"tbone" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>
> Proof by contradiction: 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.
>
> If it's the principal of the thing, then I'd get a lawyer who knows
> how to deal with this.
>
> tbone

Got to agree with you, you have foolishly generalized about people
foolishly generalizing. Where I live and the three states I drive in
the most, there is no ticket for driving to fast for conditions when
you hit an animal or if an animal hits you. The deer in the scenario
you use would be charged the toll to the furthest toll gate as they
normally don't have a toll ticket.

If you read an earlier post in this thread it was pointed out that a
deer was maybe a way to avoid the long arm of the law. Since it wasn't
said that it was a deer that caused the first car to abruptly stop in
traffic he may not be a good enough liar to make a judge believe it
wasn't his fault.