Car Crash

So, I was cruising through town at about 37 miles mph when I spotted some kids playing roughly 50 yards ahead of me—then a small group broke off from the rest and darted right into the street. I slammed on the brakes, but since I’m driving an old clunker, the braking wasn't exactly even—the car fishtailed to the right and smacked into a tree. No one was seriously hurt, except maybe me, though I'll be fine—I skipped the ER because the cop started talking about medical costs and extra fees, which isn't really the point right now. I blew a 0.00 on the breathalyzer, so this is my first offense and the first time I've ever even been on the radar of the local PD. Now there's a major issue—the police have a witness who "claims" I was driving with my lights off, but the catch is that this witness is some big shot in the department—a Chief or something similar. Meanwhile, I have a witness who was driving behind me saying my tail lights were working perfectly, and even the kids—who the officer says can't testify because they're minors—saw the lights on from the front. It would be pure absurdity to suggest I was driving without lights; the crash happened at 8:50 PM, pitch black out—how would I even see where I was going? Just to be clear, I checked the switch later and it was on, and the lights work fine—so the cop is just full of it.
..
How much could the fine for this be in dollars? Does it matter that it's my first offense, that I'm a college student, that I was sober, and that I declared I'm low on funds?
..

Is it even worth fighting a high-ranking official in the police department?
..
What should I include in my appeal, and is there any chance this case just expires due to the statute of limitations?
..
Can a fine be swapped for a driver's license suspension or community service?
..
In your opinion, will the judge be more lenient or harsher knowing that I'm on a provisional license—it's only valid for two years since I just passed my test six months ago?
..
Could I get out of this by arguing that under the new laws you aren't required to call the police for minor property damage, and since I didn't call them, I should just pay the fee for their arrival? 😕 😢

An interesting tale, to say the least...

Do feel free to reach out once you actually know which specific violation they're citing you for.

I find it somewhat hard to believe there's even a legal infraction involved when you go and slam your car into a tree...

I mean, what’s the big deal? It’s just a ticket, right?

My uncle decided to ram his car straight into a tree. Since the tree was relatively young, he ended up snapping it clean in half.
He had to pay a fine and cover the cost of the tree 😁

What was his fine actually for?

Keith Taylor4 said:What was the fine actually for?

Causing an accident. Under our laws, you can be cited for causing a traffic incident even if you're the only one involved.

Ford Mustang said:What would the fine be for this misdemeanor law violation in dollars? (Does it matter that it’s my first offense, that I’m a college student, that there was no alcohol involved, and that I have no prior record? Also, I mentioned my financial situation is pretty rough.)

It could be a few thousand dollars, but the judge will ultimately decide. You aren't just going to get a ticket in the mail for this; you'll receive a summons to appear before a judge. When you get there, tell them everything. Be honest about why it happened and swear you won't drive an unsafe vehicle onto the road again—because, at the end of the day, the responsibility lies with you for operating a car in that condition. If you remain transparent and don't try to dodge the facts, you might walk away with the minimum fine, especially since no one was injured and you only damaged your own property. If a tree was broken, go buy a sapling, plant it, and show the court a photo proving you made things right.

By the way, a witness can be anyone; their age doesn't matter.

Could someone please point me toward the specific section of the law being referenced? I can't seem to find anything regarding "causing" a traffic accident under the current statutes.

If my memory serves me right—and I’m thinking back to an older version of the legal code—a traffic accident was always tied to a specific misdemeanor. You know, speeding, failing to yield the right of way, driving under the influence...

An accident, by its very definition, can just happen. That's why they call it an accident. Brakes can fail mid-drive, or something else goes wrong, and suddenly everything goes to hell... I heard a story recently about someone whose wheel flew off, causing them to veer into oncoming traffic and result in a collision. There was zero fault on the driver's part...

Imposing a fine of several hundred dollars for a situation like that would be nothing short of excessive...

People love to act like experts and lecture everyone else after they've committed a violation, but in this case, it looks like there isn't even a violation to speak of, so I'll just keep rambling...

goldengull3 said:By the way, anyone can be a witness; being an adult isn't actually a requirement.

Are you sure about that?
It’s got nothing to do with traffic laws, but I'm curious.
My daughters were actually witnesses once when some drunk guy smashed a beer bottle right into their friend's crotch. It completely shattered her front teeth! He was totally wasted and just decided to let go of the bottle mid-stride.
The Piston guy was about 23 at the time and had a massive rap sheet for fighting.
All three girls were only 16 or 17, and all the other witnesses were minors too. They all gave statements to the police, but the Piston guy didn't face any consequences. The cops basically told us right then and there that nobody would be held liable and he couldn't even be sued for the dental work because there weren't any adult witnesses available.

I was chatting with an attorney in NYC who specializes in car accidents, and they mentioned that when you're facing a judge regarding a misdemeanor law, you should never claim the vehicle was faulty. It’s on the driver to ensure everything is running perfectly.
The best way to frame it is as a "temporary lapse." You know, just one of those days where everything goes wrong—maybe it was sweltering, humid, or pouring rain... just a total mess. Or maybe your blood pressure spiked and then plummeted, leaving you feeling dizzy, or the kids were being wild near the street... honestly, at the end of the day, it's just a tree that got hit. I don't even feel bad about the car; metal can be replaced, but thank God the kids are safe and sound.

Nobody gets anything.
You pay your dues, and if you can't afford it, you take your chances with jail.
As long as you're okay and nobody else got hurt, that's what matters.
😉 👍

Keith Taylor4 said:Accidents, by their very definition, just happen. That’s why we call them accidents. Brakes can fail mid-drive, and suddenly everything goes sideways... I heard a story recently about someone whose wheel flew off entirely, sending the car careening into oncoming traffic. A total collision. No fault of the driver involved.

If there's truly no negligence or oversight—meaning the vehicle was mechanically sound—then the cause is purely external. It's bad luck. In those instances, there shouldn't be any penalty.

However, what we are actually looking at here is a loss of vehicle control. Either the car had a mechanical failure, or the driver was simply speeding.

All in all, it’s not even worth a couple thousand bucks

jadesailor14 said:Are you certain?

Of course. A witness can be anyone capable of testifying to the facts they have personally observed; that is one of the most fundamental principles taught in any American law school.

To be blunt, let's look at the specifics regarding the misdemeanor law:

Witness examination.

Subpoenaing a witness.

Article 174.

Witnesses are typically summoned based on their likelihood of providing information regarding a misdemeanor law violation, the perpetrator, or other critical circumstances surrounding the incident. It is worth noting that both the victim and the victim acting as a prosecutor may be examined as witnesses. Under the law, any individual summoned as a witness is legally obligated to respond to the summons and, unless otherwise specified by statute, is required to testify.

A witness is summoned via written notice specifying their full name, the exact time and location of their appearance, the specific misdemeanor law case involved, and a clear designation of their role as a witness. This notice must also include a warning regarding the legal consequences of failing to appear without a valid excuse. In cases involving minors under the age of 16, the summons is issued to their parents or legal guardians. Furthermore, for witnesses who are unable to attend due to advanced age, illness, or severe physical disability, the law allows for testimony to be taken at their residence.

Quincy:

This has nothing to do with traffic, but I've been wondering about it. My daughters were witnesses to a truly senseless act of violence recently. Some drunk individual decided to strike their friend in the groin with a beer bottle. It was nothing short of brutal—the poor girl had all her front teeth shattered. The guy was completely wasted, acting like he just needed to find a place to set the bottle down and happened to hit her instead. Just another mindless incident of someone's bad decisions ruining a life. Piston was about 23 years old at the time, and his record was practically a laundry list of fighting charges. All three of them were only about 16 or 17 at the time, and even the other witnesses involved were minors. They all gave statements to the police, but nothing ever actually happened to the Piston. The officers made it clear right away that nobody was going to be held liable—there wouldn't even be a case filed to force someone to pay for a prosthetics specialist because there weren't any adult witnesses to back it up.

Police officers aren't authorized to make statements like that. It isn't their place to hand out legal advice, and frankly, they haven't been trained for it.

It is quite simple, really.

If a case involves serious bodily injury, the Department of Justice initiates criminal proceedings automatically. However, if the injuries don't meet that threshold, the burden falls on the victim to kickstart the legal process themselves. From there, you have two paths for seeking damages: you can either file a civil claim as an attachment to the perpetrator's criminal trial, or wait until they’ve been formally convicted of the assault and then pursue a standard lawsuit for damages.

If the injuries aren't classified as severe, the victim really ought to have filed a private lawsuit under the relevant misdemeanor law. From there, they could pursue damages—something that can be handled directly within the criminal proceedings or later through a separate civil suit.

Everything you just said will be dictated to you by some mediocre law student, let alone an actual attorney.

There are actually highly developed, specialized methodologies designed specifically for taking testimony from minors and young children, where specially trained experts assist the court to ensure accuracy. If you're interested in digging deeper into this, pick up any standard criminal justice textbook; they almost always include a section on juvenile testimony.

Keith Taylor4 said:All in all, we aren't even looking at a few thousand dollars here.

Look, the important thing is that everyone is physically fine; nobody was hurt, and the only casualty was some old sheet metal, which is really the only metric that matters.

Now, one simply has to show up before the judge and hope for a modicum of common sense. Usually—and I mean usually—they deliver.

And maybe some trees, too. It’d actually be a decent move to plant something new if the old ones have finally given out...

As for being honest before a judge, I suppose I agree, though it seems like people around here are just hardwired to play games with any kind of authority...

Keith Taylor4 said:And maybe some trees. It really would be the right thing to plant something new if the old one cracked...

Regarding being honest before a judge—I agree, though I suspect people from around here have an inherent tendency toward obfuscation whenever they face any kind of authority...

Look, it’s simple. When someone spends their time dodging a delivery, and then wakes up one morning to find two cops hauling them into an interrogation room, a judge is naturally going to view them through a different lens than someone who just cooperates immediately. You know, the type who says, "Yeah, I saw the kids, they swerved hard, hit the tree, totaled my dad's car, and that's that... Oh, and I already planted a new sapling; here are the before and after photos along with the receipt from Home Depot."

I was just wondering about this in general—it’s really not my business, though.
I know people hired an attorney and filed a lawsuit, but after a while, they were told there wouldn't be any movement on it. This whole thing actually happened about two or two and a half years ago.
The girl ended up with four teeth knocked out, some bruising, a torn lip, and a cut inside her mouth that required stitches. I honestly have no clue if the law classifies that as an aggravated assault or something less severe.
It feels almost too convenient (if I'm recounting everything correctly) that legally, you can't really do anything in a situation like this.
My daughters gave their statements to the police in front of a juvenile court judge with their father present, and after that, nobody ever contacted them again.

jadesailor14 said:[**My daughters gave statements to the police before a juvenile court judge**[/B]

The logic here is a bit fuzzy...
either they spoke to the police while their father was present—since they’re minors
—or they appeared in juvenile court, in which case that guy wouldn't have been 23, but rather under 21, according to your account...

zuba said:This just doesn't make sense...
It’s either at the police station with their father present (since they were minors)
or in front of a juvenile court judge, where that guy wouldn't have been 23, but actually younger (under 21)...

Logical or not?
After getting the call, the father drove them to the local precinct && near New York right where everything went down on day xx at yy o'clock. They gave their individual statements there in front of a juvenile judge while he was present. It wasn't in a courtroom, just at the station. They couldn't give statements to the officers who showed up when it first happened because it was Saturday at 8 PM and those judges aren't working then. At least, that's what we were told—that it was a juvenile judge. I don't have the official report to check exactly who took the statement.
LeBron James was already a full 23, plus a little extra.
Would it even change anything if he had been between 18 and 21?

That’s honestly how it happened. I can't really argue about whether the procedure was "correct" since I don't know the first thing about the law! If I ever run into legal trouble myself, I'll just hire a lawyer.

I'm just saying, in this specific case that I know personally, it seems wild that a minor's word isn't being taken seriously. We aren't talking about little kids who are easy to manipulate here; we're talking about someone who's been on the radar for similar nonsense since they were a kid.
In the meantime, they probably knocked someone else out too.