JSO Negligence Sends Woman Flying through Brick Wall

[ChriswUfGator]

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=174198&catid=3

Westside Woman Grateful to Survive Crash With JSO Officer

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- As her truck was airborne, Linda Horne said she remembers still trying to pump the brakes.

But the only thing that would stop her was the brick and glass front of an empty building.

"I knew I was dead, I knew I was dead, but I looked, my airbag had deployed and it popped my seatbelt loose somehow," said Horne.

Horne survived but she wouldn't be walking away from the crash, she couldn't move her leg and later found out she had a fractured knee.

And she said she also started to realize it was a JSO officer's patrol car that had knocked her off the road.

"It was probably the most terrifying thing I've been through in a long, long time."

Horne said she was driving Eastbound on 103rd Street Saturday morning when the officer pulled out from California Avenue to also go East on 103rd.

She said somehow the officer clipped her truck.

Horne said she ramped up the median, going airborne across three lanes and landing halfway into an empty store front.

Our news partner the Florida Times-Union quotes investigators at the scene as confirming the officer violated the right-of-way.

"I just wish people would drive so much more carefully. There's so many accidents out there," said Horne.

Horne said she will need surgery on her knee and she is getting around slowly, but after her crash landing, she's grateful for even that.

We asked JSO about the crash but so far have not heard back.

©2010 First Coast News

And of course the T-U never heard back from JSO, that's only natural when their communications officer got arrested earlier this week for welfare fraud;

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-10-30/story/jacksonville-sheriffs-office-employee-charged-food-stamp-fraud

[Jason]

From what I'm reading, the officer simply made a mistake.  Good thing for the lady that is WAS a plice officer and not some uninsured motirist drunk off their ass.

[Springfielder]

The officer made the mistake of properly failing to yield.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

There's a raised median (i.e. a curb) and a 45 mph speed limit!  How fast was she going to get airborne?

[Shwaz]

I actually saw the accident scene just after it happened on my way to play golf. The truck didn't look that bad really. The building was a decrepit shack and looked like you could crash through that store front with a Barbie jeep.

[Springfielder]

There's a raised median (i.e. a curb) and a 45 mph speed limit!  How fast was she going to get airborne?

That's really irrelevant, since the officer was the one who failed to properly yield and struck her vehicle. The officer is the one at fault, not the victim.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

There's a raised median (i.e. a curb) and a 45 mph speed limit!  How fast was she going to get airborne?

That's really irrelevant, since the officer was the one who failed to properly yield and struck her vehicle. The officer is the one at fault, not the victim.

I'm not assigning faults, just laws of physics.  One vehicle making a 90 deg right-hand turn, clipping another vehicle going 45 mph, causing it to hit a 6" curb and go airborne.......

[ChriswUfGator]

There's a raised median (i.e. a curb) and a 45 mph speed limit!  How fast was she going to get airborne?

That's really irrelevant, since the officer was the one who failed to properly yield and struck her vehicle. The officer is the one at fault, not the victim.

I'm not assigning faults, just laws of physics.  One vehicle making a 90 deg right-hand turn, clipping another vehicle going 45 mph, causing it to hit a 6" curb and go airborne.......

45mph is plenty of speed to get airborne, especially because the woman was driving a truck, that vehicle has a lot of mass, once it hit the curb it was unlikely to just stop at 45mph. And that's irrelevant anyway, as the accident would never have happened if the officer had not improperly violated her right of way.

[Coolyfett]

The officer made the mistake of properly failing to yield.

COPs always jump out like that. My radar tells they are around before I actaully see them. Is this a JSO hate thread?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

45mph is plenty of speed to get airborne, especially because the woman was driving a truck, that vehicle has a lot of mass, once it hit the curb it was unlikely to just stop at 45mph.

What part of this makes sense? 45mph is plenty of speed to get airborne if you drive off of a cliff, but we don't have many of those in J'ville.  A lot of mass = more weight = more likely to stay on the ground.  15" tires (fairly standard), 12" of travel in the shocks (once again, fairly standard) would more likely roll right over a curb and crack a rim -not jettison the vehicle into a low orbit.

And that's irrelevant anyway, as the accident would never have happened if the officer had not improperly violated her right of way.

I can't disagree with this, but how fast could he have possibly been going to make a 90 deg corner?  25-35 mph at the most?

Something doesn't add up.

[Springfielder]

The officer made the mistake of properly failing to yield.

COPs always jump out like that. My radar tells they are around before I actaully see them. Is this a JSO hate thread?

Not as far as I'm concerned; I am not a JSO hater, in fact, I am more of a supporter, but wrong is wrong, and in this situation, the officer was wrong for failing to properly yield.

[Springfielder]

Non-RedNeck Westsider, to be perfectly honest, it doesn't matter the speed of either vehicle, the facts remain: the officer failed to properly yield and struck the womans truck, causing the accident. So unless someone here is trained in accident reconstruction with all of the exact details as gathered by the authorities, speed remains irrelevant and does not change the fact that the officer was at fault.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Non-RedNeck Westsider, to be perfectly honest, it doesn't matter the speed of either vehicle, the facts remain: the officer failed to properly yield and struck the womans truck, causing the accident. So unless someone here is trained in accident reconstruction with all of the exact details as gathered by the authorities, speed remains irrelevant and does not change the fact that the officer was at fault.

Speed is quite relevant, as are other facts that aren't in the story:
Did cop have lights/siren? - Should she have noticed him before he made it to the intersection?
Which side of California Ave was he turning from? - Did he travel across 3 lanes and a median before hitting her?
What time of day did the accident occur? - How was the visiblity?
How fast was she driving? - Why didn't she start slowing before the collision?
Did she get clipped in the front or the back?

Nowhere in the story that I read does it say that the officer is at fault but rather 'violated ROW', but the article did say the lady hit the median and landed halfway in a parking lot.  That tells me, with zero traffic-accident-reconstruction-background, that she was going a lot faster than 45mph.  I will stand by my comments and will be willing to bet that the officer won't be found at fault and the lady will get a too fast for conditions / failure to yeild to emergency vehicle sort of ticket.

[Springfielder]

Speed is quite relevant, as are other facts that aren't in the story:
Did cop have lights/siren? - Should she have noticed him before he made it to the intersection?
Which side of California Ave was he turning from? - Did he travel across 3 lanes and a median before hitting her?
What time of day did the accident occur? - How was the visiblity?
How fast was she driving? - Why didn't she start slowing before the collision?
Did she get clipped in the front or the back?

Nowhere in the story that I read does it say that the officer is at fault but rather 'violated ROW', but the article did say the lady hit the median and landed halfway in a parking lot.  That tells me, with zero traffic-accident-reconstruction-background, that she was going a lot faster than 45mph.  I will stand by my comments and will be willing to bet that the officer won't be found at fault and the lady will get a too fast for conditions / failure to yeild to emergency vehicle sort of ticket.

Hello...violating the right of way, and that's not an indication of fault? Of which is a violation of the traffic code
Visibility: clear
The speed of the car hit does not play into the factor, as she was the one hit while driving legally in a proper lane.
Why should she have slowed down, the officer came out of a side street and clipped her in the rear of the truck. Had she slowed down, he probably would've broad-sided the truck
There's no report that the officer had emergency lights/siren, therefore, there was nothing for her to yield to, she had the right of way.
The officer turned left from southbound California Avenue onto eastbound 103rd. The cruiser clipped the truck which was heading eastbound.

So you can try all you want to shift the blame onto the woman in the truck, but it does not change the facts. I also seriously doubt that the review board will find the officer without fault.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Hello...violating the right of way, and that's not an indication of fault? Of which is a violation of the traffic code
Visibility: clear
The speed of the car hit does not play into the factor, as she was the one hit while driving legally in a proper lane. 
Why should she have slowed down, the officer came out of a side street and clipped her in the rear of the truck. Had she slowed down, he probably would've broad-sided the truck
There's no report that the officer had emergency lights/siren, therefore, there was nothing for her to yield to, she had the right of way.
The officer turned left from southbound California Avenue onto eastbound 103rd. The cruiser clipped the truck which was heading eastbound.

So you can try all you want to shift the blame onto the woman in the truck, but it does not change the facts. I also seriously doubt that the review board will find the officer without fault.

You're making an impassioned argument, while I keep asking relevant questions.  I haven't laid blame either way, but find it highly unlikely that she was paying a whole lot of attention while driving.  I don't know where you're getting your facts, but if he did turn from the direction you said he did, then why didn't she see him coming across 3 lanes of traffic and a median, especially if he had lights or siren on (which we don't know)?  And if she did see him, why couldn't she manuever away from him without flipping the truck?  45 mph is not very fast.  There should have been plenty of time to do something.