I highly recommend the OP consult an actual lawyer in real life for actual legal advice for this situation. Preferably not a “friend of a friend” casual conversation consult,
You were *driving uninsured *and had an accident. You had no insurance company to talk to the other parties insurance company and settle the claim. If you did have insurance, the claim might have been settled in your favor, since you say it wasn’t your fault. Doesn’t matter now.
So the other driver’s insurance was stuck with the bill for all damages, or perhaps the other party paid for them out of his pocket.
Yeah, you got a problem. The other party will be awarded what ever damages they can show, minus the pain and suffering, those aren’t usually awarded in small claims court. I would be looking to finance a small loan of $6500 or so. If you can’t pay the judgement against you they can and will put a lien on any property you may have or garnish the money from your wages.
Oh, and if you are thinking of NOT showing up for court, the court will just rule in favor of the other guy’s claim.
But hey, cheer up, you should have also been cited by the police for not carrying insurance and it is too late for that now.
And the cops that showed up never asked about your insurance, which is required by law? :dubious:
That’s actually NOT a foregone conclusion, although it is a possible outcome. It might be possible to go to court and argue that the OP is not at fault. The issue of being covered by insurance or not is a different issue. The OP is not being sued for being uninsured, the OP is being sued for allegedly being at fault in the accident.
And that is why the OP needs real legal advice.
And THAT is a big risk.
On the other hand, if the other guy doesn’t show up then the judge rules in favor of the OP. A bit unlikely a scenario, but such things have happened.
Sorry, but yes, that was indeed idiotic. If the car’s a junker and you own it outright (IOW are not paying an installment loan) you don’t necessarily have to carry collision insurance, but you are still at risk of liability, and thus need to carry liability insurance. Liability has nothing at all to do with the perceived condition or value of the car; it protects you from things like what you are going through now.
Please note I’m mentioning this not so much for your benefit as for others who may be reading this and do not understand how auto insurance works.
It seems a bit strange that the policeman who made the report did not cite you for driving an uninsured vehicle, but whatever. Although it may not end up being directly relevant to the case, having to admit to the judge that you were unlawfully driving without insurance will do you no favors regarding the judge’s opinion of your integrity.
Hearsay not subject to an objection is inadmissible. By definition, inadmissible evidence carries no weight.
So technically/legally in court is a police report that did not directly witness the accident, but assesses (according to the OP) fault based on the visible after the fact parameters of the accident and talking to the accident participants considered inadmissible hearsay?
Yes. It doesn’t matter whether the police officer saw the accident or not. The report itself is hearsay because it’s an out-of-court statement offered to prove its substance (or to prove the truth of the matter asserted, to be technical). The officer can testify to his findings at trial, but the OP can’t just offer up his report to prove that he wasn’t at fault.
He can offer it to prove other things. For example, the fact that the other driver gave the police officer a statement - but not to prove what the other driver said, because that goes back to the “truth of the matter asserted.” It could also be used to prove notice - that the other driver was aware that he had been cited. You would have to have some admissible evidence to prove that a citation had been issued before you could go about proving the citee was aware of it, though.
Now, there is one exception which might be significant here: a party admission is admissible despite being hearsay (or in some jurisdictions, is not considered hearsay). A party admission is an out-of-court statement by an adverse party. So if the other driver told the police officer that he pulled out of the drive-through in front of the OP because he thought he had the right of way, that is an admission which is likely admissible. Another exception which might apply is prior inconsistent statements. Basically, if someone testifies one way at trial, but said something different previously, the prior statement is admissible to impeach the witness (i.e., to suggest to the court that the witness is not credible). So if the other driver says something at trial which differs from the report, the report comes in solely for the purpose of impeachment. That means it is still not admissible as direct evidence that the other driver was at fault, but can be considered by the judge in determining whether to accept the other driver’s testimony.
As I noted in my earlier post, the hearsay rule may not apply to the same extent in small claims actions, as small claims actions typically adopt slightly less formal rules of procedure and evidence. The cost of obtaining live witness testimony can be prohibitive, obviously. I would be surprised if the hearsay rule is thrown out entirely, though.
If I was the defendant, I might use it as a road map for my cross-examination of the plaintiff. E.g., “you pulled out of the drive-through at X, right?” “There’s no traffic control device between the street I pulled out of and the drive-through, is there?”
None of this is legal advice, just my ruminations. I am not licensed to practice law in California, nor would I want to be. 
So this may sound like a stupid question, but… in the OP’s case, what does a judge use to determine if the defendant is at fault / liable for the plaintiff’s medical bills? I imagine in court it will be a case of he said / she said, with the plaintiff and defendant presenting different scenarios of how the wreck occurred. It sounds like there exists no dash cam footage or eyewitnesses to corroborate either version. So how does a judge determine who was at fault? Does the fact that the OP did not have insurance play into determining liability? What if the OP had had insurance at the time of the wreck?
If I were the judge I’d want to know where the OP’s car impacted the plaintiff’s, whether there are pictures of the damage, and what the extent of his injuries were.
So any time an uninsured driver is involved in an accident, he is automatically 100% at fault, regardless of the other facts of the case? And any suit filed against him is an automatic win?
Serious question here (I really don’t know how these things work).
If a police report is inadmissable because it’s just hearsay, it the same also true of any medical report?
If plaintiff comes to court waving a stack of medical records to prove his grievous life-altering injuries, absent any in-person testimony from the doctors, would that also be rejected as hearsay?
Medical records are often admitted under the Business Records exception to an extent that police reports are usually not.
What Folly said. Though typically a plaintiff will need a doctor to testify to establish a causal connection between the underlying injury and the medical treatment documented in the records.
Y’all are giving bad information about police reports not being evidence because of hearsay.
I’ve watched Judge Judy, and she will instantly and firmly shut down any litigant attempting to give hearsay testimony. Yet, she regards police reports as very strong evidence.
And just doing a quick Google search, “are police reports hearsay”, the top few results say that police reports are exempt from the hearsay rule because they are considered business records.
So, yes, the police report should help you a lot.
I’m not sure if it is true in every province in Canada, but where I live (and used to live for that matter) this is true. If you have no insurance you are automatically 100% liable for all the damage.
That’s not relevant unless someone from the police department is planning to testify and authenticate those records. Which is highly unlikely to happen in a small claims matter.
nm
In Small Claims Court? :dubious:
The Judge makes his own decisions on that.
They likely will not have to, The Judge makes his own decisions on what he admits, to a very large extent.
OP, do submit your Police report. * Do* show up in court. Do Not get emotional.
Police Accident Reports
When you have an accident and believe the other person was more at fault than you were, it is almost always wise to immediately call the police so that a police report can be prepared. (In some areas, however, accident reports are only prepared if someone claims to be injured.) A police report is admissible as evidence in small claims court. The theory is that an officer investigating the circumstances of the accident at the scene is in a better position to establish the truth of what happened than is any other third party. So, if an accident report was made, buy a copy for a few dollars from the police station. If it supports you, bring it to court. If it doesn’t, be prepared to refute what it says. This can best be done with the testimony of an eyewitness. If both an eyewitness and a police report are against you, you might want to rethink the idea of a lawsuit.