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


Expand Messages
  • Rob O'Neill
    I believe
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 1, 2010
      <<The defendant was making a right hand turn out of the parking lot when he
      was rear ended by Arnie. Plaintiff claims he was cut off by Harold.>>

      I believe most jurisdictions require a driver entering a roadway from a
      parking lot to stop and yield to vehicles on the road, proceeding only when
      they can safely complete the turn. If defendant was rear ended by plaintiff
      he did not yield to vehicles on the roadway.

      It would be interesting to know how far from the parking lot entrance the
      accident occurred.

      << The defense expert will testify that the two were drag racing. The expert
      claims the plaintiff was going between 55-63 MPH and states that if Arnie
      was going the speed limit, he could have avoided rear ending Harold,>>

      Sorry, 55-63 MPH aint drag racing (unless you're on a Vespa). "Crotch
      rockets" can very easily and quickly top 140 MPH. On most roadways in my
      area 10-15 MPH above the posted limit is just the normal flow of traffic.
      Even if defense could "prove" plaintiff was traveling at these speeds they
      are far from reckless.

      << There is an independent eye-witness in NY who will testify that the
      plaintiff was going 45 MPH and the defendant was going significantly faster
      than 45 MPH.>>

      I don't understand this. If the defendant was going faster than the
      plaintiff there is no way the plaintiff could have rear ended the defendant.

      Assuming the accident occurred in close proximity to the parking lot
      entrance and the plaintiff had his lights on I feel the defendant was 100%
      at fault.

      Rob O'Neill

      Advanced Research Group, Inc.

      (630) 938-4716 Office

      (630) 768-6561 Mobile

      (630) 982-0692 Fax

      rroneill@... Email

      Florida License A2900189

      Illinois License 117.001361

      Indiana License PI20900496

      Wisconsin License 16695-062

      This e-mail contains confidential information and is intended solely for the
      use of the individual named on this transmission. If you are not the
      intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing
      or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
      strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail
      please destroy this message immediately.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • suesarkis@aol.com
      If the defense refuses to produce Rick claiming ignorance then a motion in limine should be made denying Arnie the opportunity to tetify as to what year,
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 1, 2010
        If the defense refuses to produce Rick claiming ignorance then a "motion in
        limine" should be made denying Arnie the opportunity to tetify as to what
        year, make or model bike Rick was driving. If they were drag racing, I'm
        curious as to what Rick was driving since he was obviously way ahead of
        Arnie. "Might be suspect" is an understatement.

        Any accident scene measurements of distance? Any tire tracks, etc.? What
        was the plaintiff driving?

        The plaintiff's witness from NY is definitely going to hurt their case.
        How could Arnie have rear-ended Harold's vehicle if the vehicle was going

        Did the plaintiff ever mention whether or not Arnie had his headlights on?
        I'm curious as to how he could not have seen him coming.

        Also, a significant amount of time had to have lapsed if Arnie did a direct
        rear-end into the plaintiff. If Arnie was actually cut-off by Harold,
        Arnie should have hit some portion of the left side of the vehicle, not the

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