child?
        Were either Whitney or the child injured?

        Also, you didn't answer as to whether the exterior lights on the Corolla
        were in working condition.

        Possibilities: Haitians were driving slowly because of mechanical
        problems; their flashers (or tail lights) weren't operative. Or Haitians for
        reasons unknown pulled into right lane without signalling and slowed down
        because their exit was coming up.

        How far had Whitney driven of the 350 mile trip? Was she at the beginning
        or at the end? WHY was she making the trip?

        _ "RASCAL" - Your friendly neighborhood Process Server_
        Michele Dawn

        RPS 117 & CA PI 24790
        Rancho Attorney Service of California &
        RASCAL's Research & Location Services
        28465 Old Town Front St #318
        Temecula, CA 92590
        (951) 693-0165
        (Read our blog at _www.rascalprocess.blogspot.com)_
        See our website at _www.ranchoattorneyservice.com_
        MC - Visa - American Express

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • suesarkis@aol.com
        Amy - 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
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 6, 2010
          Amy -

          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 have been
          in lanes 1 or 2 at that speed.

          Sincerely yours,
          Sue Sarkis
          Sarkis Detective Agency

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

          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]
        • Jurydoctor@aol.com
          yup, I-95 was around in 1967 and the speed limit is now 70 MPH BTW, you guys are really good. I like the way you dissect (sp) things. This is my favorite
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 7, 2010
            yup, I-95 was around in 1967

            and the speed limit is now 70 MPH

            BTW, you guys are really good. I like the way you dissect (sp) things.
            This is my favorite yahoogroup!!


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.