The Traffic Accident Reconstruction Origin -ARnews-
|
The Traffic Accident Reconstruction Origin -ARnews-
|
|
>Several officers, including myself, have used the argument that D-2 had a
>reasonable expectation that D-1 would not commit the violations she did and
>had complied with the requirements of CVC21802(a).
Just to throw something else in the stew: If you believe (as you seem to indicate)
that D-2 behaved reasonably and prudently, then once she entered the
intersection SHE had the right-of-way, and D-1 should have yielded to HER
per CVC 21802(b).
>We’ve all used this
>”reasonable expectation” argument before but I have yet to see it in writing
>somewhere. Anyone know if it might be in the Vehicle Code somewhere?
Don't know of anything statutory, but there are standard jury instructions to
the effect that one has the right to assume lawful bahavior on the part of others.
Check BAJI or CALJIC.
Brian P. Griffin
not.paid.enough@all
For example, to continue this discussion look for a thread titled
Who gets the PCF on this collision??
If this thread does not exist in the current archive, you can begin another one by using that title.