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

motorcycle: words in caps are responses to opinions

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    I believe
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      <<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.

      THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT ARNIE TRIED TO AVOID HAROLD. HE HIT THE BACK OF HAROLD'S DRIVER QUARTER PANEL IN THE REAR.



      It would be interesting to know how far from the parking lot entrance the
      accident occurred.
      I WILL TRY AND FIND OUT.. EXCELLENT POINT


      << 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.
      ??!!

      THEREFORE, IS THE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS CREDIBLE?
      HE IS THE ONLY OBSERVER THAT SAYS THE PLAINTIFF WAS GOING THE SPEED LIMIT.

      HOWEVER, DOES IT MATTER IF THE PLAINTIFF WAS GOING THE SPEED LIMIT?



      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.






      ______________________________


      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.


      NO ONE CAN FIND RICK. I THINK THEY NEED AN ACE PI PERSON.....

      Any accident scene measurements of distance? Any tire tracks, etc.? What
      was the plaintiff driving? WILL TRY AND GET THIS INFO.

      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
      faster?

      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.

      YES, ARNIE HAD HIS HEADLIGHT ON (ONE HEADLIGHT FOR A M/C)

      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
      rear-end.

      I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW FAR FROM THE EGRESS OF THE PARKING LOT THE CRASH OCCURED..






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