http://www.news4jax.com/news/24456951/detail.html
QuoteOfficer Responding To Robbery Gets In Wreck
POSTED: Friday, July 30, 2010
UPDATED: 7:28 pm EDT July 30, 2010
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A police officer rushing to a robbery of a bank Friday afternoon was involved in a crash of three vehicles on Herschel Street.
The Florida Bank in Riverside was robbed just after 1 p.m. Officer Gary Ellis was responding to the call in an unmarked sports utility vehicle when police said a woman in another SUV pulled into his path, sending the officer's vehicle into yet another SUV.
None of the drivers were hurt, but the officer was shaken up. Channel 4 was told the woman in the first vehicle was cited for causing the accident.
As for the bank robbery, police were looking for an older man who handed a teller a note and demanded money. Police said the robber was carrying a cane.
The man walked away after the robbery and was still at large as of late Friday afternoon.
Copyright 2010 by News4Jax.com.
This particular cop is a real genius...
So a bank gets robbed and he gets in a 3 car pileup on the way to the call, and the robber gets away. Mind you, he doesn't just escape in a car. Doesn't escape on a motorcycle. He escaped...on his CANE!!!!! Awesome job, officer!
Seriously, that is some SUPERB police work...
A real genius might check the facts of the case before making a statement like that. The poor woman picks the wrong time to violate right-of-way. But it gives you a chance to blame the police for causing a crash. This was no different from the vast majority of traffic crashes and the fault and citation were given to the woman, not the Officer.
Quote from: NotNow on December 23, 2010, 01:07:33 PM
A real genius might check the facts of the case before making a statement like that. The poor woman picks the wrong time to violate right-of-way. But it gives you a chance to blame the police for causing a crash. This was no different from the vast majority of traffic crashes and the fault and citation were given to the woman, not the Officer.
First off, I don't buy the explanation that the other driver was at fault, when the photos of the police car in the article show it was squarely t-boned, meaning the officer was already in front of the other vehicle at a perpendicular angle. It is hard to imagine a scenario where the t-boned car would have had the right of way over the impacting vehicle that was from the appearance of the impact damage proceeding in a straight line. If someone violated the officer's right-of-way, the officer would have hit another car, not been hit in the side. Seriously, think about that one...
And secondly, I doubt most people anticipate a police car will be barreling down Herschel street at a high rate of speed when they make a decision to pull out in traffic. And lastly, the officer was trained to drive under such conditions, the general public is not. He should have reduced his speed if he couldn't navigate the street safely.
This is why the people on this site should be grateful that you two are not Police Officers. Chris makes assumptions about the cause of a traffic crash based on a news article. StephenDare! questions whether an Officer should respond to a bank robbery based on his assignment, not his proximity to the emergency, and both "assume" that the bank robber was dependent on a cane, when the description merely said "carrying a cane".
;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9-8P2AsfmzU#t=60s
Quote from: NotNow on December 23, 2010, 01:26:16 PM
This is why the people on this site should be grateful that you two are not Police Officers. Chris makes assumptions about the cause of a traffic crash based on a news article. StephenDare! questions whether an Officer should respond to a bank robbery based on his assignment, not his proximity to the emergency, and both "assume" that the bank robber was dependent on a cane, when the description merely said "carrying a cane".
;)
Yes, NotNow, "
an older man with a cane" is what the article said, repeating JSO's own press relese.
Sounds like you had a real John Dillinger on your hands there! I can TOTALLY see how you guys let this one get away...
I mean, seriously, doesn't it embarrass you guys at all to have to put out a BOLO because your officer got in a wreck and let an old man with a cane get away? I ought to send this one in to Jay Leno. LMFAO!
Seems like JSO needs to go to driving school...
JSO's Most Wanted:
(http://joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/old_man_with_cane-720867.gif)
So uptowngirl, what's your take on this situation then? Lol
Quote from: NotNow on December 23, 2010, 01:07:33 PM
A real genius might check the facts of the case before making a statement like that. The poor woman picks the wrong time to violate right-of-way. But it gives you a chance to blame the police for causing a crash. This was no different from the vast majority of traffic crashes and the fault and citation were given to the woman, not the Officer.
A real genius also believes that it's the cops that instigate high-speed chases. The criminals fleeing the scene are just caught up in the circustance that the cops start, - I wouldn't have had to flee the scene if that asshole with the blue lights didn't pull-in behind me. Obviously it's the cop's fault everytime they try to stop someone and that person tries to run. ::)
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 23, 2010, 11:04:07 PM
Quote from: NotNow on December 23, 2010, 01:07:33 PM
A real genius might check the facts of the case before making a statement like that. The poor woman picks the wrong time to violate right-of-way. But it gives you a chance to blame the police for causing a crash. This was no different from the vast majority of traffic crashes and the fault and citation were given to the woman, not the Officer.
A real genius also believes that it's the cops that instigate high-speed chases. The criminals fleeing the scene are just caught up in the circustance that the cops start, - I wouldn't have had to flee the scene if that asshole with the blue lights didn't pull-in behind me. Obviously it's the cop's fault everytime they try to stop someone and that person tries to run. ::)
Of course the cops have some responsibility for high speed chases. It is a CHASE after all, which by nature means the cops are CHASING someone, doesn't it? The criminal isn't running from his own reflection in the rearview mirror, is he? My point is simply that the chase itself is generally more dangerous to the public than the criminal they're chasing.
I'm sick of reading news stories about people getting killed by these chases, once it reaches the point where their actions are creating a larger danger than they're preventing, they need to break it off. Like I said in the other thread, cops are sworn to protect public safety, their job isn't to play Terminator and hunt down every traffic violator no matter what, even if that means killing innocent members of the public, their job is to protect the public. They aren't upholding that responsibility when their actions create a greater danger than they are trying to prevent.
Correct me if I'm wrong and misread the following statement from the news report, which stated that the driver of one of the vehicles caused the accident, not the officer. "Officer Gary Ellis was responding to the call in an unmarked sports utility vehicle when police said a woman in another SUV pulled into his path, sending the officer's vehicle into yet another SUV.
None of the drivers were hurt, but the officer was shaken up. Channel 4 was told the woman in the first vehicle was cited for causing the accident."
Oh, and NotNow, WTF does any of that have to do with this thread?
This thread centers on how JSO's bad driving got its officer involved in a 3-car pileup, while the elderly bank robber escaped on his cane. That isn't exactly what I would call a high-speed chase, NotNow. More like a very, very, very, very, low speed chase. Like I said, sounds like you had a real John Dillinger on your hands there, I can totally see how you let this one slip away.
But all is not lost, you may have let the bank robber escape, but at least you still managed to get involved in a 3-car pileup that endangered public safety on the way. Like I said, that is some SUPERB police work!
JSO: Still at Large;
(http://www.clipartguide.com/_named_clipart_images/0511-0905-2016-1540_Old_Man_Walking_with_a_Cane_clipart_image.jpg)
Quote from: Springfielder on December 24, 2010, 07:57:27 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong and misread the following statement from the news report, which stated that the driver of one of the vehicles caused the accident, not the officer. "Officer Gary Ellis was responding to the call in an unmarked sports utility vehicle when police said a woman in another SUV pulled into his path, sending the officer's vehicle into yet another SUV.
None of the drivers were hurt, but the officer was shaken up. Channel 4 was told the woman in the first vehicle was cited for causing the accident."
Well the problem in my mind is that the photos of the damage don't line up with the claim that someone violated the officer's ROW, which sent the vehicle into another vehicle. The officer's car was t-boned at at the passenger door. The officer's story was that someone violated his right-of-way and sent his car into another car, but the damage doesn't reflect that. The damage reflects the officer being hit by another vehicle that was already up to speed and traveling in a straight line.
From the damage it seems clear the officer probably pulled out directly in front of someone, and I suspect they cited the driver for 316.126(1)(a) for failing to yield the right-of-way to a law enforcement vehicle displaying lights and siren, which for the last 3 years has become a catch-all liability shield that guarantees the other driver will always get the ticket when an LEO is involved in a wreck. Which was not the intent of the statute, but that's what it's turned into.
I will try and locate the citation on the clerk's site and see what's up...
I just watched the news video again, the woman that was cited for causing the accident, was reported to have pulled out of a parking spot, striking the officers car, which then caused him to strike another car. Look in the motor vehicle code, those pulling out from a parking spot are to look and proceed with caution, since they would then be entering into the lane of traffic: which has the right of way. The fault is clearly upon the driver who pulled out into traffic, not the officer or the other vehicle.
Well I dunno, call me nuts but I have driven through there once or twice a day for 11 years now (I live in this area) and never had an accident, and I haven't had the benefit of all the professional driving training this officer had. It seems like if you're barrelling through a shopping area with a 30mph speed limit, you'd aniticipate that other people would not expect your speed and drive accordingly. And I read the article, but the damage to the vehicle seems inconsistent doesn't it? The officer's car was struck by a vehicle going much faster than parking space reverse speed.
Under 316.126 you have to admit the other guy gets cited every time an LEO is involved in a wreck. Which is a lot more often than you'd think. The officer could pretty much come sliding through your yard and hit your car in your driveway and some of these guys would still write the ticket for 316.126(1)(a). As long as the LEO had lights/siren on, they automatically have the ROW wherever, whenever, no matter how asinine their driving. It wouldn't irk me so much if that didn't become an excuse later to deny liability, but it does. I don't think the legislature anticipated how that statute would become used when they drafted it. Honestly I kind of roll my eyes every time I see "the other driver was cited for violating the officer's right of way."
Here, so everybody knows what I'm talking about;
Quote316.126 Operation of vehicles and actions of pedestrians on approach of authorized emergency vehicle.â€"
(1)(a) Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle, while en route to meet an existing emergency, the driver of every other vehicle shall, when such emergency vehicle is giving audible signals by siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device, or visible signals by the use of displayed blue or red lights, yield the right-of-way to the emergency vehicle and shall immediately proceed to a position parallel to, and as close as reasonable to the closest edge of the curb of the roadway, clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any law enforcement officer.
This has become a catch-all, under which the other driver always gets the ticket in accidents involving a police vehicle.
The officers' take on it is that they can zoom through a crowded street and, as long as the flashing lights were on then whoever doesn't get out of their way fast enough is at fault for the accident. I'd like to say I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. No common sense involved in this one at all, and if you think I'm kidding watch the news and notice how whenever an accident involves an LEO there is generally a statement that the other driver violated his ROW. Which is ridiculous, since that ROW amounts to anywhere anytime, whether you saw him or not, as long the lights/siren were on.
What if he were coming around a bend? Doesn't matter. What if he were driving through rows of parked cars that barred visibility? Doesn't matter. What if the vehicle was unmarked with dark tinted windows that blocked a clear view of the lights? Doesn't matter. The way this is written is essentially strict liability placed on whoever the LEO hits.
I would put money on this being the citation issued during this Gary Ellis incident. I tried to find it on the clerk's site but you can't search just by date and citation type, I guess I'll have to do a PR request to JSO. It'll go out today and they usually get crash reports out within 2 weeks, so I should have something on this by mid-January.
Some one will be cited just to insure the insurance companies know who to blame and so at least one of them gets off the hook. Otherwise, it sounds like a real accident and no one in particular is really to blame. And everyone, including the officer, sort of is as well.
As far as the bank robber with a cane ... sounds like someone figured out that dressing and acting that way was a good way to escape ... want to bet that once clear of the scene he become a feisty 30 year old with dark hair and no cane?
Quote from: strider on December 24, 2010, 09:12:21 AM
Some one will be cited just to insure the insurance companies know who to blame and so at least one of them gets off the hook. Otherwise, it sounds like a real accident and no one in particular is really to blame. And everyone, including the officer, sort of is as well.
As far as the bank robber with a cane ... sounds like someone figured out that dressing and acting that way was a good way to escape ... want to bet that once clear of the scene he become a feisty 30 year old with dark hair and no cane?
Have to disagree with you on that one.
If an officer decides to zoom through a neighborhood shopping area then shouldn't he anticipate that people may, you know, be out and about? Like I said, I've driven through this area for 11 years and never had an accident, and I haven't had the benefit of all the professional driving training the officer had.
And seems like if the bank robber had really put any thought into his outfit, wouldn't he have bothered to actually disguise himself? Maybe wear a mask? So you're telling me the guy would carry around a cane he doesn't need, but didn't bother to cover up his face? I don't know if it's still up, but the news article had the bank surveillance photo, this guy was not in a disguise. Or does the cane prevent people from identifying his face? Maybe it wasn't really a cane at all, it was a magic wand!
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4830632/2/istockphoto_4830632-hand-holding-a-magic-wand.jpg)
I have to ask does a magic wand qualify as a deadly weapon under 10-20-Life? After all, it does shoot fairy dust!
Hey, they just released a BOLO on the getaway vehicle;
(http://bee-bay.co.uk/files/images/bedknobjackson.preview.jpg)
Maybe we should apply your logic to code enforcement officers as well? I'm sure they never wrongfully cite a property?
Oh and one more thing, JSO's own press release said they were looking for an elderly man with a cane, not a 30 year old man dressed up like an elderly man with a cane. So if they managed to miss such a disguise, wouldn't that still speak to my point about this being some truly superb police work? Lol
316.126 does NOT allow Officers to "zoom through a crowded street". Why do you make such things up? What is your source that the civilian driver always gets cited when involved in an accident with an Officer?
Here is the actual statute language:
Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL View Entire Chapter
316.126Operation of vehicles and actions of pedestrians on approach of authorized emergency vehicle.
â€"
(1)
(a)Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle, while en route to meet an existing emergency, the driver of every other vehicle shall, when such emergency vehicle is giving audible signals by siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device, or visible signals by the use of displayed blue or red lights, yield the right-of-way to the emergency vehicle and shall immediately proceed to a position parallel to, and as close as reasonable to the closest edge of the curb of the roadway, clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any law enforcement officer.
(b)When an authorized emergency vehicle making use of any visual signals is parked or a wrecker displaying amber rotating or flashing lights is performing a recovery or loading on the roadside, the driver of every other vehicle, as soon as it is safe:
1.Shall vacate the lane closest to the emergency vehicle or wrecker when driving on an interstate highway or other highway with two or more lanes traveling in the direction of the emergency vehicle or wrecker, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer. If such movement cannot be safely accomplished, the driver shall reduce speed as provided in subparagraph 2.
2.Shall slow to a speed that is 20 miles per hour less than the posted speed limit when the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour or greater; or travel at 5 miles per hour when the posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour or less, when driving on a two-lane road, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer.
(c)The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall provide an educational awareness campaign informing the motoring public about the Move Over Act. The department shall provide information about the Move Over Act in all newly printed driver’s license educational materials after July 1, 2002.
This section does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.
(2)Every pedestrian using the road right-of-way shall yield the right-of-way until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any police officer.
(3)Any authorized emergency vehicle, when en route to meet an existing emergency, shall warn all other vehicular traffic along the emergency route by an audible signal, siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device or by a visible signal by the use of displayed blue or red lights. While en route to such emergency, the emergency vehicle shall otherwise proceed in a manner consistent with the laws regulating vehicular traffic upon the highways of this state.
(4)Nothing herein contained shall diminish or enlarge any rules of evidence or liability in any case involving the operation of an emergency vehicle.
(5)This section shall not operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.
(6)A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable pursuant to chapter 318 as either a moving violation for infractions of subsection (1) or subsection (3), or as a pedestrian violation for infractions of subsection (2).
History.â€"s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 84-204; s. 122, ch. 99-248; s. 2, ch. 2002-217; s. 2, ch. 2004-20; s. 3, ch. 2009-183.
Contrary to your claims, Officers are found at fault when they do not show "due regard". At JSO, this means slowing or stopping at intersections until you are sure that there is no oncoming traffic among many other practices.
Have you ever actually read this statute? JSO Officers are drilled with it.
Again, police pursuits are much more complicated than can be covered in a forum such as this. JSO Officers receive literally weeks of classroom on the subject, then at least a week of emergency driving, and are drilled on the subject during their field training. ALL Officers are constantly graded and trained in this subject. [/b] [/b]
Quote from: ChriswUfGator
Well I dunno, call me nuts but I have driven through there once or twice a day for 11 years now (I live in this area) and never had an accident, and I haven't had the benefit of all the professional driving training this officer had. It seems like if you're barrelling through a shopping area with a 30mph speed limit, you'd aniticipate that other people would not expect your speed and drive accordingly. And I read the article, but the damage to the vehicle seems inconsistent doesn't it? The officer's car was struck by a vehicle going much faster than parking space reverse speed.
Under 316.126 you have to admit the other guy gets cited every time an LEO is involved in a wreck. Which is a lot more often than you'd think. The officer could pretty much come sliding through your yard and hit your car in your driveway and some of these guys would still write the ticket for 316.126(1)(a). As long as the LEO had lights/siren on, they automatically have the ROW wherever, whenever, no matter how asinine their driving. It wouldn't irk me so much if that didn't become an excuse later to deny liability, but it does. I don't think the legislature anticipated how that statute would become used when they drafted it. Honestly I kind of roll my eyes every time I see "the other driver was cited for violating the officer's right of way."
I would assume that since the officer was responding to a call, that they would've had lights/siren going...the article doesn't state one way or the other. However, it wouldn't really matter, since the person in the traveling lane would have the right of way, over someone pulling out into it. That's fact. Also, there's the move over law, so keep that in mind also.
QuoteStrider: Some one will be cited just to insure the insurance companies know who to blame and so at least one of them gets off the hook. Otherwise, it sounds like a real accident and no one in particular is really to blame. And everyone, including the officer, sort of is as well.
Believe it or not, a citation does not automatically place blame, and it cannot be used in court. In reality, the person 'at fault' is the one who hit the other vehicle, so in this case, the woman pulling out was at fault for hitting the police car...the police car would be at fault for hitting the other car. That's how it works.
So the person in the car that the officer struck, her insurance company will go after the city to collect. The city would then go after the insurance company to collect from the woman that hit the police car.
Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 09:33:56 AM
316.126 does NOT allow Officers to "zoom through a crowded street". Why do you make such things up? What is your source that the civilian driver always gets cited when involved in an accident with an Officer?
Here is the actual statute language:
Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL View Entire Chapter
316.126Operation of vehicles and actions of pedestrians on approach of authorized emergency vehicle.
â€"
(1)
(a)Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle, while en route to meet an existing emergency, the driver of every other vehicle shall, when such emergency vehicle is giving audible signals by siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device, or visible signals by the use of displayed blue or red lights, yield the right-of-way to the emergency vehicle and shall immediately proceed to a position parallel to, and as close as reasonable to the closest edge of the curb of the roadway, clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any law enforcement officer.
(b)When an authorized emergency vehicle making use of any visual signals is parked or a wrecker displaying amber rotating or flashing lights is performing a recovery or loading on the roadside, the driver of every other vehicle, as soon as it is safe:
1.Shall vacate the lane closest to the emergency vehicle or wrecker when driving on an interstate highway or other highway with two or more lanes traveling in the direction of the emergency vehicle or wrecker, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer. If such movement cannot be safely accomplished, the driver shall reduce speed as provided in subparagraph 2.
2.Shall slow to a speed that is 20 miles per hour less than the posted speed limit when the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour or greater; or travel at 5 miles per hour when the posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour or less, when driving on a two-lane road, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer.
(c)The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall provide an educational awareness campaign informing the motoring public about the Move Over Act. The department shall provide information about the Move Over Act in all newly printed driver’s license educational materials after July 1, 2002.
This section does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.
(2)Every pedestrian using the road right-of-way shall yield the right-of-way until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any police officer.
(3)Any authorized emergency vehicle, when en route to meet an existing emergency, shall warn all other vehicular traffic along the emergency route by an audible signal, siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device or by a visible signal by the use of displayed blue or red lights. While en route to such emergency, the emergency vehicle shall otherwise proceed in a manner consistent with the laws regulating vehicular traffic upon the highways of this state.
(4)Nothing herein contained shall diminish or enlarge any rules of evidence or liability in any case involving the operation of an emergency vehicle.
(5)This section shall not operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.
(6)A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable pursuant to chapter 318 as either a moving violation for infractions of subsection (1) or subsection (3), or as a pedestrian violation for infractions of subsection (2).
History.â€"s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 84-204; s. 122, ch. 99-248; s. 2, ch. 2002-217; s. 2, ch. 2004-20; s. 3, ch. 2009-183.
Contrary to your claims, Officers are found at fault when they do not show "due regard". At JSO, this means slowing or stopping at intersections until you are sure that there is no oncoming traffic among many other practices.
Have you ever actually read this statute? JSO Officers are drilled with it.
Again, police pursuits are much more complicated than can be covered in a forum such as this. JSO Officers receive literally weeks of classroom on the subject, then at least a week of emergency driving, and are drilled on the subject during their field training. ALL Officers are constantly graded and trained in this subject.
Thank you for idiotically regurgitating the very same statute that, in some twist of logic that only NotNow could manage, I am totally unfamiliar with yet I actually had already posted earlier in this very same thread! Imagine that! So as usual, NotNow jumps in to serve as a walking talking demonstation of why you should actually read before posting. I guess you're doing your best to lead by example, the old saying didn't say it had to be a good example. But I digress...
Regarding the statute, the portions you highlighted comport with my point exactly. The LEO is automatically presumed to have the ROW at any time his lights/siren are on. Regarding the part about "due care" that's a term of art that I doubt most drivers in traffic court are familiar with, and it certainly doesn't stop you guys from writing citations for this all the time.
I'll tell you what. If you want to really make this into an experiement, I can always send another PR request to JSO today for all citations issued for 316.126(1)(a) in the last 36 months and for the total number of JSO-involved traffic accidents in the last 36 months, and then we can put an actual percentage onto this problem. I'm already requesting the other driver's information and plan on getting her take on this incident. So what say you as to that? I suppose I should forewarn you that, if I go to that kind of trouble, then I'm going to write an article on this statute's misuse by JSO for the front page of MetroJacksonville, and I'm going to credit you for suggesting the idea. So as long as you're onboard I'll send it out today.
Quote from: Springfielder on December 24, 2010, 09:40:12 AM
Believe it or not, a citation does not automatically place blame, and it cannot be used in court. In reality, the person 'at fault' is the one who hit the other vehicle, so in this case, the woman pulling out was at fault for hitting the police car...the police car would be at fault for hitting the other car. That's how it works.
So the person in the car that the officer struck, her insurance company will go after the city to collect. The city would then go after the insurance company to collect from the woman that hit the police car.
That's really not the way it works. The vast majority of accidents are settled directly between insurance companies, and insurers most assuredly do use the fact that a citation was or was not issued as a result of the incident as a basis upon which to determine liability. So the admissibility of the citation is generally a moot point, since 99% of these things never make it to a trial.
Additionally, Florida is a comparative negligence state, meaning that a plaintiff's damage award is reduced by the extent to which they were negligent. When a driver has violated a statute governing their conduct leading to the accident, it creates an automatic rebuttable presumption of negligence upon the driver, which in practice is quite hard to overcome. In this case, the statute grants the ROW to the LEO as long as lights/siren were on, and accordingly any accident victim is going to be presumed negligent so long as those requirements were met.
The citation doesn't have to be admitted into evidence, they will just call the officer to testify his lights/siren were on and the elements of the statute were met, and the driver is then presumed negligent. I assure you a driver's violation of 316.126(1)(a) serves as a defense to liability by creating a presumption of negligence.
Quote from: stephendare on December 24, 2010, 09:37:00 AM
Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 09:33:56 AM
316.126 does NOT allow Officers to "zoom through a crowded street". Why do you make such things up? What is your source that the civilian driver always gets cited when involved in an accident with an Officer?
Here is the actual statute language:
Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL View Entire Chapter
316.126Operation of vehicles and actions of pedestrians on approach of authorized emergency vehicle.
â€"
(1)
(a)Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle, while en route to meet an existing emergency, the driver of every other vehicle shall, when such emergency vehicle is giving audible signals by siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device, or visible signals by the use of displayed blue or red lights, yield the right-of-way to the emergency vehicle and shall immediately proceed to a position parallel to, and as close as reasonable to the closest edge of the curb of the roadway, clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any law enforcement officer.
(b)When an authorized emergency vehicle making use of any visual signals is parked or a wrecker displaying amber rotating or flashing lights is performing a recovery or loading on the roadside, the driver of every other vehicle, as soon as it is safe:
1.Shall vacate the lane closest to the emergency vehicle or wrecker when driving on an interstate highway or other highway with two or more lanes traveling in the direction of the emergency vehicle or wrecker, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer. If such movement cannot be safely accomplished, the driver shall reduce speed as provided in subparagraph 2.
2.Shall slow to a speed that is 20 miles per hour less than the posted speed limit when the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour or greater; or travel at 5 miles per hour when the posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour or less, when driving on a two-lane road, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer.
(c)The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall provide an educational awareness campaign informing the motoring public about the Move Over Act. The department shall provide information about the Move Over Act in all newly printed driver’s license educational materials after July 1, 2002.
This section does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.
(2)Every pedestrian using the road right-of-way shall yield the right-of-way until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any police officer.
(3)Any authorized emergency vehicle, when en route to meet an existing emergency, shall warn all other vehicular traffic along the emergency route by an audible signal, siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device or by a visible signal by the use of displayed blue or red lights. While en route to such emergency, the emergency vehicle shall otherwise proceed in a manner consistent with the laws regulating vehicular traffic upon the highways of this state.
(4)Nothing herein contained shall diminish or enlarge any rules of evidence or liability in any case involving the operation of an emergency vehicle.
(5)This section shall not operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.
(6)A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable pursuant to chapter 318 as either a moving violation for infractions of subsection (1) or subsection (3), or as a pedestrian violation for infractions of subsection (2).
History.â€"s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 84-204; s. 122, ch. 99-248; s. 2, ch. 2002-217; s. 2, ch. 2004-20; s. 3, ch. 2009-183.
Contrary to your claims, Officers are found at fault when they do not show "due regard". At JSO, this means slowing or stopping at intersections until you are sure that there is no oncoming traffic among many other practices.
Have you ever actually read this statute? JSO Officers are drilled with it.
Again, police pursuits are much more complicated than can be covered in a forum such as this. JSO Officers receive literally weeks of classroom on the subject, then at least a week of emergency driving, and are drilled on the subject during their field training. ALL Officers are constantly graded and trained in this subject.
thanks for the info notnow. What would you say are some of the highlights of that training? I see cops running redlights fairly often, is this ok as long as there is no one coming? I believe I saw the aftermath of an accident in which this happened. What would happen to the office in that case?
The "highlights" are impressing the maturity into future Officers of the gravity of emergency driving. Typically, more Officers are killed in traffic crashes than gunfire incidents each year. Real incidents from Jacksonville are reviewed. Legal liabilities are discussed by State Attorney's representatives and they emphasize the liabilty of the Officer. Driving focuses on REAL driving in REAL conditions, not movie stunt driving. Again, I can not cover weeks of training here.
Also in real life, no one knows the danger of irresponsible driving like Police Officers. They see the carnage on an almost daily basis. Young Officers learn to slow down and "get there". Much like the effects of gunfire, or war for soldiers, nothing will teach you like being there.
Officers are subject to the same traffic laws as anyone else. They are allowed to ignore those laws while using "due regard" and utilizing visual and audio alerts to the public when responding to an emergency. That said, many Officers find that "lights and sirens" confuse many people and prefer to drive as fast as possible within the law. Many will stop at a red light, then proceed when safe while doing this. I have done this many times myself in Springfield and DT as I thought it was faster and safer than utilizing lights and sirens. It is, of course, against policy and an Officer would be cited if involved in an accident doing this and would face administrative sanction as well for the violation of policy.
I appreciate the reasonable response. I don't see any reason to respond to silliness.
almost on a daily basis I see idiots that do not pull over or try to race ahead of one of the firetrucks from Station 1 or the Duece. Should the firemen not race to fires?
Quote from: uptowngirl on December 24, 2010, 10:01:39 AM
almost on a daily basis I see idiots that do not pull over or try to race ahead of one of the firetrucks from Station 1 or the Duece. Should the firemen not race to fires?
What does that have to do with anything, exactly?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 09:45:20 AM
Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 09:33:56 AM
316.126 does NOT allow Officers to "zoom through a crowded street". Why do you make such things up? What is your source that the civilian driver always gets cited when involved in an accident with an Officer?
Here is the actual statute language:
Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL View Entire Chapter
316.126Operation of vehicles and actions of pedestrians on approach of authorized emergency vehicle.
â€"
(1)
(a)Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle, while en route to meet an existing emergency, the driver of every other vehicle shall, when such emergency vehicle is giving audible signals by siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device, or visible signals by the use of displayed blue or red lights, yield the right-of-way to the emergency vehicle and shall immediately proceed to a position parallel to, and as close as reasonable to the closest edge of the curb of the roadway, clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any law enforcement officer.
(b)When an authorized emergency vehicle making use of any visual signals is parked or a wrecker displaying amber rotating or flashing lights is performing a recovery or loading on the roadside, the driver of every other vehicle, as soon as it is safe:
1.Shall vacate the lane closest to the emergency vehicle or wrecker when driving on an interstate highway or other highway with two or more lanes traveling in the direction of the emergency vehicle or wrecker, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer. If such movement cannot be safely accomplished, the driver shall reduce speed as provided in subparagraph 2.
2.Shall slow to a speed that is 20 miles per hour less than the posted speed limit when the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour or greater; or travel at 5 miles per hour when the posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour or less, when driving on a two-lane road, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer.
(c)The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall provide an educational awareness campaign informing the motoring public about the Move Over Act. The department shall provide information about the Move Over Act in all newly printed driver’s license educational materials after July 1, 2002.
This section does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.
(2)Every pedestrian using the road right-of-way shall yield the right-of-way until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any police officer.
(3)Any authorized emergency vehicle, when en route to meet an existing emergency, shall warn all other vehicular traffic along the emergency route by an audible signal, siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device or by a visible signal by the use of displayed blue or red lights. While en route to such emergency, the emergency vehicle shall otherwise proceed in a manner consistent with the laws regulating vehicular traffic upon the highways of this state.
(4)Nothing herein contained shall diminish or enlarge any rules of evidence or liability in any case involving the operation of an emergency vehicle.
(5)This section shall not operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.
(6)A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable pursuant to chapter 318 as either a moving violation for infractions of subsection (1) or subsection (3), or as a pedestrian violation for infractions of subsection (2).
History.â€"s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 84-204; s. 122, ch. 99-248; s. 2, ch. 2002-217; s. 2, ch. 2004-20; s. 3, ch. 2009-183.
Contrary to your claims, Officers are found at fault when they do not show "due regard". At JSO, this means slowing or stopping at intersections until you are sure that there is no oncoming traffic among many other practices.
Have you ever actually read this statute? JSO Officers are drilled with it.
Again, police pursuits are much more complicated than can be covered in a forum such as this. JSO Officers receive literally weeks of classroom on the subject, then at least a week of emergency driving, and are drilled on the subject during their field training. ALL Officers are constantly graded and trained in this subject.
Thank you for idiotically regurgitating the very same statute that, in some twist of logic that only NotNow could manage, I am totally unfamiliar with yet I actually had already posted earlier in this very same thread! Imagine that! So as usual, NotNow jumps in to serve as a walking talking demonstation of why you should actually read before posting. I guess you're doing your best to lead by example, the old saying didn't say it had to be a good example. But I digress...
Regarding the statute, the portions you highlighted comport with my point exactly. The LEO is automatically presumed to have the ROW at any time his lights/siren are on. Regarding the part about "due care" that's a term of art that I doubt most drivers in traffic court are familiar with, and it certainly doesn't stop you guys from writing citations for this all the time.
I'll tell you what. If you want to really make this into an experiement, I can always send another PR request to JSO today for all citations issued for 316.126(1)(a) in the last 36 months and for the total number of JSO-involved traffic accidents in the last 36 months, and then we can put an actual percentage onto this problem. I'm already requesting the other driver's information and plan on getting her take on this incident. So what say you as to that? I suppose I should forewarn you that, if I go to that kind of trouble, then I'm going to write an article on this statute's misuse by JSO for the front page of MetroJacksonville, and I'm going to credit you for suggesting the idea. So as long as you're onboard I'll send it out today.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 09:58:00 AM
Quote from: Springfielder on December 24, 2010, 09:40:12 AM
Believe it or not, a citation does not automatically place blame, and it cannot be used in court. In reality, the person 'at fault' is the one who hit the other vehicle, so in this case, the woman pulling out was at fault for hitting the police car...the police car would be at fault for hitting the other car. That's how it works.
So the person in the car that the officer struck, her insurance company will go after the city to collect. The city would then go after the insurance company to collect from the woman that hit the police car.
That's really not the way it works. The vast majority of accidents are settled directly between insurance companies, and insurers most assuredly do use the fact that a citation was or was not issued as a result of the incident as a basis upon which to determine liability. So the admissibility of the citation is generally a moot point, since 99% of these things never make it to a trial.
Additionally, Florida is a comparative negligence state, meaning that a plaintiff's damage award is reduced by the extent to which they were negligent. When a driver has violated a statute governing their conduct leading to the accident, it creates an automatic rebuttable presumption of negligence upon the driver, which in practice is quite hard to overcome. In this case, the statute grants the ROW to the LEO as long as lights/siren were on, and accordingly any accident victim is going to be presumed negligent so long as those requirements were met.
The citation doesn't have to be admitted into evidence, they will just call the officer to testify his lights/siren were on and the elements of the statute were met, and the driver is then presumed negligent. I assure you a driver's violation of 316.126(1)(a) serves as a defense to liability by creating a presumption of negligence.
And how many of these cases have you been involved in? How many as legal counsel? How many as a defendant? What is your source for this information?
I can assure you, Springfielder, that Chris is wrong. He is spewing law school gossip, and he has no real experience apparently.
I do not like to gig people publicly Chris, but this rant you are on is not reasonable, and it is making you go a little sideways. You might want to stop and take a breather.
Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 10:08:15 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 09:45:20 AM
Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 09:33:56 AM
316.126 does NOT allow Officers to "zoom through a crowded street". Why do you make such things up? What is your source that the civilian driver always gets cited when involved in an accident with an Officer?
Here is the actual statute language:
Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL View Entire Chapter
316.126Operation of vehicles and actions of pedestrians on approach of authorized emergency vehicle.
—
(1)
(a)Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle, while en route to meet an existing emergency, the driver of every other vehicle shall, when such emergency vehicle is giving audible signals by siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device, or visible signals by the use of displayed blue or red lights, yield the right-of-way to the emergency vehicle and shall immediately proceed to a position parallel to, and as close as reasonable to the closest edge of the curb of the roadway, clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any law enforcement officer.
(b)When an authorized emergency vehicle making use of any visual signals is parked or a wrecker displaying amber rotating or flashing lights is performing a recovery or loading on the roadside, the driver of every other vehicle, as soon as it is safe:
1.Shall vacate the lane closest to the emergency vehicle or wrecker when driving on an interstate highway or other highway with two or more lanes traveling in the direction of the emergency vehicle or wrecker, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer. If such movement cannot be safely accomplished, the driver shall reduce speed as provided in subparagraph 2.
2.Shall slow to a speed that is 20 miles per hour less than the posted speed limit when the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour or greater; or travel at 5 miles per hour when the posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour or less, when driving on a two-lane road, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer.
(c)The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall provide an educational awareness campaign informing the motoring public about the Move Over Act. The department shall provide information about the Move Over Act in all newly printed driver’s license educational materials after July 1, 2002.
This section does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.
(2)Every pedestrian using the road right-of-way shall yield the right-of-way until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any police officer.
(3)Any authorized emergency vehicle, when en route to meet an existing emergency, shall warn all other vehicular traffic along the emergency route by an audible signal, siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device or by a visible signal by the use of displayed blue or red lights. While en route to such emergency, the emergency vehicle shall otherwise proceed in a manner consistent with the laws regulating vehicular traffic upon the highways of this state.
(4)Nothing herein contained shall diminish or enlarge any rules of evidence or liability in any case involving the operation of an emergency vehicle.
(5)This section shall not operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.
(6)A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable pursuant to chapter 318 as either a moving violation for infractions of subsection (1) or subsection (3), or as a pedestrian violation for infractions of subsection (2).
History.—s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 84-204; s. 122, ch. 99-248; s. 2, ch. 2002-217; s. 2, ch. 2004-20; s. 3, ch. 2009-183.
Contrary to your claims, Officers are found at fault when they do not show "due regard". At JSO, this means slowing or stopping at intersections until you are sure that there is no oncoming traffic among many other practices.
Have you ever actually read this statute? JSO Officers are drilled with it.
Again, police pursuits are much more complicated than can be covered in a forum such as this. JSO Officers receive literally weeks of classroom on the subject, then at least a week of emergency driving, and are drilled on the subject during their field training. ALL Officers are constantly graded and trained in this subject.
Thank you for idiotically regurgitating the very same statute that, in some twist of logic that only NotNow could manage, I am totally unfamiliar with yet I actually had already posted earlier in this very same thread! Imagine that! So as usual, NotNow jumps in to serve as a walking talking demonstation of why you should actually read before posting. I guess you're doing your best to lead by example, the old saying didn't say it had to be a good example. But I digress...
Regarding the statute, the portions you highlighted comport with my point exactly. The LEO is automatically presumed to have the ROW at any time his lights/siren are on. Regarding the part about "due care" that's a term of art that I doubt most drivers in traffic court are familiar with, and it certainly doesn't stop you guys from writing citations for this all the time.
I'll tell you what. If you want to really make this into an experiement, I can always send another PR request to JSO today for all citations issued for 316.126(1)(a) in the last 36 months and for the total number of JSO-involved traffic accidents in the last 36 months, and then we can put an actual percentage onto this problem. I'm already requesting the other driver's information and plan on getting her take on this incident. So what say you as to that? I suppose I should forewarn you that, if I go to that kind of trouble, then I'm going to write an article on this statute's misuse by JSO for the front page of MetroJacksonville, and I'm going to credit you for suggesting the idea. So as long as you're onboard I'll send it out today.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 09:58:00 AM
Quote from: Springfielder on December 24, 2010, 09:40:12 AM
Believe it or not, a citation does not automatically place blame, and it cannot be used in court. In reality, the person 'at fault' is the one who hit the other vehicle, so in this case, the woman pulling out was at fault for hitting the police car...the police car would be at fault for hitting the other car. That's how it works.
So the person in the car that the officer struck, her insurance company will go after the city to collect. The city would then go after the insurance company to collect from the woman that hit the police car.
That's really not the way it works. The vast majority of accidents are settled directly between insurance companies, and insurers most assuredly do use the fact that a citation was or was not issued as a result of the incident as a basis upon which to determine liability. So the admissibility of the citation is generally a moot point, since 99% of these things never make it to a trial.
Additionally, Florida is a comparative negligence state, meaning that a plaintiff's damage award is reduced by the extent to which they were negligent. When a driver has violated a statute governing their conduct leading to the accident, it creates an automatic rebuttable presumption of negligence upon the driver, which in practice is quite hard to overcome. In this case, the statute grants the ROW to the LEO as long as lights/siren were on, and accordingly any accident victim is going to be presumed negligent so long as those requirements were met.
The citation doesn't have to be admitted into evidence, they will just call the officer to testify his lights/siren were on and the elements of the statute were met, and the driver is then presumed negligent. I assure you a driver's violation of 316.126(1)(a) serves as a defense to liability by creating a presumption of negligence.
And how many of these cases have you been involved in? How many as legal counsel? How many as a defendant? What is your source for this information?
I can assure you, Springfielder, that Chris is wrong. He is spewing law school gossip, and he has no real experience apparently.
I do not like to gig people publicly Chris, but this rant you are on is not reasonable, and it is making you go a little sideways. You might want to stop and take a breather.
Are you kidding?
You constantly enter debates in which you have no actual knowledge of the subject matter and no valid point, and then respond the only way you can, by attacking the person who disagrees with you. You're actually rather well-known for exactly that. No joke, I've been at dinner parties where some random person who reads Metro Jacksonville says "What's the deal with that idiot NotNow?" and everybody starts laughing about your behavior in this exact regard.
I assure anyone reading this thread that a quick google search on "rebuttable presumption of negligence"+"Florida statute violation" will demonstrate that, as always, it is NotNow who once again hasn't a clue what he's talking about. If I had a dollar for every time this guy has told me I lack some qualification to make a point only to wind up with him being utterly wrong, I'd be Bill Gates.
Here you go WrongAgain, err...I mean "NotNow"...
Quote
142 So.2d 783
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Gordon L. DELEVIS, and Dora M. Delevis, husband and wife, Appellants,
v.
Samuel TROYER and John J. Miller, Appellees.
No. 2679.June 13, 1962.Rehearing Denied July 10, 1962.
MAXWELL, OLIVER C., Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of defendant appellees in an automobile collision case. The summary judgment was entered upon the pleadings, photographs, interrogatories, answers to requests for admissions, affidavits and depositions. There is considerable conflict in the stories as told by appellants and appellees. The accident occurred on Bahia Vista Street at a point where Herndon Road, a shell or dirt road intersects with Bahia Vista Street to form a T. The Appellants contend that they were driving east on Bahia Vista after dark on March 12, 1960 approaching the intersection of Herndon Road intending to make a left turn on Herndon Road; that at this point there were two yellow lines down the middle of Bahia Vista Street; that the appellant, Gordon L. Delevis flashed his tail lights and slowed down to make his left turn, looked in his rear view mirror to see if anything was approaching and saw nothing; proceeded to make his left turn and was approximately halfway off Bahia Vista when his vehicle was struck on the left rear fender behind the left rear wheel by appellees car which was then in the left or west bound lane of Bahia Vista Traffic. There was no automatic turn indicator on appellants car and he did not give a hand signal for a left turn.
According to appellees' version there was no flashing of tail lights and their car was passing appellants when appellants' car suddenly turned in front of appellees' car. There is considerable conflict in the factual situation as seen by appellants and appellees.
The trial judge entered a summary judgment finding that the appellants' vehicle was not equipped with automatic turn signals and that appellant did not give an arm signal or his intention to turn left as required by F.S. §§ 317.37 and 317.39, F.S.A.; that there was no evidence to show the double yellow lines were visible at night; that appellant knew of the existence of the ‘no passing’ lines but also knew they were in front of a school which had been abandoned; and that appellant had responsibility of anticipating a person might be approaching from the rear and had the responsibility of giving the proper left turn signal. The Court in essence ruled that the failure to give the left hand signal within the last 100 feet traveled before turning was a violation of Florida Statutes, § 317.37, F.S.A., and that the violation ‘is a prima facie case of negligence against the plaintiff and coupled with the findings as expressed in this summary judgment is an act of negligence which will bar the plaintiffs from recovering in this case.’ The Court declined *785 to pass on the negligence of the defendant and granted the motion for summary judgment agaisnt the plaintiffs.
The appellants contend (1) that the Court erred because there were issues of disputed facts as to the physical facts surrounding the accident; (2) in disregarding the doctrine of last clear chance; (3) in holding, as a matter of law, that appellants were contributorily negligent to an extent barring them from recovery and (4) in ignoring the duty and obligation of appellee to operate his automobile so as to stop within the range of his vision.
The appellee filed cross-assignments of error charging that the Court erred (1) in failing to hold that appellants failure to give the left turn signal was negligence as a matter of law (2) in concluding that there was a ‘no passing zone’ and (3) in concluding that the double lines meant a no passing zone.
Notwithstanding appellees first assignment of error it appears from a study of the record as a whole that the trial judge did conclude that appellants failure to give a left hand signal was contributory negligence as a matter of law sufficient to bar recovery. In this conclusion the trial judge erred. Since Allen v. Hooper (1937), 126 Fla. 458, 171 So. 513, the Florida appellate Court have consistently held that the violation of a traffic law does not constitute per se negligence but is prima facie evidence of negligence which may be overcome by proof of surrounding circumstances and conditions which will eliminate the character of negligence from the transaction. C. W. Zaring & Co. v. Dennis (1944) 155 Fla. 150, 19 So.2d 701; Clark v. Summer (Fla.1954) 72 So.2d 375; Gudath v. Culp Lumber Co. (Fla.1955) 81 So.2d 742, 53 A.L.R.2d 846; Morrison v. C. J. Jones Lumber Co. (Fla.App. Second District 1961) 126 So.2d 895.
The summary judgment in this case was entered on June 14, 1961. Since that date two opinions have been written by appellate Courts of Florida which bear directly upon the summary judgment entered in this case. In Foster v. Gulfstream Press Inc. (Fla. Third District, November 30, 1961) 134 So.2d 270, the Court said:
‘The function of the court under the summary judgment procedure is to determine whether there exists any genuine issue of material fact, not to decide such issues. * * * This rule is applied with particular caution in negligence cases which are extremely troublesome due to the varied fact situations which they present. * * * In Buck v. Hardy, supra, this Court, citing 6 Moore's Federal Practice (2d Ed.) said:
‘Issues of negligence, including such related issues of contributory negligence, are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication either for or against the claimant, but should be resolved in the ordinary manner.’
‘Where the case is close on these issues, doubt should always be resolved in favor of a jury trial.’
See also Radice v. Morris (Fla.App. Second District, November 29, 1961) 135 So. 231.
3 Had the jury believed the account of appellants, including the existence of the ‘no passing lines' an issue under last clear chance could well have been pertinent. James v. Keene (Fla.App.1961) 133 So.2d 297.
For the reasons stated the summary judgment against appellants and for appellees is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and WHITE, J., concur.
End of Document © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Quote
174 So.2d 427
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Charles MICHALSKI, Appellant,
v.
William A. PEASLEE and Peaslee Metal Products, Inc., a corporation, Appellees.
No. 4838.April 9, 1965.Rehearing Denied April 29, 1965.
SHANNON, Judge.
The plaintiff appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant in a suit arising out of an automobile accident.
Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, which is necessary on a motion for summary judgment, we find that the record discloses the following situation. The plaintiff had been following the defendant along a two lane road for about one to two miles at a speed of about 40 miles per hour, and when the defendant diminished his speed, the plaintiff attempted to pass. When the plaintiff was alongside the defendant, the defendant suddenly attempted to turn left into a private driveway and a collision occurred. The plaintiff alleges he sounded his horn, put on his directional signal, and ascertained that the defendant did not indicate in any manner that he was turning, before plaintiff attempted to pass the defendant.
The defendant alleges he looked into his rear view mirror, saw no one behind him, and put on his directional signal before he turned. The plaintiff admits he was driving about 45 miles per hour when he passed, and it is not disputed that this was a business or residential thoroughfare on which the speed limit was 30 miles per hour.
On these facts the lower court entered a summary judgment for the defendant, stating:
‘Upon consideration of the pleadings, affidavits and depositions on file, while there are areas of disagreement in the testimony before the Court, there exists uncontradicted testimony which demonstrates that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in the manner in which he undertook to pass defendant's vehicle, which proximately caused the accident sued upon, in that the plaintiff Michalski attempted to pass the defendant Peaslee's vehicle at a rate of speed in excess of the lawful speed limit, even though the plaintiff, prior to attempting to pass, for several yards noticed defendant's vehicle gradually slowing down. The Court further finds that the defendant Peaslee had a right to turn, as indicated by the record, and that, therefore, plaintiff's action in attempting to pass defendant's vehicle contributed to the accident. It is well settled in Florida that the violation of a traffic law is not negligence per se, but is prima facie evidence of negligence which may be overcome by proof of surrounding circumstances. See Delevis v. Trover, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 783, and cases cited therein.
Assuming, arguendo, that the plaintiff's speeding was negligence, it still cannot be held as a matter of law that this negligence proximately caused the accident. In ruling as it did, the lower court, in effect, has held that this accident would not have occurred if the plaintiff had been driving 30 miles per hour rather than 45 miles per hour. The facts are certainly in conflict. If, as the plaintiff alleges, the defendant gave no indication that he was turning, it is quite possible that the accident would have occurred regardless of the speed of the plaintiff. Where reasonable minds could differ, questions of proximate cause are for the jury, and therefore the summary judgment must be reversed.
The plaintiff also argues that the lower court erred in refusing to grant his motion for summary judgment. The facts show this contention to be without merit.
Reversed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and WHITE, J., concur.
End of Document © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 10:03:36 AM
Quote from: uptowngirl on December 24, 2010, 10:01:39 AM
almost on a daily basis I see idiots that do not pull over or try to race ahead of one of the firetrucks from Station 1 or the Duece. Should the firemen not race to fires?
What does that have to do with anything, exactly?
So you see a difference between emergency vehicles taking the right of way with lights and sirens?
Fire truck/ambulance=OK, police cruiser = not OK?
Soooo, you actually have no real experience in this area? You have no source for your blanket statements that Officers are "never found at fault"? Your dinner parties are with JC and StephenDare!?
Looking back through the thread, I do see several personal attacks. I was not the source.
As for your "google search", I didn't find any evidence supporting your statements. Perhaps you could point that out?
As for "actual knowledge of the subject matter"...I have been the primary Officer in all of the subjects that we are discussing. I don't claim to be the smartest guy, or that I am always right, but I have been down this road a few times.
Quote from: uptowngirl on December 24, 2010, 10:37:26 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 10:03:36 AM
Quote from: uptowngirl on December 24, 2010, 10:01:39 AM
almost on a daily basis I see idiots that do not pull over or try to race ahead of one of the firetrucks from Station 1 or the Duece. Should the firemen not race to fires?
What does that have to do with anything, exactly?
So you see a difference between emergency vehicles taking the right of way with lights and sirens?
Fire truck/ambulance=OK, police cruiser = not OK?
Pardon me, but I'm not seeing a steady stream of deaths caused by high-speed ambulance chases in the news.
Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 10:38:11 AM
Soooo, you actually have no real experience in this area? You have no source for your blanket statements that Officers are "never found at fault"? Your dinner parties are with JC and StephenDare!?
Looking back through the thread, I do see several personal attacks. I was not the source.
As for your "google search", I didn't find any evidence supporting your statements. Perhaps you could point that out?
As for "actual knowledge of the subject matter"...I have been the primary Officer in all of the subjects that we are discussing. I don't claim to be the smartest guy, or that I am always right, but I have been down this road a few times.
Jesus Christ, you just did it again, posting in the thread without bothering to read. You really don't learn do you?
I just posted the controlling cases for you from westlaw, since I figured you would need assistance. Exactly as I said, rebuttable presumption of negligence when a traffic law was violated. Doesn't rise to negligence per se, but it's not peanuts either. Why don't you read before spouting off next time?
Quote from: stephendare on December 24, 2010, 10:19:15 AM
QuoteThe "highlights" are impressing the maturity into future Officers of the gravity of emergency driving. Typically, more Officers are killed in traffic crashes than gunfire incidents each year. Real incidents from Jacksonville are reviewed. Legal liabilities are discussed by State Attorney's representatives and they emphasize the liabilty of the Officer. Driving focuses on REAL driving in REAL conditions, not movie stunt driving. Again, I can not cover weeks of training here.
Also in real life, no one knows the danger of irresponsible driving like Police Officers. They see the carnage on an almost daily basis. Young Officers learn to slow down and "get there". Much like the effects of gunfire, or war for soldiers, nothing will teach you like being there.
Officers are subject to the same traffic laws as anyone else. They are allowed to ignore those laws while using "due regard" and utilizing visual and audio alerts to the public when responding to an emergency. That said, many Officers find that "lights and sirens" confuse many people and prefer to drive as fast as possible within the law. Many will stop at a red light, then proceed when safe while doing this. I have done this many times myself in Springfield and DT as I thought it was faster and safer than utilizing lights and sirens. It is, of course, against policy and an Officer would be cited if involved in an accident doing this and would face administrative sanction as well for the violation of policy.
I appreciate the reasonable response. I don't see any reason to respond to silliness.
Thanks for the insight, notnow. Your expertise and knowledge are appreciated.
I actually did not know that more officers were killed in traffic accidents than by gunfire, but it doesnt surprise me at all.
As a personal choice I prefer not to drive. I was in a couple of accidents a few years back, fairly serious experience which I feel certain exhausted at least seven of my natural life entitlements, and the dangers of the road are giant in my mind.
Wouldnt want to also negotiate having to get through traffic with a life or death situation adding pressure to the sense of hurry.
On a side not I actually had a great experience with a JSO this past weekend. People who know me personally know that although I go out to clubs and restaurants and events on a pretty nightly basis, I very rarely drink alcohol. Im not a tee totaller, but Im just not very enthusiastic about the effects of alcohol compared to the far more pleasurable effects of caffeine.
As a result, I am often the designated driver for close friends, which I don't mind doing.
So I was driving a childhood friend who is also an episcopal priest home after making the rounds on King Street (great time at Intuition Ale Works) when we were pulled over.
Since I don't drive that often, I frequently leave my driver's liscense at home, so I felt sure I was going to be ticketed. As it happens, Father Rick's birthday was December 12th, and as such his plates were expired which he didnt realize, and I certainly didnt when I agreed to DD.
When the cop (a young guy) realized that I was DD he simply let us go with the advisement to immediately renew the plates.
It ended up being a helpful and pleasant stop rather than a ticket and an attitude. Very appreciative.
I'm glad that you had a positive experience. I believe that the vast majority of interaction with JSO leaves folks in the same frame of mind.
Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 10:38:11 AM
Soooo, you actually have no real experience in this area? You have no source for your blanket statements that Officers are "never found at fault"? Your dinner parties are with JC and StephenDare!?
Looking back through the thread, I do see several personal attacks. I was not the source.
As for your "google search", I didn't find any evidence supporting your statements. Perhaps you could point that out?
As for "actual knowledge of the subject matter"...I have been the primary Officer in all of the subjects that we are discussing. I don't claim to be the smartest guy, or that I am always right, but I have been down this road a few times.
Wow, awesome, so after you write whatever ticket you're going to write, I didn't realize that you got to work on a civil lawsuit stemming from the accident? Or that you're apparently also the insurance adjuster who determines fault according to the policy? Or that apparently you're more of an expert on the subject of whether a statute violation constitutes a rebuttable showing of negligence than the Florida District Courts of Appeal? Amazing! You are a regular renaissance man. Apparently we should elect you governor and fire the rest of the state government, and all the judges.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 09:45:20 AM
Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 09:33:56 AM
316.126 does NOT allow Officers to "zoom through a crowded street". Why do you make such things up? What is your source that the civilian driver always gets cited when involved in an accident with an Officer?
Here is the actual statute language:
Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL View Entire Chapter
316.126Operation of vehicles and actions of pedestrians on approach of authorized emergency vehicle.
—
(1)
(a)Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle, while en route to meet an existing emergency, the driver of every other vehicle shall, when such emergency vehicle is giving audible signals by siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device, or visible signals by the use of displayed blue or red lights, yield the right-of-way to the emergency vehicle and shall immediately proceed to a position parallel to, and as close as reasonable to the closest edge of the curb of the roadway, clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any law enforcement officer.
(b)When an authorized emergency vehicle making use of any visual signals is parked or a wrecker displaying amber rotating or flashing lights is performing a recovery or loading on the roadside, the driver of every other vehicle, as soon as it is safe:
1.Shall vacate the lane closest to the emergency vehicle or wrecker when driving on an interstate highway or other highway with two or more lanes traveling in the direction of the emergency vehicle or wrecker, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer. If such movement cannot be safely accomplished, the driver shall reduce speed as provided in subparagraph 2.
2.Shall slow to a speed that is 20 miles per hour less than the posted speed limit when the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour or greater; or travel at 5 miles per hour when the posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour or less, when driving on a two-lane road, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer.
(c)The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall provide an educational awareness campaign informing the motoring public about the Move Over Act. The department shall provide information about the Move Over Act in all newly printed driver’s license educational materials after July 1, 2002.
This section does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.
(2)Every pedestrian using the road right-of-way shall yield the right-of-way until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any police officer.
(3)Any authorized emergency vehicle, when en route to meet an existing emergency, shall warn all other vehicular traffic along the emergency route by an audible signal, siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device or by a visible signal by the use of displayed blue or red lights. While en route to such emergency, the emergency vehicle shall otherwise proceed in a manner consistent with the laws regulating vehicular traffic upon the highways of this state.
(4)Nothing herein contained shall diminish or enlarge any rules of evidence or liability in any case involving the operation of an emergency vehicle.
(5)This section shall not operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.
(6)A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable pursuant to chapter 318 as either a moving violation for infractions of subsection (1) or subsection (3), or as a pedestrian violation for infractions of subsection (2).
History.—s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 84-204; s. 122, ch. 99-248; s. 2, ch. 2002-217; s. 2, ch. 2004-20; s. 3, ch. 2009-183.
Contrary to your claims, Officers are found at fault when they do not show "due regard". At JSO, this means slowing or stopping at intersections until you are sure that there is no oncoming traffic among many other practices.
Have you ever actually read this statute? JSO Officers are drilled with it.
Again, police pursuits are much more complicated than can be covered in a forum such as this. JSO Officers receive literally weeks of classroom on the subject, then at least a week of emergency driving, and are drilled on the subject during their field training. ALL Officers are constantly graded and trained in this subject.
Thank you for idiotically regurgitating the very same statute that, in some twist of logic that only NotNow could manage, I am totally unfamiliar with yet I actually had already posted earlier in this very same thread! Imagine that! So as usual, NotNow jumps in to serve as a walking talking demonstation of why you should actually read before posting. I guess you're doing your best to lead by example, the old saying didn't say it had to be a good example. But I digress...
Regarding the statute, the portions you highlighted comport with my point exactly. The LEO is automatically presumed to have the ROW at any time his lights/siren are on. Regarding the part about "due care" that's a term of art that I doubt most drivers in traffic court are familiar with, and it certainly doesn't stop you guys from writing citations for this all the time.
I'll tell you what. If you want to really make this into an experiement, I can always send another PR request to JSO today for all citations issued for 316.126(1)(a) in the last 36 months and for the total number of JSO-involved traffic accidents in the last 36 months, and then we can put an actual percentage onto this problem. I'm already requesting the other driver's information and plan on getting her take on this incident. So what say you as to that? I suppose I should forewarn you that, if I go to that kind of trouble, then I'm going to write an article on this statute's misuse by JSO for the front page of MetroJacksonville, and I'm going to credit you for suggesting the idea. So as long as you're onboard I'll send it out today.
You only posted paragraph 1a in reply #17. Kind of leaves out some important facts in my eyes.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 11:15:31 AM
Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 10:38:11 AM
Soooo, you actually have no real experience in this area? You have no source for your blanket statements that Officers are "never found at fault"? Your dinner parties are with JC and StephenDare!?
Looking back through the thread, I do see several personal attacks. I was not the source.
As for your "google search", I didn't find any evidence supporting your statements. Perhaps you could point that out?
As for "actual knowledge of the subject matter"...I have been the primary Officer in all of the subjects that we are discussing. I don't claim to be the smartest guy, or that I am always right, but I have been down this road a few times.
Wow, awesome, so after you write whatever ticket you're going to write, I didn't realize that you got to work on a civil lawsuit stemming from the accident? Or that you're apparently also the insurance adjuster who determines fault according to the policy? Or that apparently you're more of an expert on the subject of whether a statute violation constitutes a rebuttable showing of negligence than the Florida District Courts of Appeal? Amazing! You are a regular renaissance man. Apparently we should elect you governor and fire the rest of the state government, and all the judges.
I am just stating what I have done. What have you done?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 10:39:15 AM
Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 10:38:11 AM
Soooo, you actually have no real experience in this area? You have no source for your blanket statements that Officers are "never found at fault"? Your dinner parties are with JC and StephenDare!?
Looking back through the thread, I do see several personal attacks. I was not the source.
As for your "google search", I didn't find any evidence supporting your statements. Perhaps you could point that out?
As for "actual knowledge of the subject matter"...I have been the primary Officer in all of the subjects that we are discussing. I don't claim to be the smartest guy, or that I am always right, but I have been down this road a few times.
Jesus Christ, you just did it again, posting in the thread without bothering to read. You really don't learn do you?
I just posted the controlling cases for you from westlaw, since I figured you would need assistance. Exactly as I said, rebuttable presumption of negligence when a traffic law was violated. Doesn't rise to negligence per se, but it's not peanuts either. Why don't you read before spouting off next time?
Hmm...perhaps you should check with the FHP and request their records on citations written to law enforcement in accidents. Might shake up your beliefs a bit.
Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 11:29:59 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 09:45:20 AM
Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 09:33:56 AM
316.126 does NOT allow Officers to "zoom through a crowded street". Why do you make such things up? What is your source that the civilian driver always gets cited when involved in an accident with an Officer?
Here is the actual statute language:
Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL View Entire Chapter
316.126Operation of vehicles and actions of pedestrians on approach of authorized emergency vehicle.
â€"
(1)
(a)Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle, while en route to meet an existing emergency, the driver of every other vehicle shall, when such emergency vehicle is giving audible signals by siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device, or visible signals by the use of displayed blue or red lights, yield the right-of-way to the emergency vehicle and shall immediately proceed to a position parallel to, and as close as reasonable to the closest edge of the curb of the roadway, clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any law enforcement officer.
(b)When an authorized emergency vehicle making use of any visual signals is parked or a wrecker displaying amber rotating or flashing lights is performing a recovery or loading on the roadside, the driver of every other vehicle, as soon as it is safe:
1.Shall vacate the lane closest to the emergency vehicle or wrecker when driving on an interstate highway or other highway with two or more lanes traveling in the direction of the emergency vehicle or wrecker, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer. If such movement cannot be safely accomplished, the driver shall reduce speed as provided in subparagraph 2.
2.Shall slow to a speed that is 20 miles per hour less than the posted speed limit when the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour or greater; or travel at 5 miles per hour when the posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour or less, when driving on a two-lane road, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer.
(c)The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall provide an educational awareness campaign informing the motoring public about the Move Over Act. The department shall provide information about the Move Over Act in all newly printed driver’s license educational materials after July 1, 2002.
This section does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.
(2)Every pedestrian using the road right-of-way shall yield the right-of-way until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any police officer.
(3)Any authorized emergency vehicle, when en route to meet an existing emergency, shall warn all other vehicular traffic along the emergency route by an audible signal, siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device or by a visible signal by the use of displayed blue or red lights. While en route to such emergency, the emergency vehicle shall otherwise proceed in a manner consistent with the laws regulating vehicular traffic upon the highways of this state.
(4)Nothing herein contained shall diminish or enlarge any rules of evidence or liability in any case involving the operation of an emergency vehicle.
(5)This section shall not operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.
(6)A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable pursuant to chapter 318 as either a moving violation for infractions of subsection (1) or subsection (3), or as a pedestrian violation for infractions of subsection (2).
History.â€"s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 84-204; s. 122, ch. 99-248; s. 2, ch. 2002-217; s. 2, ch. 2004-20; s. 3, ch. 2009-183.
Contrary to your claims, Officers are found at fault when they do not show "due regard". At JSO, this means slowing or stopping at intersections until you are sure that there is no oncoming traffic among many other practices.
Have you ever actually read this statute? JSO Officers are drilled with it.
Again, police pursuits are much more complicated than can be covered in a forum such as this. JSO Officers receive literally weeks of classroom on the subject, then at least a week of emergency driving, and are drilled on the subject during their field training. ALL Officers are constantly graded and trained in this subject.
Thank you for idiotically regurgitating the very same statute that, in some twist of logic that only NotNow could manage, I am totally unfamiliar with yet I actually had already posted earlier in this very same thread! Imagine that! So as usual, NotNow jumps in to serve as a walking talking demonstation of why you should actually read before posting. I guess you're doing your best to lead by example, the old saying didn't say it had to be a good example. But I digress...
Regarding the statute, the portions you highlighted comport with my point exactly. The LEO is automatically presumed to have the ROW at any time his lights/siren are on. Regarding the part about "due care" that's a term of art that I doubt most drivers in traffic court are familiar with, and it certainly doesn't stop you guys from writing citations for this all the time.
I'll tell you what. If you want to really make this into an experiement, I can always send another PR request to JSO today for all citations issued for 316.126(1)(a) in the last 36 months and for the total number of JSO-involved traffic accidents in the last 36 months, and then we can put an actual percentage onto this problem. I'm already requesting the other driver's information and plan on getting her take on this incident. So what say you as to that? I suppose I should forewarn you that, if I go to that kind of trouble, then I'm going to write an article on this statute's misuse by JSO for the front page of MetroJacksonville, and I'm going to credit you for suggesting the idea. So as long as you're onboard I'll send it out today.
You only posted paragraph 1a in reply #17. Kind of leaves out some important facts in my eyes.
Fair enough.
I was just attempting to point out that Florida law grants an LEO the ROW over other traffic when the LEO has his lights/siren activated. I don't think the rest of the statute really changes that one way or the other, so I didn't include it. I wasn't trying to leave anything out intentionally.
Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 11:34:07 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 10:39:15 AM
Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 10:38:11 AM
Soooo, you actually have no real experience in this area? You have no source for your blanket statements that Officers are "never found at fault"? Your dinner parties are with JC and StephenDare!?
Looking back through the thread, I do see several personal attacks. I was not the source.
As for your "google search", I didn't find any evidence supporting your statements. Perhaps you could point that out?
As for "actual knowledge of the subject matter"...I have been the primary Officer in all of the subjects that we are discussing. I don't claim to be the smartest guy, or that I am always right, but I have been down this road a few times.
Jesus Christ, you just did it again, posting in the thread without bothering to read. You really don't learn do you?
I just posted the controlling cases for you from westlaw, since I figured you would need assistance. Exactly as I said, rebuttable presumption of negligence when a traffic law was violated. Doesn't rise to negligence per se, but it's not peanuts either. Why don't you read before spouting off next time?
Hmm...perhaps you should check with the FHP and request their records on citations written to law enforcement in accidents. Might shake up your beliefs a bit.
You might be right, do you guys get cited a lot when this stuff happens?
FWIW, I'm not being sarcastic, I just honestly don't know. I think we've all seen cops run lights and nearly cause wrecks, or in some cases cause wrecks, but I am not real familiar with what happens to the officer afterwards.
That...is....what....I....have.....been....saying.....all.....along. Yes, Officers ARE cited for such violations during pursuits. It happens quite often. I encourage you to obtain and study the JSO general order on pursuit policy.
I also think that we have all seen Officers approach lights with lights and sirens on safely, slowing to insure traffic is clear before proceeding. And I hear pursuits on the radio being called off by the initiating Officer or a supervisor every single day.
Lol, probably nothing to do with this Gary Ellis. Since after all, they did actually catch this one...
Of course She's to blame.