Got in a wreck tonight

[onwmed]

Yeah, I thought in had plenty of room, but I guess it wasn't enough. I do like that cam jeep in the classifieds though.

 

[Dave70968]

Res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

Uniform Jury Instructions - Civil - 9.13


In addition to the rules which have been stated with respect to negligence, there are situations in which a jury may, but is not required to, find negligence from the mere fact that the accident occurred.

[Plaintiff] contends that this case involves such a situation, and consequently has the burden of proving each of the two following propositions:

1. That the injury was caused by [(name of the instrumentality)/(description of the act or omission)] which [was/(has been)] under the exclusive control and management of [Defendant].

2. That the event causing the injury to [Plaintiff] was of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence on the part of the person [(in control of the instrumentality)/(responsible for the act or omission)].
​

If you find that each of these propositions is more probably true than not true, then you are permitted, but not required, to find that [Defendant] was negligent.

Negligence is a tort action, which is a civil matter (as your jury instructions properly state). A citation is an accusation of a criminal offense. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that an offense occurred, not to hand out citations and make the defendant prove his innocence. In my situation, the DA got it right and the officer, apparently in response to pressure from his superiors, didn't.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Negligence is a tort action, which is a civil matter (as your jury instructions properly state). A citation is an accusation of a criminal offense. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that an offense occurred, not to hand out citations and make the defendant prove his innocence. In my situation, the DA got it right and the officer, apparently in response to pressure from his superiors, didn't.

I couldn't find the case on the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals or anything that seemed to relate to what you said, but I only spent an hour on my search there. That's why I posted from the Oklahoma Supreme Court since if it exists I'm sure it's somewhat similar.

 

[n8thegr8]

similar thing happened to me, and nobody was cited, but it was in the city (shawnee). maybe it's just an OHP thing?

 

[_CY_]

yup it's tempting to put assXXXX tailgaters into my huge trailer hitch...
but all that would do is cause an accident when tailgater slams on his brakes.... then car following the tailgater slams into the tailgater and/or unsuspecting car(s) behind gets caught in a chain reaction.

the bad part is the tailgater either gets away completely untouched or gets slammed by car behind him... who then gets the ticket not the tailgater that started the entire mess.

this is why I hate tailgaters!!!

Yeah and then that extra distance gets filled by every A-hole that wants to play coy and leap frog traffic at 90mph, or the moron that just HAD to pass you, then slam on their brakes, answer the phone and drop 10mph trapping you behind a loaded truck and another moron on the phone.
I just leave the distance, carry full coverage, and TRY to put tailgaters in my trunk/bed. I have NEVER had an accident, but have avoided LOTS of them. I can say that I have been damned lucky.

 

[FAL guy]

You should have had it towed to a body shop, or a dealership. You are racking up storage fees at the impound lot.

 

[Dave70968]

I couldn't find the case on the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals or anything that seemed to relate to what you said, but I only spent an hour on my search there. That's why I posted from the Oklahoma Supreme Court since if it exists I'm sure it's somewhat similar.

Athey v. Bingham, 823 P.2d 347, 1991 OK 82 (Okla. 1991)

"Thus, the mere fact of a collision does not show a violation of the above cited statutes [§ 11-801, operation in a manner not reasonable or proper], nor such a showing of negligence that an unavoidable accident instruction would be improper"

 

[vvvvvvv]

Athey v. Bingham, 823 P.2d 347, 1991 OK 82 (Okla. 1991)

"Thus, the mere fact of a collision does not show a violation of the above cited statutes [§ 11-801, operation in a manner not reasonable or proper], nor such a showing of negligence that an unavoidable accident instruction would be improper"

So it was a civil case. http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=15131

The case had nothing to do with the citation. It had to do with settling damages between motorists involved in an unavoidable accident.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Instruction No. 10.9
UNAVOIDABLE ACCIDENT

An unavoidable accident is one which occurs without negligence on the part of either party. If you find from the weight of the evidence that the accident was unavoidable, then your verdict should be for [Defendant].

Notes on Use

This Instruction should not be given in most cases, and the general instructions on negligence will be sufficient. Athey v. Bingham, 823 P.2d 347, 350 (Okla. 1991) ("In most negligence cases the instruction clearly should not be given."). In reversing a defense judgment on account of the giving of an unavoidable accident instruction, the Oklahoma Supreme Court emphasized:

Great caution should be exercised in submitting a case to a jury on an unavoidable accident instruction. It should rarely be given. Its use should be restricted to those instances where the evidence indicates the occurrence was caused by unforeseen circumstances or conditions and not by the negligence of either party. In the absence of a showing of some factor over which the parties had no control or could not have predicted, a requested instruction on unavoidable accident should be firmly rejected.​

Ankney v. Hall, 764 P.2d 153, 156 (Okla. 1988). Nevertheless, this Instruction would be appropriate if there was a showing that an accident had been caused by something over which the parties had no control, or could not have predicted, except through the exercise of extraordinary foresight. Id. at 154. A showing of adverse road conditions or a latent mechanical defect in an automobile might warrant the giving of this Instruction. See Athey v. Bingham, 823 P.2d 347, 350 (Okla. 1991) (evidence was sufficient to support the giving of an unavoidable accident instruction).

+++++++++++++++++++++

Also from Athey:

"The fact that a motor vehicle collision occurred does not necessarily raise the presumption that the defendant was following too closely, driving too fast to bring the car to a stop, or driving too fast for highway conditions."

 

[Moosey]

Glad you're still breathing. Your best bet would prob be auto trader or online used car lots.

 

[BoomerShooter]

Damn Scott - I just read this - dude - find a padded room and spend the rest of 2010 in it - 2011 is gonna be great for you - just gotta make it there in 1 piece...