I.
Respondent’s driving privilege revocation pursuant to Section § 13953 of the vehicle code has stayed in place as based on the respondent’s driving record (Exhibit #1).
II.
Respondent came before the Department by way of a Traffic Collision Report that was completed by Officer Severing #20845 of the California Highway Patrol on 07/12/2017. Officer indicates the respondent was driving a Dodge Grand Caravan on eastbound interstate 10, in the #1 lane and made unsafe turning movement to the left causing his vehicle to travel in the northeasterly directions. The respondent’s vehicle
…show more content…
Furthermore, following the collision, one of the passenger succumbed to his injuries. The respondent allowed his passengers not wear safety seatbelt and allowed 8 occupants in his vehicle which is designed to only 7 occupants. In addition, more weight is given to the department’s evidence and Officer Severing’s testimony. Officer Severing testified that based on his training and experience the Respondent made an unsafe turning movement to the left and lost his control. There is no damage made or any paint transfer from semi truck to the respondent’s vehicle. Additionally, officer testified that the vehicle is designed for 7 passengers not for 8 passengers. The reason for ejecting the passengers in the back seat is for not wearing a safety seatbelt. Respondent and passengers were not able to identify the semi truck that changed it’s lane to the respondent’s lane. Respondent and his witness testimonies that semi truck went into his lane can not be substantiated , due to lack of independent witness, supporting evidence and conflict statement of the respondent’s witness to the Officer Severing at the scene and at the hearing. The Respondent exercised poor judgment in the operation of a motor vehicle, in a violation of Section 22107 VC (unsafe turning movement) and failing to exercise a reasonable amount of care caused or contributed a fatal traffic collision. The Respondent did not apply the crucial safety measures to avoid a traffic collision which caused loss of life. Therefore cause exist to reimpose the revocation of the driving privilege in the interest of traffic
As pointed out by Meagher JA in Marien v Gardiner it is not possible that the driver could foresee and react to any event that could take place within the area surrounding the vehicle. Therefore, the driver could not have breached his duty of care in any circumstance that an object by chance is to collide with a vehicle on the road.
In a car crash, the more weight there is, the risk of injuries drops (Williams, May Twenty-second, 2015). In most semi truck accidents (about seventy percent of semi truck accidents), when only the semi truck and trailer alone are involved, there are no deaths. But when another vehicle (such as a car, van, or pickup truck ) is involved, about ninety-eight percent of the time there is at least one fatality, which is really low compared to some other means of transportation (such as a train or an airplane) (EJustice, 2012).
This case involves the suspect being arrested for driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages in violation of CVC 23153(a)-DUI.
Statement of Assignment: You have asked me to prepare a legal memorandum on the question of whether our client can gain relief from intentional infliction of emotional distress occurring from witnessing a friend¡¦s child being injured by a vehicle that is out of control due to being driven at a high rate of speed through a school zone. Pursuant to your request, this memo includes an analysis of the relevant state and federal law.
Case Facts: The sheriff’s department in Humboldt County, Nevada, responded to a 911 call that reported an assault. The 911 caller reported witnessing a man assaulting a woman while driving a GMC truck on a local road. The sheriff’s department responded by sending Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove to investigate. The deputy arrived to the reported area and found the truck parked on the side of the road with a man standing next to it. The deputy approached the truck and explained to the man that he was investigating a 911 call. The deputy then asked the man for any identification and the man refused to provide the deputy any form of identification. The deputy asked the man a total of 11 times to provide his identification and refused each time. The deputy then warned the man that he was going to arrest him if he did not comply. The deputy proceeded to arrest the man and later found out the man was named Larry D. Hiibel. He was charged with "willfully resist[ing], delay[ing], or obstruct[ing] a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office" which is a Nevada statute that is referred to as a "stop and identify" statute. Hiibel was convicted of the crime in the Justice Court of Union Township and fined $250. Hiibel then appealed his conviction to the Sixth Judicial District Court, the Supreme Court of Nevada, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
There are numerous facts about this case that will be legally significant. The facts about the accident would include:
The plaintiff’s attorney deposed Timothy Foster, who at the time of the accident was a student at Jacksonville State University in Jacksonville. His story in the deposition was the same as the one he has given me in our conversations. He had been working and was returning to his apartment to pick up a Christmas gift before going home to Georgia for the holiday. He says he was very tired and recalls only seeing a green light and then hitting the plaintiff’s vehicle with his. He never alleged the plaintiff ran a red light, only that he saw a green light as he approached the intersection and proceeded to travel in that direction. The implication was he thinks he may have dosed off. He stated he had never been involved in an accident
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 at approximately 0600 hours, I received a call from Cpl. D. Kuszaj to respond to North Duke Street and Horton Road in reference to a serious injury crash involving a vehicle and a motorcycle. Upon arrival, I was met by Cpl. Kuszaj and Master Officer D. Frey. Master Officer Frey informed me that a motorcyclist traveling north on North Duke Street collided into a Dodge Dakota which was traveling west on North Duke Street leaving the public vehicular area (pva) of 3804 North Duke Street BP Station.
In the civil suit against Firefighter Johnson and the Portage Fire District, the prosecution was charged with providing evidence that negligence by both parties had contributed to the death of Ian Huffman and the attempted homicide of Olivia Duty. Prosecutors allege “Mr. Johnson was driving his personal vehicle as fast as 98 mph on State Rt. 19 on his way to the fire station in Oak Harbor just seconds before he crashed into the rear of Ms. Duty's car at Portage River South Road” (Feehan, 2012, para. 6). The posted speed limit on Portage River South Road was 55 mph at the time of the accident (Curt, 2012). The defense alleges that Firefighter Johnson was using his lights and sirens and that Ian Huffman was not wearing a seatbelt at the...
Every person who has gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle will be involved in some sort of automobile collision at some point in his or her lifetime. Traffic accidents account for over twenty thousand deaths each year and more than ten times as many injuries. There are a number of factors that contribute to these types of collisions, however, new and evolving laws can account for a large portion of successful preventable measures. In order for laws to be changed or added for the purpose of safer roads and highways, lawmakers have to first look at what factors contribute to such unsafe conditions. The top five causes of automobile accidents that cause injury are distracted drivers, driver fatigue, drunk driving, speeding, and aggressive driving. Laws can be proposed to reduce and even eliminate each of these risks.
Paramedics on scene took both passengers of the vehicle to a local hospital for treatment for possible rib fractures, concussion and disorientation. The driver’s head struck the side window, causing a cut. There were several witnesses to this event and three of them made statements to the military police. Both passengers of the vehicle have currently filed suit against the company for compensatory damages. Compensatory damages are intended to provide relief to the affected individuals.
“In the front seat was Gregg, driving, Sarah, in the middle, and Robyn, on the passenger side. In the rear seat was Jeff, behind the driver, Haley, in the middle, and Rachel, on the passenger side. EVERYONE was wearing their SEAT BELTS, as is our family habit. EVERYONE walked away from this accident with only bruises. The only blood was Robyn had small nicks from glass in a couple of places on her right arm and right leg.
I’ve got some questions and would like to go over what happened at the accident.” Officer Daniels had explained what happened at the scene of the accident. Tiffany’s blue sedan was traveling down the I-5 South when a car crossed the center line and hit the guard rail, spinning it around to collide with Tiffany’s car head on. It looked like Tiffany tried to stop and swerve but there was no escaping it.
Before I know it, we’re involved in a car accident. The other driver involved was not paying attention to the traffic signals and failed to stop at a red light. At the rate, we were going and the slippery roads cause Ben to spin out of control as soon as he hit the brakes it was too late. Thank goodness everyone involved were wearing their seatbelt, as it was a habit for me to put it on every time I get in a car.
to six individuals in the parking lot that look as if they are going to start