On 11/23/2010 7:42 PM, tbone wrote:
> Just an opinion, as IANAL.
>
> Those who say that the fact that there was an accident proves you were
> not in control of your car are foolishly generalizing. Perhaps in many
> cases, that is true, but not in all cases.

Generalizing, yes. Foolishly, no. It's what is known as a rebuttable
presumption under the law. Just as it is presumed that you have failed
to yield the right of way at a stop intersection if you pull out onto a
through street from a side street controlled by a stop sign. You can
beat that ticket too if you can prove that the car you collided with was
invisible, traveling at 500 miles per hour or, MAYBE, dropped out of the
sky.


> Proof by contradiction:

WTF you talking about, Willis?

> a deer jumps leaps over the center barrier in
> front of your car on the turnpike while you are driving at an
> appropriate speed for the conditions (e.g. traffic, weather) - this
> happened to my brother, BTW - accident, yes; not in control? no.
> Several cops at the scene agreed.

Your brother benefited by the officer's use of discretion. From
experience, it could just have easily gone the other way. Most coppers
have common sense and use it despite what many of us may think. Same
scenario on a two lane, state route with farm fields or woods? If he
gets a ticket for hitting a deer (unlikely unless he has attitude or is
drunk) he'll eat it unless the prosecutor or judge dumps it out of
sympathy. It's the next best thing to an "absolute liability" charge
that you'll find. Absolute liability charge? Think speeding: doesn't
matter if you knew you were speeding, wanted to speed or not. If you
exceed the speed limit you are guilty. End of story.


> If it's the principal of the thing, then I'd get a lawyer who knows
> how to deal with this.

Also get a lawyer who knows that it's the principle of the thing. If
he's going to argue about principals, he should stick to contract law<g>