accident report not admissable in new york

[mathjak107]

just learned a good one.here in new york my sister just went to court for an accident..on a 4 lane road with 2 going and 2 coming someone alongside tried to make a right turn from the left lane hitting her.the guy makes a statement to the police and admitted hitting her.he gave his insurance company a different account and said my sister hit him..soooo they end up in court.we figured this is a lock,we got the police report where he admitted it.then the shocker,the report is not admisable as evidence .the fact is since the cop didnt see it someone admitting they did it carrys no more weight than saying you didnt do it,you talk they write.since its not a sworn statement your free to change it anytime... judge said new york wont accept accident reports because you cant cross examine a report and unless death or serious injury officers cant testify in court.it was a tough case but some pics my sister took narrowly persuaded the judge the guy hit her but it was close for a while.

[mathjak107]

when she asked how it is that one account was given to the police and another to the insurance company the other guy merly said he was shaken and disoriented after the accident,after he got home and calmed down what he had thought happened wasnt what really happened once he examined the details.bingo end of controversy issue....smooth,real smooth......

[TromboneAl]

Surprising, I guess, although there is some logic there.

Was it pictures of the damaged car that helped?

My friend has a funny story of getting a ticket in San Francisco. When the cop asked what happened, friend said "Kinda lost, kinda late." When he tried to fight it in court, the cop quoted him from the report, "Kinda lost, kinda late," and he had to pay the fine.

[mathjak107]

Never forget "i did that?" becomes "i did that!" in court.

[MikeD]

My SIL, a lawyer, sez "Never admit anything."

Mike D.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeD My SIL, a lawyer, sez "Never admit anything." Mike D.

A good guideline in all areas of life. "What, you must be crazy!"

Ha

[ladelfina]

Yeah, funny how people "change their minds".. Relating to an accident I was in, I got served with a lawsuit exactly three years (minus 1 day) after the fact. That was the statute of limitation--3 years. Took the guy 3 years to figure out he was "injured".

Insane guy* in a Volvo broadsides me on the driver's side as I'm making a (permissible) U-turn. Dry, sunny day; 5 p.m. on a Sunday. Impact happened when I was already finishing the turn, in the "oncoming" lane and he hit me right at the level of the front wheel, not in the rear for some strange reason (he was going way too fast).

Some funny/scary things from the whole procedure (I had to go through discovery, but my ins. co. settled before it went to trial):

His "injuries" stemmed from "having hit the brakes so hard."!*
(The Volvo only had a slightly dented front corner and cracked headlight).

His very aggressive, very creepy lawyer attacked every statement I made (of course, that's his job..). I'd taken photos of the huge skid marks (something like 50'-60').
"How do we know the skid marks were made by that car?"
(Uhh.. 'cause I'm an honest person?)*

Then they tried to imply that I was driving without my glasses on..
("No, my glasses flew from my head when your client's car hit me.")

Then they asserted that my recollections weren't worth much since they were 3 years after the fact!! (That takes b*lls!)

Since I was right down the street from the police and fire station, we had three cop cars, an ambulance and two fire trucks show up! The Volvo people didn't claim any injuries, nor did I, and I wish I had a copy of the police report (I threw out all that stuff when I moved) because the cop had the guy down as the "defendant" or the "perpetrator".. some phrasing like that! I don't know what power that would have had in court, but the insurance report had put me in the clear, paid for my (totaled) car, and the accident hadn't gone on my record. Don't know what that would have been worth in court, either.

I wasn't allowed to find out what the settlement was, or even if there was any, since that's apparently the way the no-fault system is set up.

But.. document everything! Get the police or the insurance investigator in on it as quickly as possible, and get names of witnesses (I hadn't). See if they are even willing to give a notarized statement.. you never know when someone will come out of the woodwork like insane Volvo guy*.

*I call him insane Volvo guy 'cause he was screaming and yelling and cursing and charging around like a maniac, to the point where I was afraid to get out of the car. Bystanders had to fend him off!* He was jumping around pretty damn good on his "injured" foot -- Hey! maybe that's what caused the injury!...*

[lets-retire]

Unless the officer saw the crash everything they say is hearsay. Most 'witnesses' start their account with I was picking my finger/ear/toe/nose/whatever and heard a loud screach/crash. That makes them a non-witness.

In just about every crash I've investigated the only people who saw what happened were the people involved.

[ladelfina]

Interesting, lets-retire.. you're probably right..!
What kind of investigations did you do? (Curious!)

More important, what would you recommend that people do if they find themselves involved in an accident?

[I remember now: the cop kept writing that the guy was the "suspect"!]

[lets-retire]

I normally did the initial on scene crash investigation and on rare occasions took measurements and photos. I never was involved in a case where a reconstruction was required. When making a determination of who appears to be at fault, the whole situation is taken into consideration. I almost never put a lot of weight in the statements made by those involved or witnesses, unless both parties agree. Normally they agree about the direction of travel and the final resting spot for the vehicles.

As far as what I would do? If the cars are drivable many states require them to be removed from the road, so that's the first thing. If someone is seriously injured or dead the vehicles, even if operable, should not be moved, measurements and photos will probably be taken. In either situation, if you have a camera take photos of anything relevant, if it is safe. DO NOT put your self at risk, it ain't worth it and you do have auto insurance. When you get out to check on the other driver check for skid marks or anything else that might be important that will later be washed away. Skid marks are good at this point. If you are able to move the vehicles then quickly check to make sure the skid marks stop at the vehicle prior to moving them. You don't need to crawl around under the car or look underneath, just look at the skid marks if they appear to stop under the tire that is normally enough. A speed can be determined by the length of the skid marks.

Obtain a copy of the police report and keep it or the case number until the statutes of limitation is up. In many reports even though I did not take measurements I was able to estimate a distance for skid marks. If the person who caused the accident states they were going 35 and the skid marks are 20 feet long then obviously they were going much faster than they claimed.

The most important thing court is a show, not about finding the truth. The opposing lawyer will attempt to confuse you and make you doubt your story. If anything goes to court do not argue with the lawyers, your lawyer should be doing that. I always tried to make them look stupid if they asked a stupid question. Even had a few judges laugh at the stupidity of the lawyer, for asking the questions. The question about the skid marks, my reply would have been, 'because they stopped at the car's tire." Two people almost never agree what happened, and if they do normally they talked to each other and blended their stories.

[ladelfina]

In my case I didn't think to take pix until the next day (the accident was outside my house!). We moved the cars fairly quickly to clear the road. Sounds like it might be a good idea to keep a disposable camera in the car (but heat may affect the film?). Or a cheapo digital one if you can trust the battery to last a reasonable time.

Thanks for the low-down!!!

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladelfina Sounds like it might be a good idea to keep a disposable camera in the car (but heat may affect the film?). Or a cheapo digital one if you can trust the battery to last a reasonable time.

Absolutely.

Even if the film is baked or the battery is dead, a camera-wielding witness is a powerful deterrent to bad behavior.

If there are no injuries, it also gives you something to do with your hands while you're trying to keep your mouth shut and let the adrenaline shakes subside.

A friend had a collision with a lawyer (a licensed driver's version of hell) who immediately took photos of the witnesses and their license plates as well as the scene & vehicles. He had a lot more cooperation collecting names & phone numbers and the insurance company settled as soon as they saw the prints.

[kathyet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladelfina In my case I didn't think to take pix until the next day (the accident was outside my house!). We moved the cars fairly quickly to clear the road. Sounds like it might be a good idea to keep a disposable camera in the car (but heat may affect the film?). Or a cheapo digital one if you can trust the battery to last a reasonable time. Thanks for the low-down!!!

Most cell phone come with a camera just use that...it doesn't cost anything to take the picture only to send it or download it..you can just store it in case you need it

Kathyet

[free4now]

Great tip about checking whether skid marks end at the car... although I wonder if antilock braking systems which are becoming more prevalent still leave skid marks?