Hit and run with no hit?

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

You see, this is exactly the reason why I'm asking my questions. You made it sound like it was the officer who cited you for "hit and run". Now, after pulling teeth, we come to find out that the officer had nothing to do with it. Rather, the report was read by the D.A. and it's THAT office who is charging you!

Real cutesy.

And, why are you finding it so difficult to answer my questions?

Got something to hide? Is that why you left the scene?

But, I guess you'll find out in court - - if you don't already know.

IAAL

 

[CdwJava]

Exactly what statute have you been cited for violating?

If you put the car into a ditch - and there was no damage to anything at all except your car, CVC 20001 - 20003 would not likely apply. Unless ... there was a passenger in the car who might have been injured. Was there anyone else?

On the other hand, could there be damage to the culvert or ditch? I live in a farm country and there are many irrigation systems along the ditches bordering our roads. If a car goes off the road it is very likely they will do SOME damage to something - be it a road sign or an irrigation pump, hose, or berm.

I'm sort of at a loss as to what the charge might be.

Running off the road and into a ditch DOES meet the legal definition of a collision. But what you describe (if true) does not seem to meet the definition of the hit-and-run statutes. Someone saw something in your event that you apparently did not. Perhaps the CHP officer(s) noted damage to something you did not. Have you been able to see the report?

Carl

 

[BelizeBreeze]

But what you describe (if true) does not seem to meet the definition of the hit-and-run statutes.

Now Carl, can you guess at which part of your response above I laughed at???

 

[HomeGuru]

That's funny. I also laughed.

 

[CdwJava]

Now Carl, can you guess at which part of your response above I laughed at???

Hmmm ... the "If true" part?

But ... I'm an optimist ... give 'em their due, I say.

In all honesty, it would not be the first time that the hit-and-run statutes were inappropriately applied. However, I would not suspect that the CHP would make the mistake of fowarding a hit-and-run case that did not meet the definition ... a county sheriff, maybe (as they rarely do traffic here).

And I thought it a nice dodge when the CHP officer said that the DA pressed charges ... of course! The CHP officer forwarded the collision report along with a complaint request and the DA filed the case with the court. So, obviously the officer thought enough to forward the matter upward. If there had been NO indication of a criminal act (aside from simple bad driving), the DA would never have gotten a copy of a simple collision report.

Carl

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Hmmm ... the "If true" part?

Give the man a prize

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Exactly what statute have you been cited for violating?

If you put the car into a ditch - and there was no damage to anything at all except your car, CVC 20001 - 20003 would not likely apply. Unless ... there was a passenger in the car who might have been injured. Was there anyone else?

On the other hand, could there be damage to the culvert or ditch? I live in a farm country and there are many irrigation systems along the ditches bordering our roads. If a car goes off the road it is very likely they will do SOME damage to something - be it a road sign or an irrigation pump, hose, or berm.


MY RESPONSE: Carl, didn't you read how this writer had said, "And there was literally nothing there to hit--no guard rail, no pole, no rock, no stump, no fence, nada."




I'm sort of at a loss as to what the charge might be.

MY RESPONSE: I'm not. The charge, per the D.A., is "hit and run". The only thing that's missing is "why?"



Perhaps the CHP officer(s) noted damage to something you did not.

MY RESPONSE: Gee, do ya think?

 

[thelizzy]

Okay, so maybe you answered this already, but I may have missed whilst skimming over some childish retorts on the poster's part.

If your car ran off the road and had a blown out tire, how did you leave the scene? On foot? You make it sound like there was NOTHING around, so why would you leave on foot? If you left in your car, that seems extremely stupid to me. If you flipped your car and there was a blown tire, how is that driveable? And how do you know there wasn't some sort of damage caused by the flipping that could have, i don't know, caused a gas line to rupture or something?

I smell something fishy.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Okay, so maybe you answered this already, but I may have missed whilst skimming over some childish retorts on the poster's part.

If your car ran off the road and had a blown out tire, how did you leave the scene? On foot? You make it sound like there was NOTHING around, so why would you leave on foot? If you left in your car, that seems extremely stupid to me. If you flipped your car and there was a blown tire, how is that driveable? And how do you know there wasn't some sort of damage caused by the flipping that could have, i don't know, caused a gas line to rupture or something?

I smell something fishy.

My response:

Gee, those, and others, are the $64,000 questions. Perhaps there was some intoxication or other impairment that this idiot didn't want the cops to find out about? Also, what was the length of time between leaving the scene and when our writer was next contacted? Where was that "contact"?

Do you think this little liar will answer all of your, mine and other's questions?

IAAL