The Impossible Scene - Another Example of Bias and Corruption in Our Courts

Note: I edited this account on April 27, 2002 to improve its readability. I added a diagram to add clarity to the text. I edited this account again on September 30, 2009 for purpose of providing uniform presentation. I inserted the pictures into the text and removed the clicking instructions to improve readability on Sunday October 25, 2009.

SUBSTITUTIONS: The driver of the 1959 Volkswagen Beetle is Driver 1, and I substituted 'the driver of the Volkswagen' when the traffic collision report and the court transcripts mention a name. The driver of the red and white 1987 Dodge Dakota Pickup Truck is Driver 2. The driver of the motorcycle is Driver 3.

UNDISPUTED FACTS: A traffic accident involving three vehicles occurred on September 3, 1989 at approximately 1745 hrs about 1 hour and 50 minutes before sunset. The undisputed facts are as follows. The driver of a 1959 Volkswagen Beetle (Driver 1) crossed Highway 29 from Maritime Drive west to east. The motorcycle driver (Driver 3) was waiting to make a left hand turn from the east side of Maritime Drive into the southbound lanes of Highway 29. Driver 3 was facing the sun.

The driver of a 1987 Dodge Dakota Pickup Truck (Driver 2) crossed Maritime Drive from Highway 29 south to north in lane 2 (rightmost) and broadsided the right rear fender of the Beetle. This impact caused the rear end of the Beetle to yaw toward the motorcycle.

The left rear fender of the Beetle struck the front wheel of the motorcycle causing it to fall onto its right side knocking Driver 3 off his motorcycle. Stop signs and flashing red signals control traffic on Maritime Drive. Flashing yellow signals controls traffic on Highway 29.

DAMAGES TO THE VEHICLES: Driver 1 reported damage to the right and left rear fenders of his Volkswagen. Driver 3 reported damage to the right fairing (a part covering a component to reduce drag) of his motorcycle. Driver 2 reported damage to the right forth front and the right side of his truck extending to some unknown length.

ITEMS: The grey rectangle represents the Volkswagen (Driver 1). The red rectangle represents the pickup truck (Driver 2). The yellow rectangle represents the motorcycle (Driver 3). The white rectangle represents the vehicle that Driver 2 mentioned in the police report and in the civil hearing. Driver 1 said that a white truck, traveling northbound in lane 1, passed through the intersection without incident.

The causes of initial disputes in the Traffic Collision Report and citation ticket are as follows. The report did not mention the flashing yellow signals that controlled traffic on Highway 29 though the police officer noted that traffic control devices were functioning.

The report stated that the Dodge Dakota Pickup Truck was southbound on Highway 29 and so would have crossed Maritime Drive from Highway 29 from north to south in lane 2. If this were true, the impact of the truck with the Beetle would have caused the Beetle to move south away from the motorcycle. The forward (east to west) motion of the Beetle would have been insufficient to reach the motorcycle standing east on Maritime Drive - a distance more than 70 feet.

The diagram shows that the Dodge Dakota Truck crossed Maritime Drive from Highway 29 from south to north in lane 1. If this were true, the impact of the truck with the Beetle would have caused the Beetle to move north away from the motorcycle. The forward (east to west) motion of the Beetle would have been insufficient to reach the motorcycle standing east on Maritime Drive. The diagram depicted the Beetle striking the motorcycle its right side and that would mean that the motorcycle would have fell onto its left side. That is contrary to what the motorcycle driver said (that his motorcycle fell onto its right side) and the diagram is wrong.

The Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings (C05259), Kimberly V. Tietze, Official Reporter, Allan Smith, Presiding.

"THE COURT: I note on the ticket, the citation which I have a copy of here, that the estimate of speed on the part of the driver of the Volkswagen was 50 miles per hour. Is that your estimate, based upon what you found at the scene?

THE OFFICER: Well, there was no physical evidence. It was all based on statements.

Evidence was given that a flashing red light and a yellow light controlled the intersection.

"THE OFFICER: I don't have a recollection that there is a flashing yellow light. There probably is, if they say there is one.

THE COURT: So you don't deny or don't contest that? Your evidence is not to the contrary?"

THE OFFICER: When I picked up my report today, I did read it over and realized that I had - that in my sketch here I had Driver 2 in the wrong lane. I noted in my narrative that he was in Lane 2, which was where the impact occurred. So, I did make a mistake on the sketch.

THE COURT: So, do I understand this correctly, then, Officer (name deleted), that Driver 1, which was the driver of the Volkswagen would have had to go all the way across the four-lane road and he would have been in Lane 2 on the far side, in other words, the fourth lane over, as he entered the intersection, and his vehicle was struck in the rear?

The Civil Hearing on or about January 1992: The attorneys for Drivers 2 and 3 had the transcript of the hearing in the matter of (C05259). The Civil hearing is described below, Judge F. Paul Dacy presiding.

The driver of the Volkswagen (Driver 1) said he saw a white Ford F100 pass before him. The motorcycle driver (Driver 3) said that he could cross the intersection but he decided to stay because it was a pleasant day. However, Driver 2 had stipulated that he was going to make a left hand turn and was the reason that he had decided to stay.

On the day of the collision, a road signed warned Driver 2 that there is 'CROSS TRAFFIC AHEAD'. As Driver 2 approached the intersection A FLASHING YELLOW TRAFFIC LIGHT warned him of potential danger.

The driver of the Dodge Dakota pickup truck (Driver 2) testified that he was traveling closely and in such a manner that a truck in lane 1 obstructed his view of the intersection. If Driver 2's testimony is true, then he approached and entered the intersection carelessly and without the due caution that the law requires. If his statement is false, Driver 2 lied and he approached and entered the intersection recklessly.

Driver 2 stuck to his story that the Volkswagen spun around nearly 180 degrees. His statement is contrary to the undisputed facts and damages to the right side of his truck.

Driver 2 allegedly told the police officer that the Volkswagen 'darted out into his path'. Driver 2 then testified in this hearing that the Volkswagen was not an attractive car and sputtered and nearly stalled in front of him. The Highway Patrol Officer who arrived at the accident scene first and the police officer who arrived later could not find any skid marks. That fact and Driver 2's inconsistent statements leading to a physically unsupportable conclusion indicates that Driver 2 was inattentive and caused the collision.

The police officer located the collision point at the TAN oval. I located the collision point at the LIGHT BLUE oval. The motorcycle was at the YELLOW oval.

F. Paul Dacy ruled against the Driver 1, the driver of the Volkswagen, concluding that Driver 1 was 100% responsible for the damages. Dacy's ruling was contrary to settled matters of the law. The flashing red and yellow lights are still operating. Now, Maritime Drive is posted with signs that warns drivers that traffic on Highway 29 does not stop.

To view similar topics at this web site, please click here.