Bad driver bends my bumper

[pozzello]

Noticed the bumper on my van was tweaked as if a passing car had caught it,
so I reviewed the video from the last few days and sure enuf...
https://flic.kr/p/GCvvx5
One of my plate cams got a decent shot:


It's an old van and I don't really care what it looks like, but
the mount where the bumper bolts up was actually torn off,
so it's more than just cosmetic.

Filed a police report to help if I decide to file insurance claim.
Police said 'nice video' but apparently even tho hit-n-run is a crime,
they can't do much without seeing who was driving...

At least the guy did more damage to his own car than mine.

 

[beepsilver]

Time after time, even with solid proof like you have, the police are not motivated to step up--if I'm pissed watching your video, then I know how pissed you must be. Good luck Poz.

 

[klasipca]

What? Police can't do anything about it? What if driver had hit a run a pedestrian instead of a car they wouldn't do shit because they didn't see who was driving it?

 

[nayr]

dont matter who was driving it, the vehicle has to be insured.. and you know the vehicle, file a claim against it.. even if its an old van, fuck em..

if it was a new vehicle with full coverage, you bet your ass your insurance company would figure out the owner of that vehicle real fast.

 

[fenderman]

Filed a police report to help if I decide to file insurance claim.
Police said 'nice video' but apparently even tho hit-n-run is a crime,
they can't do much without seeing who was driving...

Nice capture! They are being lazy. i would call a supervisor. This kind of garbage is not acceptable. A crime has been committed and they simply dont care.
I would not file an insurance claim though...after your deducible you are likely better off paying for the repair yourself. Any claim you make regardless of fault will raise your rates and/or cost you more if you decide to change carriers.
Go you your local dmv/mvc or check their website, they should have a form to fill out that will allow you to get insurance carrier information on the vehicle. Then submit the claim directly to them. Whether or not the vehicle is insured is another issue.

 

[nayr]

yeah I didnt mean submit it to your company, they wont even cover it I suspect.. who has anything but liability on an old work van?

I meant track down his insurance via tag # and claim it against his.. if cops wont do anything his insurance company will at least be pissed and jack his rates and revoke his discounts after buying you a new bumper, at least you have a police report/incident number and thats pretty much all you need to proceed.

if its not insured and you want to be an asshole about it, small claims court will rule in your favor with this level of evidence.. it'll likely just make a shitty credit report worse tho before u actually see money.

 

[pozzello]

i'm not knockin the cops. officer said they'd followup with the info. this was clearly a crime, after all.
it's just that in 3/5 cases, the notified party (from license plate -> registration, if valid) claims the car
was stolen or borrowed. But yeah, I mostly filed the report so i can follow up with MY insurance co...

 

[pozzello]

funny thing is, the guy must have stopped up the block and torn off the dragging bumper wrapper,
but that was out of range of my cams.

I have it, and it's not in bad shape at all. i guess i could list on craigslist...

 

[w1zofaz]

Sheesh, what in the world was he doing? That bad of a driver????

 

[JFire]

They'll never prove who was driving that's why they can't prosecute. But they insurance company if any will have to pay since you can prove the vehicle hit it.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

[fenderman]

They'll never prove who was driving that's why they can't prosecute. But they insurance company if any will have to pay since you can prove the vehicle hit it.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Yes, they can. You can be convicted on circumstantial evidence. Let the owner claim the car was stolen then explain how he got it back.

 

[JFire]

Yes, they can. You can be convicted on circumstantial evidence. Let the owner claim the car was stolen then explain how he got it back.

I don't have to lie and say it was stolen. It's just like a red light camera. Since they get a picture of the plate and not a face you get a fine no points.

The prosecution has the burden of proof. Anyone can see the glaring reasonable doubt with no identifiable pictures or eye witnesses.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

[fenderman]

I don't have to lie and say it was stolen. It's just like a red light camera. Since they get a picture of the plate and not a face you get a fine no points.

The prosecution has the burden of proof. Anyone can see the glaring reasonable doubt with no identifiable pictures or eye witnesses.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

A red light camera is different. There are other reasons why its not admissible with respect to the driver. They can absolutely convict on that video, for example, in new jersey, the statute places an affirmative duty not only on the operator but the owner of the vehicle to notify authorities if it was involved in an accident. I'm sure most states have similar analogs. All the need to do is go to the address and find the damaged vehicle.

 

[Velogopher]

A red light camera is different. There are other reasons why its not admissible with respect to the driver. They can absolutely convict on that video, for example, in new jersey, the statute places an affirmative duty not only on the operator but the owner of the vehicle to notify authorities if it was involved in an accident. I'm sure most states have similar analogs. All the need to do is go to the address and find the damaged vehicle.

The problem is that it doesn't matter whether the law says the vehicle owner is responsible or the driver is. All that matters is whether the owner is capable if giving a defense that can convince just *one* juror that there is a reasonable *chance* that his story could be true.

Can the state fine the owner for failing to report an accident? Sure. But that does not equate to a criminal conviction for hit and run. *That* is something that you would likely need clear evidence or witness[es] to ID the driver. The owner could claim he lets his friends use his van when they need it, they know where the keys are, and he doesn't know who may have used it on that day. The owner could even try to claim he never even noticed the rear bumper cover was missing. It's a stretch, but odds are good at least one juror might buy that possibility.

 

[pozzello]

My neighbors across the street also have some cams, so i asked hem to review their footage in case they
happened to get a better shot of the driver. unfortunately, not, but they did recognize the vehicle as belonging
to someone they've interacted with having previously parked badly in front of their house. Doesn't mean the
same person was driving, of course... Haven't seen the vehicle around the 'hood in the last few days now that
I've been looking.

I don't expect my van to be fixed (may be firing up the TIG next weekend for that),
but it would be nice for such drivers to be put on notice that they need to be more careful,
or better yet, stay off the road entirely. That's the best i can hope for...

 

[fenderman]

The problem is that it doesn't matter whether the law says the vehicle owner is responsible or the driver is. All that matters is whether the owner is capable if giving a defense that can convince just *one* juror that there is a reasonable *chance* that his story could be true.

Can the state fine the owner for failing to report an accident? Sure. But that does not equate to a criminal conviction for hit and run. *That* is something that you would likely need clear evidence or witness[es] to ID the driver. The owner could claim he lets his friends use his van when they need it, they know where the keys are, and he doesn't know who may have used it on that day. The owner could even try to claim he never even noticed the rear bumper cover was missing. It's a stretch, but odds are good at least one juror might buy that possibility.

In many states (likely most), you are not entitled to a jury trial for a municipal court level offense. A judge is the trier of fact - even for DUI cases. Do you think a hit and run driver who kills a person, gets off if he parks the car and walks away? Many States and municipalities also have ordinances that contain presumption clauses which state that the owner of the vehicle is presumed to be the driver. It is the duty of the owner to rebut the presumption. You need to stop watching law and order.

Here is one example from New Jersey (though its a permissive inference rather than the more harsh reputable presumption)
(e) There shall be a permissive inference that the driver of any motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury or death to any person or damage in the amount of $250.00 or more to any vehicle or property has knowledge that he was involved in such accident.

For purposes of this section, it shall not be a defense that the operator of the motor vehicle was unaware of the existence or extent of personal injury or property damage caused by the accident as long as the operator was aware that he was involved in an accident.

There shall be a permissive inference that the registered owner of the vehicle which was involved in an accident subject to the provisions of this section was the person involved in the accident; provided, however, if that vehicle is owned by a rental car company or is a leased vehicle, there shall be a permissive inference that the renter or authorized driver pursuant to a rental car contract or the lessee, and not the owner of the vehicle, was involved in the accident, and the requirements and penalties imposed pursuant to this section shall be applicable to that renter or authorized driver or lessee and not the owner of the vehicle.


N.J.S.A. 39:4-129

 

[nayr]

it also depends on on where you live, here Hit and Runs are at epidemic levels and they are desperately trying to improve the numbers, so an easy one like this that could net a conviction and boost stats the'd be alot more likely to run with..

and most of the voting population is fed up with it, so if it does go infront of peers your even less likely to prevail with a bs excuse

 

[Velogopher]

Do you think a hit and run driver who kills a person, gets off if he parks the car and walks away?

Clearly not, but that's a completely different level of offense, with much worse damage than swiping an unattended vehicle, and worthy of much more investigation to suss out the truth. However, I think the problem with my initial assumption of there being a jury trial is that I was thinking of hit and run as a felony and not taking into account that in some/many cases (like this one), it would be a misdemeanor. In that situation, I agree with you that it's highly unlikely a judge would accept the "can't prove *I* was driving" attempt at a defense. A jury, however? Well, I wouldn't bet money on it, either way. I could see some areas wanting to come down hard on it, like nayr mentions, but I could also see other areas having a holdout who can empathize with the defendant and refuses to convict. (I've actually been on a jury where something like that happened.)

 

[fenderman]

Clearly not, but that's a completely different level of offense, with much worse damage than swiping an unattended vehicle, and worthy of much more investigation to suss out the truth. However, I think the problem with my initial assumption of there being a jury trial is that I was thinking of hit and run as a felony and not taking into account that in some/many cases (like this one), it would be a misdemeanor. In that situation, I agree with you that it's highly unlikely a judge would accept the "can't prove *I* was driving" attempt at a defense. A jury, however? Well, I wouldn't bet money on it, either way. I could see some areas wanting to come down hard on it, like nayr mentions, but I could also see other areas having a holdout who can empathize with the defendant and refuses to convict. (I've actually been on a jury where something like that happened.)

In an area where there is a reputable presumption that the owner was the driver its an automatic conviction unless he can prove otherwise. Juries are not stupid, if they are allowed a permissive inference and the defendant fails to provide an explanation, they will convict. 9 times out of 10 the defendant will take a plea so that he doesnt risk a conviction. The OP can likely go swear out a complaint on his own and convince the prosecutor to pursue it. Though I have seen lazy ass prosecutors refuse cases where there is video tape evidence of the crime.

 

[Kawboy12R]

I noticed that he seemed to be pulling in to park so I was going to suggest that you might search old footage to see him visiting and getting out of his vehicle but it looks like you've already got a really good idea who it was from your neighbours. I wonder if he's a drunk if he drives and parks miserably on a regular basis?